Editorial: Yes on Proposition 1

That is the case with Proposition 1, which authorizes $6.38 billion in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities for those with mental health and substance abuse issues and provides housing for the homeless.

Nearly everyone can agree that homelessness is an issue in the state. It has been estimated there are 180,000 such people, with that number about 1,800 in San Mateo County. Here, county officials have been particularly aggressive in ensuring there are sufficient beds for the homeless, along with support and treatment. One of those efforts is through the state’s Project Homekey, which provides money for the acquisition of aging hotels and motels for use as supportive housing. About $2 billion of Proposition 1 money would go toward Homekey projects, with about half of that centered on veterans. It is abundantly true that homeless veterans need assistance but tying half the money to a specific subgroup eliminates some flexibility.

That is also an issue with another portion of Proposition 1, which will require more specific spending of Proposition 63 money. That proposition, called the Mental Health Services Act, passed in 2004 and requires those making more than $1 million pay an extra $1 million in state income tax, generating about $2 billion to $3 billion a year for counties on mental health programs. Proposition 1 would expand that to include substance abuse programs while also requiring counties spend specific amounts on housing, treatment and services including intervention and prevention rather than other programs currently in use. There would be an expectation that counties would find the revenue to fund behavioral health programs currently funded through Proposition 63 money. New laws requiring flexibility in MediCal reimbursements should help, however.

The argument that the money generated by Proposition 63 hasn’t solved the problem is true, but eliminating local flexibility makes the work at this level more difficult. Also, the bond portion of this proposition will merely pay for the buildings without the services or operations and is leaning on counties to do the heavy lifting.

Simply put, Proposition 1 is a recalibration of a previous measure that didn’t quite do enough by placing more restrictions on local funding with the hope that somehow more housing for the homeless will do the trick. It might, just a bit. It’s basic math, providing more homes for those without them will help, but it’s up to counties to make the more complicated math work.

Lucky for us, we have officials in place who are dead-set on solving this issue and the money to buy sites has been a key piece of the puzzle. Proposition 1 will help in this regard though it is by no means the cure. However, it is the first real piece of statewide homelessness reform in decades. There needs to be more beds and treatment and this proposition helps with that. And everyone knows that the first step on a long journey to change is often the most important one. Even if it’s a small step.