Gov. Gavin Newsom strongarmed state lawmakers into postponing other initiatives originally set to appear on the March 5 primary ballot so that Prop. 1 would have voters’ undivided attention.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature measure to overhaul California’s behavioral health system and issue $6.4 billion in bonds to build treatment facilities and supportive housing is too close to call, with voters almost evenly split as of Wednesday morning.
The Newsom administration has described Proposition 1 as the “linchpin” of its ambitious behavioral health strategy. If the measure fails, it could take other key reforms down with it — including CARE Court, Newsom’s framework to voluntarily direct more severely mentally ill people into housing and treatment. It would also hamstring implementation of the biggest expansion of California’s conservatorship law in decades, which Newsom signed into law to make more people, including those with substance use disorder, eligible to be involuntarily compelled into care. These individuals need clinically appropriate places to go and a highly trained workforce to care for them — both of which Prop. 1 was supposed to provide.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Newsom should never have left such a critically important initiative up to chance. And, to make matters worse, he didn’t have to.
That the measure is a nail-biter underscores one of the governor’s biggest political flaws: hubris. Newsom undoubtedly thought that he had Prop. 1 in the bag. He strong-armed state lawmakers into postponing other initiatives originally set to appear on the March 5 primary ballot so that Prop. 1 would have voters’ undivided attention. He effectively silenced any organized opposition by exerting his influence as the state’s most powerful elected official. And his ballot measure committee supporting Prop. 1 spent more than $12 million promoting it, while the grassroots campaign opposing the measure raised a paltry $2,000.
Newsom might be forgiven for overestimating his sway with voters. In 2022, his fervent opposition to Prop. 30, a measure that would have taxed millionaires to fund electric cars and other climate programs, was instrumental in tanking it.
But a recent Public Policy Institute of California survey shows that Newsom’s approval rating among likely voters has fallen to 48%, the lowest since he took office in 2019. Critics have begun circulating petitions to try to recall him — again.
Newsom appears to have overlooked the extent to which voters might call his bluff.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Prop. 1 is an incredibly complex measure. The text takes up an astonishing 68 pages in the state’s official voter guide. Research suggests that when voters are confused by an initiative they’re likely to vote against it. (Furthermore, conservative voters and homeowners will likely be overrepresented in California’s low-turnout primary, and polling shows majorities of both groups oppose Prop. 1.)
Then there’s the big ask for $6.4 billion in bonds — plus an estimated $310 million annually for 30 years in interest payments. The funds would be used to create an estimated 10,000 behavioral health treatment beds and supportive housing placements, which are urgently needed: The nonpartisan think tank Rand Corp. found that California is short thousands of mental health beds at all levels of care, including locked psychiatric facilities, which has often resulted in the most severely ill individuals — including those with violent tendencies — languishing on the streets.
But Californians have been hesitant to approve bonds in recent years. In 2020, voters rejected a $15 billion school infrastructure bond — the first time they had done so in more than two decades. Economic uncertainty and inflation have only grown since then.
And they are likely understandably skeptical about funneling billions more dollars into what many perceive to be the neverending maw of homelessness relief. California has poured more than $20 billion into housing and homelessness programs since the 2018-19 fiscal year, but homelessness has only continued to rise. In 2018, voters approved a $2 billion bond to build housing for mentally ill people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. It was supposed to create 20,000 units. So far it’s produced fewer than 2,000.
Prop. 1 includes new accountability and oversight measures that could make it more effective than its predecessor. But voters have been promised accountability before and politicians have failed to deliver.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
California unquestionably needs more mental health facilities, which makes it all the more frustrating that Newsom left something so critical to chance when he didn’t have to. In 2022, the state was swimming in an unprecedented $100 billion budget surplus. Newsom and lawmakers directed billions of dollars into building out the state’s behavioral health system, but if Prop. 1 is so central to the administration’s strategy, an additional $6.4 billion should have been prioritized.
Instead, Newsom and lawmakers chose to allocate that funding to other programs and waited until California was in an estimated $68 billion budget deficit to ask voters to approve a bond.
Instead of making tough fiscal decisions when they had a surplus, Newsom and lawmakers punted and asked the voters for more money.
Key portions of Prop. 1 did have to go to the ballot because they amend a measure originally approved by voters in 2004 — the Mental Health Services Act, a 1% tax on millionaires to help fund county mental health services. Counties currently have a lot of discretion to spend this money — typically between $2 billion and $3.5 billion annually. Prop. 1 would require counties to spend big chunks of that money on housing severely mentally ill people and providing them with intensive wraparound services. It would also allow them to use the funds to serve people with substance abuse disorders who don’t have co-occurring mental illnesses. And it would funnel more money to the state for behavioral health workforce development and to track outcomes.
These proposed changes are the most confusing part of Prop. 1, but they don’t come with a multibillion-dollar taxpayer price tag attached — and thus may have been more palatable to voters.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
If Prop. 1 fails, it will arguably be the most stunning political defeat of Newsom’s career. But the loss will also have devastating practical impacts. The consequences of the lack of clinically appropriate behavioral health facilities will continue to reverberate throughout California for decades to come, hobbling the state’s efforts to improve conditions on our streets and provide humane, effective treatment for our sickest residents.
And Newsom will have only himself to blame.
Reach Emily Hoeven: emily.hoeven@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @emily_hoeven
Prop. 1 is too close to call. Gov. Newsom should never have left it to chance
2
0
06.03.2024
Gov. Gavin Newsom strongarmed state lawmakers into postponing other initiatives originally set to appear on the March 5 primary ballot so that Prop. 1 would have voters’ undivided attention.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature measure to overhaul California’s behavioral health system and issue $6.4 billion in bonds to build treatment facilities and supportive housing is too close to call, with voters almost evenly split as of Wednesday morning.
The Newsom administration has described Proposition 1 as the “linchpin” of its ambitious behavioral health strategy. If the measure fails, it could take other key reforms down with it — including CARE Court, Newsom’s framework to voluntarily direct more severely mentally ill people into housing and treatment. It would also hamstring implementation of the biggest expansion of California’s conservatorship law in decades, which Newsom signed into law to make more people, including those with substance use disorder, eligible to be involuntarily compelled into care. These individuals need clinically appropriate places to go and a highly trained workforce to care for them — both of which Prop. 1 was supposed to provide.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Newsom should never have left such a critically important initiative up to chance. And, to make matters worse, he didn’t have to.
That the measure is a nail-biter underscores one of the governor’s biggest political flaws: hubris. Newsom undoubtedly thought that he had Prop. 1 in the bag. He strong-armed state lawmakers into postponing other initiatives originally set to appear on the March 5 primary ballot so that Prop. 1 would have voters’ undivided attention. He effectively silenced any organized........
© San Francisco Chronicle
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
