History has shown us that the good intended ideas that are advocated by our State government have had a negative effect on this state. From legislation that promises to provide a world class pension plan (which resulted in many cities in California to file for bankruptcy), to the recent passing of SB 54 (which allows illegal immigration and has resulted in many of these illegal immigrants not assimilating to American culture) and Prop 47 (which allows the releasing of non violent misdemeanor offenders and has resulted in many communities in California becoming of unsafe). So why would Prop 2 also known as the No Place Like Home Act be any different?
Prop 2, “Ratifies existing law establishing the No Place Like Home Program, which finances permanent housing for individuals with mental illness who are homeless or at risk for chronic homelessness, as being consistent with the Mental Health Services Act approved by the electorate. Ratifies issuance of up to $2 billion in previously authorized bonds to finance the No Place Like Home Program. It amends the Mental Health Services Act to authorize transfers of up to $140 million annually from the existing Mental Health Services Fund to the No Place Like Home Program, with no increase in taxes.” What this means is the $140 million that was supposed to be allocated to the county mental health funds will be used to repay the $2 billion in bonds. You might be asking, “What did our government do that requires it to take money away from the counties?” Well, it should not come as a surprise that our State government had issues allocating funds back in 2004 with Prop 63.
In 2004, Prop 63 (which is a tax increase to fund the expansion of mental health services) was passed. This bill enforced a 1% tax on all the millionaires in California and it raised up to $17 billion. Like the previous legislations that I mentioned in the beginning of this article, Prop 63 failed to deliver its intended results. The Little Hoover Commission, which is a “independent state oversight agency,” reported that “clearly show, much less measure, what more than $13.2 billion has accomplished in terms of improving services.” So what we see here is that our government, with its well meaning intention, looks to redeem themselves from the failure of Prop 63 with Prop 2.
For this upcoming November ballot, I urge you to vote NO on Prop 2. If we want to see the mentally ill receive the proper care and service that they desperately need, then voters must send a message to our legislators that their intended ideas will have a negative effect on the future on the homeless and mentally ill.