California’s $6.38 billion mental health bond measure still too close to call

A statewide ballot measure that would overhaul California’s mental health care system, primarily through the issuance of nearly $6.4 billion in bonds, remained too close to call on Wednesday evening as ballot-counting continued from Tuesday’s election.

See the latest election results.

Proposition 1 is a two-pronged measure backed heavily by Gov. Gavin Newsom and a host of Southland elected officials, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and county Supervisors Hilda Solis and Janice Hahn. Backers of the measure say it will dramatically increase access to treatment beds and supportive housing, but opponents claim it would slash funding for already successful programs.

As vote-counting continued Wednesday, the tally was a virtual dead heat, with 50.2% voting in favor and 49.8% opposed. The “yes” camp was leading by roughly 14,600 votes, out of nearly 3.8 million ballots tallied.

According to Newsom’s office, the proposition, if approved by a majority of the state’s voters, would create 11,150 behavioral health treatment beds across the state, along with housing and 26,700 outpatient treatment slots. Roughly $1 billion of the bond measure would be earmarked specifically for veterans.

It would do so through two methods, primarily the issuance of $6.38 billion in bonds but also through a re-apportionment of funds generated by the Mental Health Services Act, which was passed by voters 20 years ago and imposed a 1% income tax on people earning more than $1 million per year. Funds from that measure are largely directed to counties for mental health programs, but Proposition 1 would give the state control over much of the funding.

Newsom contends that Proposition 1 would fulfill a vision that began a half-century ago for a comprehensive statewide mental health treatment system that never came to fruition.

“We can make history,” Newsom said earlier this year during a Los Angeles event to begin the campaign in support of the proposition. “We can’t make up the last 50-60 years, but we can finally fulfill that vision that was set forth a half-century ago. This initiative, Proposition 1, promotes a number of things. It does not, however, promote the following — and that’s the status quo. If you’re for the status quo, vote no on Proposition 1.”

Bass also insisted that the measure would correct years of failure to address the mental health crisis in the state, while also helping alleviate the state’s rampant problems with homelessness.

“Think of how much money would be saved when Proposition 1 is passed and there’s actually facilities for folks, we get people off the streets,” Bass said. “We know that addiction and mental illness is a contributing factor to homelessness. … We cannot separate these problems, and it is not enough to get a bed for a person. We can get people off the street, we have demonstrated that people are willing to come off the street. But you have to address why they were unhoused to begin with. And you have to have a comprehensive approach, and Proposition 1 is a step forward in that direction.”

Opponents of the measure, a group known as Californians Against Proposition 1, deride the measure as “huge, expensive and destructive,” saying it would cost taxpayers more than $9 billion over the life of the bonds, while ordering the redirection of $30 billion in existing mental health services funds in the first decade, “cutting existing mental health services that are working.”

“Prop. 1 breaks promises made by the voters when they first passed the Mental Health Services Act in 2004,” according to the opposition group. “The idea then was to create permanent, dedicated funding for long-neglected mental health services, including prevention, early intervention, programs for youth, programs for struggling and under-served populations, including racially and ethnically diverse groups and LGBTQ people. The MHSA is a proven model, offering ‘anything it takes’ to help individuals who need a range of services.

“Now, Prop. 1 would sharply reduce that funding, end its dedication to mental health programs and take a hatchet to dozens of programs across the state that cannot survive without MHSA funding. It orders counties to do more with less.”

Source: Orange County Register