Measure for Measure: Proposition 2
Voting is an essential part of civic engagement, but it can be confusing, especially in local elections. There are tons of measures and candidates to consider in the upcoming election on November 6th. That’s why we’re doing this round-up of the statewide measures, to provide some insight into the 2018 ballot.
Check out our round-up page for more articles on the other measures.
What is Proposition 2?
Proposition 2 allows the state to use $2 billion in bonds for mental health services and other support like the construction and maintenance of permanent supportive housing for those that are experiencing chronic homelessness. Proposition 2 does not authorize the issuance of a new bond, but rather allows the state to use previously authorized bond money for a slightly different purpose.
In 2004 voters passed Proposition 63, taxing the wealthiest Californians to fund mental health programs in the state. In 2016, the California legislature sought to appropriate $2 billion dollars of Prop 63 funds to provide housing for homeless residents with onsite mental health care. The state was sued to block the use of funds for this purpose, alleging this application of Prop 63 funds was too far from the original intent of the measure. Given the lawsuit, the legislature voted to put Prop 2 on the ballot, which would have voters approve the funds for homeless housing and resolve the suit.
Why does it matter?
Quality of housing is a strong predictor of mental health outcomes and 1 in 4 of those that are homeless struggle with mental health issues. Many experts recommend a Housing First approach; a strategy that prioritizes long-term, stable housing as the first step in any treatment plan.
Housing First is a strategy that has been long been lauded by mental health experts and homelessness advocates. Housing First approaches are based on the concept that a homeless individual’s first and primary need is to obtain stable housing, and that stable housing can act as a foundation on top of which other treatments and interventions can sit. In contrast, many other programs operate from a model of housing readiness, which often require homeless residents to meet certain milestones at temporary shelters or transitional housing before becoming eligible for long-term stable housing.
Freeing up Prop 63 money through Prop 2 this year would allow the state to reallocate funds necessary to providing a Housing First approach in mental health care for those experiencing homelessness.
What are the arguments for Prop 2? Who’s funding the proposition?
The Affordable Housing Now coalition supports Prop 2 and is also the driving force behind Prop 1. Affordable Housing Now is a coalition of Housing California, comprised of affordable housing advocates, business leaders, labor unions, veterans, and environmental groups. The measure is also supported by the California Housing Consortium, and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, among others.
They argue that this measure will provide effective, long term solutions for chronically homeless and mentally ill Californians. Proponents say a Housing First approach works, but only if there is housing available to implement such a treatment model.
Major funding comes from Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy, Members’ Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, and Senate Pro Tem Tony Atkin’s Ballot Measure Committee — California Works. See more funding details here.
What are the arguments against Prop 2? Who’s funding the opposition?
Long before Prop 2 became a measure, Sacramento attorney Mary Ann Bernard sued the state for misappropriating Proposition 63 funds. Prop 2 has made its way to the ballot as a way of resolving that suit. Bernard argues that the unauthorized use of voter-approved funds is a violation of the California constitution, because the state constitution requires voter approval of bonds that will be repaid from income taxes.
Mental healthcare advocates have also opposed the measure, like the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Contra Costa. They argue that the measure “steals” funds from traditional mental health care like crisis centers and drop-in clinics. Asserting that these traditional models of care are crucial, and if cut back will drive more mental health patients into homelessness.
What is TechEquity’s position on Prop 2?
More and more science continues to support the Housing First model as the best way to provide care to chronically homeless and mentally ill people. While Prop 2 does divert money from more traditional care models, reports have shown that those funds have gone largely unspent since Prop 63’s passage. We think those funds would be put to better use under Prop 2, especially given the level of crisis we are experiencing with homelessness across the state. We say vote yes on Prop 2!
Check our round-up page for more measure articles as we publish them.
We’re uniting tech workers to create a more equitable economy. Join us!
We believe the tech industry, built on the internet — the most democratizing communications platform in human history — can and should contribute to broad-based economic growth that benefits everyone.
