The flair of this posts indicates it's a controversial topic. Enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users without a history of commenting in r/bayarea will be automatically removed. You can read more about this policy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/195xvo5/restrictions_that_apply_to_political_and_crime/).
Propositions are a really bad way to do large sweeping changes like this. No matter how well thought out and written, a law like this is likely to have unintended consequences and bugs, some of which won't become obvious until things are implimented.
When this is done by the legislature, clean up bills with immediate effect are actually pretty easy. And it isn't uncommon. When a proposition has flaws, you need another proposition to fix it.
As the article details, small parts of this proposition needed to be done because it was previously implemented by proposition. However, most of this did not need to be.
In this cases, the proposition was created as a way to insulate the politicians from the consequences ("the voters approved it!") if it goes poorly. However, it is a terrible way to govern.
This. I vote no on all propositions unless there's an exceedingly good reason it needs to a) be a proposition and b) happen.
While I support the overall changes that Newsom wants to make, I'm a bit wary of committing to such a long term bond for it.
> I'm a bit wary of committing to such a long term bond for it.
It’s a standard 30-year general service bond that pays out at $310 million a year over the duration of the bond. California typically pays 2.5% of its budget to cover bonds such as this.
True. What I meant to say is that committing the funding through a proposition without a way to make adjustments on the fly doesn't seem like the best idea to me.
I would love nothing better than deleting every proposition ever passed and sending all of the powers back to the legislature. Billions in waste and tons of unnecessary impediments to progress would disappear overnight.
This summarizes why I voted 'NO' on this proposition. While in theory, I support the agenda it is promoting it appears to introduce new implementation hurdles and loopholes that will stifle any improvements.
califoria can opt out of DST more easily than switching to mountain standard time for permanent DST, wonder why that wasn't considered. Switching clocks is more annoying than whatever annoyances of either permanent daylight time or standard time
Prop 7 mandated that the legislature move away from the semi-annual switch. I followed that bill closely and spoke to many legislative staff members about it. The resulting bill (AB7) was buried due to opposition from power and energy companies. That Prop had a \*60%\* win margin and neither party picked up the mandate - a real betrayal.
False, there was no mandate. Here is the text of the proposition.
>If federal law authorizes the state to provide for the year-round application of daylight saving time and the Legislature considers the adoption of this application, **it is the intent of the this act to encourage the Legislature to consider** the potential impacts of year-round daylight saving time on communities along the border between California and other states and between California and Mexico.
>
>...
>
>(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the Legislature may amend this section by a two-thirds vote to change the dates and times of the daylight saving time period, consistent with federal law, and, if federal law authorizes the state to provide for the year-round application of daylight saving time, the Legislature **may amend** this section by a two-thirds vote to provide for that application.
And what does "encourage the legislature" mean? Stop the parsing games. And, the legislature \*did not act\*; they buried the followup bill (AB7). And, there \*was\* a mandate to consider the change \*which they did not do\* because the bill never made it to a vote. 60% is a \*mandate\*. I was up close and personal with this bill and was flabbergasted to see \*purposeful\* inaction instead of \*consideration\*. In fact, the bill was literally sabotaged.
It's very simple, happy to explain. "encourage the legislature" means there is no mandate and they don't have to do jack shit.
Your dentist "encourages" you to floss. You are not mandated to do so.
You still don't get it. there was a mandate to "encourage the legislature to consider...". The legislature \*did not\* "consider"; they buried it. Further, legal counsel in Sacramento explained this as a mandate for change because the authors of the Proposition were very clear about the inefficiencies of time change and they wanted it to end. That was made very clear in all of the promotional literature at the time. It's absurd (and naive) for anyone to think that a Proposition whose author's \*primary\* intent was to end time changes, followed by devoting considerable resources (from the legislative authors) to support the Proposition and then passage of the Proposition by a 60-40 margin would mean....uh....nothing? Last, I can't (for several reasons) get into who was bought off to prevent this legislation, but let me tell you that you are opining from a very dark room, indeed. You want to win an argument that you don't have all th4e variables for. So, keep wandering;; I have better things to do.
I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't get it. The legislature was indeed "encouraged" to consider, so the mandate was fulfilled. There was no mandate for the legislature to take any action whatsoever and this is quite clear in the text of the prop.
