The California 2024 Primary: Is Proposition One A Cure for Homelessness?

Second in a series of primary election guides.

Everybody, almost, loves California Prop 1. 

It’s Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ploy to tackle the perception that nothing’s happening to address homelessness or, as Fox News would have viewers believe, the impotence of liberal governance. It incorporates elements inherent in both “sides” of the public discourse, building housing and adding mental health beds. “Win-win” is how the measure is viewed in political circles.

Via the Los Angeles Times:

• Taking a more centrist position with Proposition 1 could give Newsom broader appeal as he expands his profile outside the Golden State. Though the governor is not a candidate in the 2024 presidential election and is traveling the country as a surrogate for the Biden-Harris campaign, he’s repeatedly named as a potential contender in 2028.

• “I think so many Americans are really hungry for some sign of a functional political system where the parties compromise,” said Kim Nalder, a professor of political science at Sacramento State. “And if he can be seen as somebody who is shepherding a bipartisan solution to a major problem, that’s a huge win for him.”

• Newsom said his desire to fix the homelessness crisis transcends politics and is about his pride in California. His senior staff said he regularly sends pictures of encampments from his travels in the state as a reminder that they all can do better.

Hospitals, Unions, Indigenous Tribes, Law Enforcement, and Business-types are all on board. There’s money ($14.2 million) to sell a concept already sold to a supermajority of voters.

What Prop. One does is to authorize the issuance of $6.4 billion in bonds. Nobody gets their taxes raised and Newsom doesn’t have to cut popular elements of his budget in a year where a deficit looms over the state government. Some monies from a tax-the-rich measure would be diverted into housing.

Counties would need to change some of the mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services in use to focus more on housing and personalized support services. Part of the teeny-tiny opposition to Prop 1 are people who say current programs are working. 

Supporters of the measure are saying the bond could build 4,350 housing units, with roughly half set aside for veterans, as well as funding 6,800 mental health and addiction disorder treatment slots. 

The phrase ten thousand beds appears frequently in press coverage, and that’s fantastic, if true. Politico even says eleven thousand beds are on the way with passage. Call me skeptical; this has the ring of free ponies for everyone political promises.

What I don’t see is the phrase despite opposition by NIMBYs, which begs the question of just where this housing might be located. 

I’d like to propose (tongue and cheek, so hold the outraged comments) apartment towers in Talmage and Ocean Beach. The first neighborhood is seeking historic status (to preserve the status quo) despite its racist roots. And OB is the quintessential example of an area with a noisy contingent of put them elsewhere so we can have more airbnbs types.

The promise of making wretched poor people go away from neighborhoods is a political winner. It’s just in time to tamp down vigilante style actions by people already angry about an invasion of immigrants taking jobs and school books being used to lure children into becoming fans of Taylor Swift.

Unhoused humans are such a hot button political issue that the state GOP isn’t opposed to Prop 1 just because a Democrat is behind it. Lest they be criticized for an act of bipartisanship, the party has decided to remain neutral, even though it’s political winner for a Democratic governor they loathe.

Of more concern should be how the various counties will implement the funding. What will happen in Shasta County, where credence in conspiracy theories has paralyzed vote counting, and volunteer mosquito boards are MAGA battlegrounds? 

Consider this endorsement from the Los Angeles Times editorial board:

• California needs a much greater investment in mental health care, substance use treatment and affordable housing than Proposition 1 will provide. The bond portion just builds buildings. The changes to the Mental Health Services Act will also help train a larger care and treatment workforce, which is important. But it’s also part shell game and part crossed fingers, relying on counties to be more efficient.

• That’s nothing new. For half a century, Sacramento and the 58 counties have blamed each other for failing to meet our collective responsibility to treat and care for the mentally ill and addicted. Proposition 1 will help, but it is not a game changer, and the tension will remain.

• So will the need for more affordable housing. The seriously mentally ill people who will be housed and treated under the measure represent just one piece of the larger mosaic of homelessness. But it’s an important piece, and Californians should put it in place.

The LAT editorial is right about tampering down expectations for what is a meaningful step in the right direction. With all the money supporters have in the bank, expect to see a lot of feel good messaging. The first TV ad, focused on veterans, is already airing.

Opponents of the measure have $1000 in the bank, meaning the campaign against it will have to depend on the vote no advice being given out by the League of Women Voters, who feel it’s just not enough money to fix what’s broken and was crafted in the state’s political backrooms.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is also against Prop 1, but then again, they’re opposed to anything not connected with making the rich richer.

Carl DeMaio’s Reform California is campaigning against Prop 1. Here’s a snip from an op ed published by the SoCal News Group:

• Who benefits from Prop 1?

• Rich, politically-connected developers who will receive billions of your tax dollars for their expensive government-subsidized mega housing projects.

• Prop 1 also eliminates your existing constitutional right to vote to reject government welfare housing projects from being placed in your neighborhood. If Prop 1 passes, bad housing projects can be forced into your neighborhood and you will be forced to live with the negative impacts from a bad development project.

The core of what’s wrong with this measure is the fundamental premise, which is the right wing viewpoint holding unhoused humans as somehow flawed. It’s true that living on the streets is bad for mental health and despair can lead to drug abuse, but these things are mostly not causing homelessness. There is no “cure” for this problem.

Despite pursuing what San Diego officials are selling as an aggressive approach to housing and services, (let me yell for the people in the back) the fact is that more people are ending up unhoused than are housed each month.

What we have is a systemic problem caused by decades of bad economic policy, starting back in the Reagan era. If you look at the overall approach (there are plenty of exceptions) of the Biden administration, there is a developing consensus that what trickles down in a market economy is actually piss coming over the walls the wealthy have built to protect themselves.

Our systemic issues are as much a mindset problem as they are a political/economic problem. The aspirations of “me first” cause us to not understand the positive aspects of collective action. We the People should be the foundation upon which we build on in the 21st century.

Personally, I’ll be voting For Proposition 1, not because it’s a miracle cure, but because it falls into the something is better than nothing category. The weaknesses I’ve highlighted should not be cause for inaction; look at voting for the measure as a first step toward next time we’ll do better.

Previously: CA’s Presidential Primary

Next Up: United States Senate

Lead photo: Canva, via Reform California (LOL)