Proposition 2 was a ballot proposition that took place in California during the state’s general elections that were held on 6th November 2018. Proposition 2 focused on the use of millionaire's tax revenue for the conduct of homelessness prevention housing bonds measure. There were yes votes which supported the authorization of the state to use revenue from Proposition 63 (2004) (Torrey et al., 40). The state would use 1 percent of the tax collected from income above $1 million to offer mental health services while $2 billion in the revenue bonds would be used for the homelessness prevention housing for those people requiring the provision of mental health care. On the other hand, the no votes were meant to oppose the authorization of the state from using revenue from Proposition 63 (2004) on $2 billion in the revenue bonds for the homelessness prevention accommodation of those requiring mental health care. The proposition permits the state to take around $140 million every year of county mental health funds for the repayment of about $2 billion in bonds (Starks et al., 590).
Proposition 2 was an amendment of the “Mental Health Services Act” for the funding of the “No Place Like Home Program” which is mandated in financing housing for people with mental diseases. Being held in the ballot is an indication that the state wanted to consider the civilians’ opinions and views, and that is why some voted ‘Yes’ while others voted ‘No’ based on personal reasons. Besides, the California State Legislature approved lawmaking to use revenue from Proposition 63 on the revenue bonds for the homelessness prevention housing in 2016 (Matsusaka, 16). The legislation remained ineffective, as it was not taken into effect due to the pending litigation based on if revenue from the millionaire’s tax could be used on the homelessness prevention housing activities. Therefore, the universal obligation bonds required a public vote. On the contrary, the revenue bonds were not in need of public polling in California. Based on the fact that the revenue to be used for the bond would be acquired from a tax that was collected using a ballot initiative, Proposition 63, the proposition 2 needed to be brought up to the ballot. Indeed, in California, all the changes subjected to the ballot initiatives need a vote of the public.
Other Collaborative Propositions
Other propositions in California addressing housing of people include the four ballot propositions associated with the 6th November 2018 proposition. Voters were given the opportunity to make their decisions. The proposition 2 voting exercise was the most to ever be seen on the state’s ballot in the year as per the Ballotpedia’s catalogue of the housing-based ballot measures. In combination with the Proposition 2, votes are required to decide the other three housing-based ballot propositions. The particular propositions comprise of; Proposition 1, which would permit the use of $4 billion in bonds for the affordability of housing programs, housing loans for the veterans, grants, and loans (McNabb, 159). Proposition 5 is needed to eliminate restrictions on letting those people who are above 55 years and people with critical disabilities to take their tax assessments, with a likelihood of change from their previous home to their newly provided home. Proposition 10 is meant to enable the California governments to take control of rent. The ballot measures associated with the four Propositions would assist in addressing the housing situation like accessible housing, real estate values, and rent charges in California
It is evident that in California there are a good number of individuals suffering from mental illnesses and yet some do not have houses to stay or places to call home. The provision of psychological treatment to those people sustaining serious mental diseases is necessary. Nonetheless, it would not be adequate to offer mental health services to patients who are homeless as a lack of a place to live in might worsen their mental status (Ojeda et al., 973). Therefore, based on the proposition, the provision of mental health services and offering housing to homeless people who suffer from mental illnesses would be necessary.
Supporters
Support to the Proposition 2 would help in the delivery of an informed solution and assist the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people suffering from homelessness in California. It is apparent that Proposition 2 generates housing and ensures access to mental health services to all people. This argument is the primary aspect for the solution to the increasing homelessness, which is based on the risk of mental illness. In California, over 134,000 people remain in the streets having no place to stay; others sleep under the freeways, some huddled on the sidewalks and others spending their nights along the riverbanks (Arrow and Kruz, 23). Approximately 75% of those individuals living in unsafe environments happen to be living with untreated mental problems. Additionally, every year, hundreds of individuals living with a critical mental problem succumb to death in isolation and pain. Nonetheless, it is possible to prevent such deaths if adequate measures are put into practice.
Proposition 2 intends to handle the public health tragedy, which is straining emergency supervisors, firefighters, businesses and neighbourhoods. The proposition also works through renewing people's sense of togetherness and community and pays attention to assisting the lives of the disadvantaged or the vulnerable people in the society.
The “No Place Like Home" program in collaboration with Proposition 2 would be aimed at constructing 20,000 permanent supportive homes or housing divisions. The achievements enable the coordinated care of substance use and mental health services, job training, education, case managers, and medical care to assist people to acquire the housing and treatment stability they require. According to research, it is clear that the provision of stable places of living to people along with mental health care services enhances stable lives and healthy living (Anglin et al., 1098). This combination is identified as enduring supportive housing. It is evident that supportive accommodation significantly minimizes public health expenses and reduces disease (Rosenberg, 19).