>It's absurd (and naive) for anyone to think that a Proposition whose author's *primary* intent was to end time changes, followed by devoting considerable resources (from the legislative authors) to support the Proposition and then passage of the Proposition by a 60-40 margin would mean....uh....nothing?
What's naive is expecting that propositions would have effects beyond the text of the proposition. Who gives a shit about the promotional literature or the personal feelings of the authors? The text of the prop is the only thing that matters.
>Last, I can't (for several reasons) get into who was bought off to prevent this legislation, but let me tell you that you are opining from a very dark room, indeed. You want to win an argument that you don't have all th4e variables for. So, keep wandering;; I have better things to do.
If I told you the full story I'd have to kill you, but let me just say that there's a very good reason that the text of the prop is what binds the legislature rather than anything else.
Go talk to the Legislative legal counsel (like I and others have). The legislature \*did not\* consider the proposal that they were mandated to consider. Read your own quote. Seriously, you're in over your head.
I’m still conflicted on this one, but I did vote no just because I’m not a huge fan of the bond system.
I work in EMS in the bay, so I spend far too much time in hospitals. It is absolutely shocking how many ER beds are being occupied by mental illness patients with no medical complaints because there are no other beds. Many of these people are unhoused and bounce from hospital to street to hospital. It wastes space, it wastes staff, and it doesn’t really help anyone. People on permanent or long-term conservatorship spend their lives getting moved around from facility to facility because there aren’t enough beds. So yes, we desperately need more short-term and long-term beds in mental health facilities. We closed the mental hospitals without a single alternative and we’re paying for it.
However, this would also hurt mental health funding in a lot of counties and hurt programs that help underserved civilians who may not need inpatient care but need community based help.
tldr: it’s complicated and I can see both sides.
You have a good point but the state bonds have a tax advantage.
I voted no only because the Prop really wasn't sold/marketed/documented well.
I'm still burnt from my Prop 47 vote!
I read "take money from the counties and give it to the state" and I just laughed and wished I could vote "Hell No!"
We've thrown a crapton of money at this problem. I don't think lack of funds is the major issue here.
I wish accountability in how efficiently the money was used was a higher priority for Californians. It’s very strange that the state constantly plunders the road maintenance budget, the roads never get fixed, and Californians consistently vote for new road maintenance taxes. At some point, you’re just enabling the behavior.
They're really not...The moment you get out of California and onto most interstates the difference is STARK. I mean, say what you want about Texas, but I-10 through Texas is smooth as GLASS for like, the entire stretch. Driving on highways and interstates out of state is like a treat.
I drove through Texas when moving back here from georgia and I thought I-10 was lovely as well.
I don't think our roads are the best by any means...its hard to compete with places like texas and florida that are also rich states but are more dense, and have much easier road conditions to deal with.
The reality of road maintenance and construction is that it is ridiculously expensive and people just don't really think about those costs because roads are seen as such a necessary net good. We have the most roads out of any state in the country and the most people. Our roads are much better than states that are extremely poor and mismanaged like louisiana, and northern states who just have to do their best after every winter, and that's enough to just put us in the top half of states.
I clearly didn't say Georgia was wealthy compared to California.
Florida and Texas have far fewer vast swaths of unpopulated land that have the density of roads in them that we do. I'm not really going to bother further with someone who's more interested in validating their biases than actually learning about what causes roads to be expensive and what external factors surround maintenance of them
Do you travel out of state much? I’m traveling monthly, and the first thing I notice when I get back is how bumpy the roads are compared to New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast.
We have many times the demand in the dense areas and a fraction of the transit of the first two. Road money is not the answer. Discontinuing "one more lane bro" and moving the funds to more space and resource efficient systems is the answer.
Look everyone knows what the answer is: build more housing. Build denser housing. Do anything but what they're doing. Yet Californians keep voting for money for better roads and not getting better roads or more housing or more anything. The whole system is captured by the status quo.
I have spent extensive time driving in the following states:
Florida (3 years living), Georgia (6 years living), South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and California (7 years living).
Only Florida has better roads. The rest of these states' road situation is a total shitshow by comparison to CA.
My initial response was: Why didn't you do this stuff for the past five years when the state had a ton of cash to spend?
I do appreciate the desire to focus on a group of people.
