Prop 1 promises to revamp California’s mental healthcare system and help solve the unhoused and drug crises in the state. It’s a tall order, one that plenty of people find suspect.
Supporters of the proposition say that it will provide restructured care for unhoused people, the mentally ill, veterans and addicts. Opponents say that the proposed legislation is inefficient and impractical.
James Espinoza, president and CEO of the Veterans Mentor Project, said that he considers Prop 1 a necessary update to existing state healthcare systems. Espinoza, a law enforcement and Army veteran, publicly supported Prop 1 because he feels it addresses long-standing problems in California.
Espinoza: Taking a look at more services mandated for people who are deemed to need them, and also taking into account the number of people we have facing homelessness, likely due to mental health issues currently, I think it’s really necessary at this point. I’ve seen the problem not only get worse in my career, not only in terms of recidivism of people in and out of behavioral health that I believe that – I believe that something needs to change, so I choose to support this.
But Prop 1 has its critics as well. Assembly member Diane Dixon, who represents the 72nd Assembly District, has been vocally against Prop 1.
Diane Dixon: I do not believe that the state has the wherewithal to efficiently manage this bond measure to provide mental health and homeless housing services to the people of California. I do believe, though, services are important for a level of government to provide and the level of government should be counties, so this is my fundamental point of difference.
Funding for the bill would have to come from California taxpayers, much of it being diverted from existing healthcare programs. Dixon made it clear that while she supports finding solutions for homelessness and mental health care on the county level, she finds this statewide proposition impractical.
Dixon: I’m sorry to say this, they will not be able to deliver on these promises. They will create expectations and who knows the accountability of where all this money will be spent? And how will it be spent? I support help and rehabilitation for mental illness and the drug addictions that go along with, that contribute to mental illness. I just think this system that they’ve laid out is not efficient and, and will bring poor results.
The practical limitations of Prop 1 are not lost on Espinoza. But he has a vision for a California where Prop 1 succeeds, as far-fetched as they may be.
Espinoza: You’re free to walk the streets, because it’s not cluttered with a bunch of unhoused folks, people that might be dealing with drug issues or mental health issues. And then they’re free to live their lives again because now they’re back in treatment, hopefully in housing, healthy, with services. That’s – maybe that’s a little rose-colored lenses way to look at the bill, but something needs to change.
Still, Prop 1′s opponents raise important points about the feasibility of the legislation and the expense to taxpayers. Tonight, Californians will make the choice and, one way or another, shape the path of behavioral healthcare in the state.
For Annenberg Media, I’m Marie Louise Leone.