Proposition 2 also meant at strengthening partnership to assist people who are in need in California. Supporting this proposition would help in strengthening and establishment of connections between homeless service and mental health providers, law enforcement officers, and doctors to aid in ensuring that proper care is harmonized and tailored for the accomplishment of interests of every person experiencing mental health problems and those who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. Not having a foundation of a permanent home associated with mental health care would make those individuals suffering from critical mental illness unable to have access to doctor's appointments or mental services and focused counseling services. Besides, it would not be possible for these particular people to show up in the emergency rooms, which they would prefer visiting as the last option. According to the Mental Health Services Act, mental disease is not a mandatory life sentence of dysfunction and despair (Gilmer et al., 1123). Through supportive housing, it would be possible to offer a stable life to people in the process of recovering from the untreated critical mental illness. Supportive housing enabled the mentally sick people in California to stay away from streets and other unsafe places and live a life with dignity.
Proposition 2 does not mean taxing the California people more, but it brings no additional cost to the taxpayers. Therefore, it is vital to have voter approval for the implementation of the proposition and pay attention to building supportive housing for individuals who do not have homes and the ones requiring mental care services. The state funding has all since been earmarked for the specific kinds of housing and mental health services. Therefore, assisting those people who are suffering from severe mental illnesses and the provision of homes to the homeless is not an easy thing. However, through the collaboration between the government and public, this can assist in the prevention of more deaths on the riverbanks and streets and offer critical intrusion through the construction of supportive housing linked to mental health services and treatments.
Oppositions
However, Proposition 2 might focus on enriching some individuals through the "No Place Like Home" Program. Those who will have direct access to the bonds revenue are likely to gain wealth at the expense of the individuals having severe mental illnesses. The people advocating for people living with severe and continued mental illnesses are discriminative. Despite Proposition 6, more people have been severely psychologically ill fourteen years later. If the Proposition 2 is passed, there are some fears that the program might cause an increased level of homelessness in California through subjecting more mentally sick people to serious symptoms that might increase the number of the individuals who claim to be homeless by living in on streets.
Proposition 2 is also costly since raising $2 billion only for the housing projects means that more expenses would be met for proper running of the program. The valuable housing in California will be accompanied with some operating subsidies, interest on the deferred loan, and administrative expenses. The proposition is not necessary given that the legislature allowed counties to meet the housing expenses of the severely mentally sick people based on Proposition 63 in 2017 (Ashwood et al., 32). Moreover, counties with the ability to collect capital funds can construct housing and pay rent for their clients rather than spending billions in the form of interest on bonds. The program will be associated with unnecessary administrative costs similarly with the developer subsidies. Counties are also aware of their mentally sick people’s treatment and interests and the available housing. Therefore, they can decide if their funds would best be used in the payment of mental treatment for the construction of housing in the region.
Proposition 2 does not address the systemic administrative barriers such as inadequate state protection against the regional preventive zoning, which makes it impossible to construct supportive housing for the populations with serious mental illnesses (Starks et al., 590). Indeed, paying billions in the form of interest and expenses associated with the borrowing of money that might remain unspent due to local oppositions towards the supportive housing plans for the severely mentally sick people. The Proposition 63 money should be directed towards the provision of treatment to the mentally ill people and prevention of homelessness.
Indeed, Proposition 2 is meant to offer mental health services and housing to the homeless people suffering from serious mental illnesses in California. However, the program “No Place Like Home” is associated with high costs, which would lead to the spending of more money than what is necessary.
Works Cited
Anglin, M. Douglas, et al. "Offender Diversion into Substance Use Disorder Treatment: The Economic Impact of California’s Proposition 36." American journal of public health
103.6 (2013): 1096-1102.
Arrow, Kenneth J., and Mordecai Kruz. Public Investment, the Rate of Return, and Optimal Fiscal Policy. RFF Press, 2013.
Ashwood, J. Scott, et al. "Evaluation of the Mental Health Services Act in Los Angeles County: Implementation and Outcomes for Key Programs." Rand health quarterly 8.1 (2018).
Gilmer, Todd P., et al. "Full-service partnerships among adults with serious mental illness in California: impact on utilization and costs." Psychiatric Services 65.9 (2014): 1120-1125.
Matsusaka, John G. "Special Interest Influence Under Direct Versus Representative Democracy." (2018).
McNabb, Sarah. "California's Proposition 2 Has Egg Producers Scrambling: Is It Constitutional." San Joaquin Agric. L. Rev. 23 (2013): 159.
Ojeda, Victoria D., et al. "Implementation of Age-Specific Services for Transition-Age Youths in California." Psychiatric services 67.9 (2016): 970-976.
Rosenberg, Ettie. "Interpretation of California's Marijuana Regulations after Proposition 64 and Pharmacy Practice Roles in Medical Marijuana Dispensing against Federal Enforcement Risks." (2018).
Starks, Sarah L., et al. "System transformation under the California Mental Health Services Act: Implementation of full-service partnerships in LA County." Psychiatric Services
68.6 (2017): 587-595.
Torrey, E. Fuller, et al. "Fraud, Waste, and Excess Profits: The Fate of Money Intended to Treat People With Serious Mental Illness." Mental Illness Policy Org (2015).