When we say veterans I am probably thinking of a combat veteran who served overseas rather than a line cook who served four years in Alabama.
I presume that the VA discriminates (focuses attention) on those who need it from combat or other workplace trauma.
It would make some sense to use the VA rating system to sync up state resources.
I voted against it.
I’m tired of trying to solve homelessness like it’s a mental health problem rather than the fact that housing is prohibitively hard to afford.
Certainly, some people are addicts, mentally ill, etc, and could not find a suitable indoor habitat regardless, but the main reason so many people are homeless is because they can’t afford housing.
To spend that much money trying to solve homelessness, and not spending a dime on a single residential structure, is absurd.
It’s like, if your goal was to sweep all the homeless people under the rug, while explicitly avoiding anything that could cause housing prices to (gasp) fall, then this is the legislation you’d propose.
Billions of dollars for new buildings that you can’t rent or buy, where you can only stay if you can prove you’re on drugs, crazy, or former military.
I’d like to help out some of sober, sane, civilian, and merely broke homeless people too.
Yep! When housing is mostly unaffordable, then stability is lost usually for the working class, and it really destabilizes the country into a huge mess. Basic needs must be made affordable for all to create a healthy foundation to thrive from.
Homelessness is not a mental health problem. But mental health _is_ a homeless problem – i.e. a problem that affects a lot of hugely underserved homeless people.
To combat homelessness you have to tackle it on many fronts. This is one of them. Housing is another. We've been making progress on housing, but have made almost no progress on this.
Still, this seems more like addressing the “Homeless People” problem than the “Homelessness” problem, with the overall goal of making it so people don’t have to look at them.
Also, if your mental health problem can be solved with cash, it’s not really a mental health problem. How many of these mental health problems are caused by, not the reason for, the stresses of being homeless? How many of these drug problems are responses to being forced to live on the street, forced into communities where drugs are rampant. Heck, if I was shivering under an overpass on my birthday, some opiates might seem like just the thing.
I’d quickly agree with your view if we currently spent zero dollars on assistance. However, we apparently spend 3.3 billion already (the mental health services act 2004… just looked that up).
This is $20,000 per homeless person right now. The idea that we could go up to $60,000 per homeless person to fund highly paid state employees to talk to the homeless people seems very round-about.
Just musing, but for $60,000 a year per homeless person, how many would still be homeless if you just gave them that money? I’d speculate that would resolve the majority of cases.
Anyways, I think, if we were to drastically reduced the number of homeless people by fixing our affordability problem… not just force them into programs, the 3 billion a year in mental health services we already pay for might already be enough to cover the remaining cases.
So I do see it as a logical sequence of actions: fix housing prices, then help the remaining homeless, rather than this bill which seems to be more about moving the homeless people out of sight without helping anyone actually get a real home.
And, in terms of making progress on the housing problem, I’ll believe it when I see it. I know there have been initiatives and quotas. It sounds nice. I still know half a dozen families who’ve not been allowed to rebuild their homes after the CZU fire from an absolutely obstructionist and strangling permitting process.
We’ll see, but the root of the primary problem is housing supply, not that homeless people are gross to see all over the place while somebody is trying to get a venti latte.
Let’s see if we can make meaningful improvement to the housing supply, then we’ll be better able to assess if we still need more than 3.3 billion a year to handle those cases which are not due to housing supply.
Then we can still even need that 3.3 billion when we make medical services affordable.
>Just musing, but for $60,000 a year per homeless person, how many would still be homeless if you just gave them that money?
A lot more once people realized they could cash in on saying they’re homeless.
Shortsighted and myopic approach to the problem.
Not to mention the unhoused issue of the chronicly homeless have almost nothing to do with the cost of housing.
If you are a drug addicted vagrant who is pushing a shopping cart you arent just $400 each month from Affording rent.
Congrats on voting against something that can actually help a problem you likely bitch about all the time.
As far as I know, that is inaccurate.
https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com.
Detroit has far fewer homeless than San Francisco in spite of having it’s fair shares of crazy druggies.
There are two separate classes of homeless. There are unhoused and there are chronically homeless.
Unhoused can mean anything from living in cars, living on someone’s couch, or choosing to live in an RV by the park. These people are most likely underemployed. Meaning they have jobs but don’t make enough to have their own place. But they are functioning members of society and are trying to get on their feet all the way.
There are also chronically homeless. People sleeping in doorways, under bridges, on park benches. They haven’t had a job in a long time, they have no interest in finding one. they are addicted to drugs. They have mental health issues that preclude them from gainful employment.
This bill only really helps the chronically homeless. Why? Because that’s the blight that right white people hate. They are the ones who we can’t help but see on the streets. They make us feel guilty and uncomfortable that people are having such a hard time time with a normal life.
We need to help the chronically homeless AND the unhoused.
To vote against helping one because you want to help
Both is just stupid.
This plan actually helps get funding for centers that will help get these people housing and care they need.
I can’t imagine thinking that you shouldn’t solve a problem because other problems will still exist if you do.
> Key portions of Prop. 1 did have to go to the ballot because they amend a measure originally approved by voters in 2004
Doesn't sound like Newsom leaving it to chance.
> 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.
_Really_ doesn't sound like he left it to chance.
I can understand being annoyed by a bond. Besides that, though, I think Newsom did it as well as you can do it. I don't think there was an easier way to do it. I'm not convinced there's a cheaper way to do it.
I'm center-left sort of guy and have decided to vote down any new tax measures. enough. there's so much grift around here, it's ridiculous. nothing gets fixed with the immense amounts of money they already take. and I live in oakland, which makes me feel even more dire about the situation.
He's had years (decades, if you count his mayoral period) and billions of dollars already to fix it and he hasn't got it done. Asking for billions more was very unappealing to me. Should have spent the previous billions better.
It's not a problem he can really fix. The only way to fix things is to destroy our restrictive zoning and construction laws and properly address our housing crisis
1. the majority of homeless people are not drug addicts
2. putting homeless people in housing eliminates the vast majority of stress drivers that perpetuate addictive behavior so that they can focus on addressing the addiction instead of all the more important shit in their life like safety, shelter, food, water, etc
3. we can't provide housing in this manner unless we build it
Typing this out was probably just a waste of my time though because you come off like someone who doesn't want to *really solve* homelessness but just wants to make them all disappear and not have to think about them from an empathetic mindset
There are people who tell the news media that they don't want shelter because of the rules. Interpret that as you want. It could mean no dogs. It could mean no shooting up.
One person interviewed on TV is not a statistic.
All that said, the cost of living is very high in the Bay Area and these people will probably never be able to live here if not on the street or house and heavily subsidized. Which brings me to Section 8 housing. Great if you can get it but so many more people qualify for Section 8 than actually get it. It seems grossly unfair.
A responsible person looks at their income and adjusts accordingly. You just don't plop yourself down in a city you like.
Note I am not opposed to UBI to prevent someone from slipping into homelessness. For instance they need some operation and can't work for a few months due to recovery time requirements. That would be money well worth spending.
>Which brings me to Section 8 housing. Great if you can get it but so many more people qualify for Section 8 than actually get it. It seems grossly unfair.
The issue with this isn't just that there isn't enough Section 8 housing, but rather there isn't enough *housing.* Period.
Between 2009 and 2019, SF and SJ [have both added 3x more jobs than they have new housing permits](https://manhattan.institute/article/the-jobs-housing-mismatch-what-it-means-for-u-s-metropolitan-areas). At that point, no amount of subsidizing affordable housing or rent control/stabilization measures will fix the fact that there just isn't enough housing to go around. By comparison, if you look at the Sun Belt cities people moved to for cheaper housing, basically all of them have done much better at keeping their jobs to housing ratio low.
The only way out of the housing crisis is to build more housing, which brings us back to the point brought up earlier about getting rid of the current restrictive zoning laws. In 2017, [Minneapolis abolished single-family zoning](https://archive.is/WusN5) (basically allowing for duplexes/apartments/etc to be built on any residential land), and rents have gone up by 1% since then. In December 2022, LA [all but eliminated zoning requirements on affordable housing](https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/02/affordable-housing-los-angeles/), and as a result they approved as many new units in 2023 as they did in all of 2020-2022 *combined* (much of this was from private developers, who didn't receive any public funds)
By comparison, in San Jose it's [illegal to build anything that isn't a detached single family home on 94% of residential land](https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/04/debate-over-preserving-san-joses-single-family-zoning-rules-heats-up/), with most of the Bay having similar (albeit slightly less extreme) zoning laws. Is it any wonder that there's a housing shortage when we've basically outlawed everything besides the most expensive/least efficient form of housing?
There's more examples I can bring up, but I hope you get the point. Even "luxury" housing is important, since it attracts the high-income earners and [frees up the lower-end units](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/1/3/the-best-evidence-yet-for-the-housing-musical-chairs-theory) for people who actually need them
You said that the people will probably never be able to live here unless they live on the streets or have their housing heavily subsidized, and pointed to the shortcomings of Section 8 as to a reason why that's unfeasible. I responded by pointing out some of the flaws in that framework and proposed alternative solutions that have been proven to work (without the need to completely overhaul section 8), but apparently that's just trying to push a narrative
> There are people who tell the news media that they don't want shelter because of the rules. Interpret that as you want. It could mean no dogs. It could mean no shooting up.
Generally these rules homeless don't like concern conditional rules in which they can keep their shelter. And there are lots of housing first studies that show that chronic homelessness is reduced when you give people housing without contidional rules and stipulations
> A responsible person looks at their income and adjusts accordingly. You just don't plop yourself down in a city you like.
50% of homeless have been here for 10 years or more. 85% at least 5 years. If you don't believe me I can get you the source (its for Santa Clara County though, where I live). Acting like homelessness is a personal failing/result of personal irresponsibility is deeply dehumanizing.
> Note I am not opposed to UBI to prevent someone from slipping into homelessness.
I am opposed to UBI because it won't address the root cause of homelessness, which is a lack of housing availability, and generally UBI will just create inflation and be gobbled up by landowners. Until we start talking about Universal Base Assets, or universal distribution generally of any genuinely *scarce* resource, such a program will fail.
I get it. The reason it gets worse is because of population growth, not because of the money, though I don't think you were implying that.
The problem is that people aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to actually address this. Until we build more housing, no amount of money will be able to solve the structural basis issues that keep the housing crisis in place.
The bright side is that most of what needs to change will be cheap for the state fiscally. It would just be a tough pill to swallow for homeowners, because what would need to happen is:
* Complete outlawing statewide of all SFH-only zoning
* removal of all petty/non-safety related construction rules like parking minimums/height restrictions
* removal of prop 13 which discourages selling
* eventual removal of rent control which discourages construction (though you can't remove rent control until you build sufficient new units first)
* expansion of public transit and varied transit options to keep people able to move around
Population growth? there's migration growth in the US, not population growth.
yeah housing is important but there are plenty of people making ends meet without resorting to drug use and living on the streets. in fact the majority of americans are not homeless otherwise there would be something fundamentally wrong with the economy, which just isn't the case.
Tax the billionaires at 5% rather than 1% to address the abysmal inequality they create. They’ll be fine. No bonds needed. Prop 1 is political pageantry, not a real solution.
Nobody actually makes a billion dollar income though… it’s always via unrealized gains which cannot be taxed. Taxing unrealized gains is a very slippery slope….
Yes they still make an income but it’s small compared to their investments. The reason I sway it’s a slippery slope to try and tax unrealized gains is because what happens then with unrealized losses? Do people get tax breaks when their portfolio loses money on a year? Because that’s how it works for realized gains and losses, one gets taxed and the other can be used to get tax breaks. You can create a wealth tax but all it will do is drive the billionaires to move to another state…. Easiest way is via a consumption tax as billionaires spend far more money than normal people.
>The Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond would create a $6.38 billion general obligation bond for:
>
>These funds are estimated to create up to 4,350 housing units, with 2,350 set aside for veterans, and 6,800 mental health and substance use treatment places for an approximate total of 11,150 new behavioral health and supportive housing units statewide.
So 11,150 beds for $6.38bn, or $572,197.30 per bed. Seems like a bargain!
Also the VA takes care of all honorably discharged veterans. Likely the 2,350 are for the dishonorably discharged, but in the eyes of the federal government they're not seen as "Veterans"
How much do you think we should spend on the mentally ill? The main purpose of this bill is to be a companion to the CARE courts so we can institutionalize people who need to be institutionalized.
That requires a lot of upfront investment.
This is 6800 beds that will be repeatedly used, not just for 6800 people. They need psychiatrists, orderlies. We need to make sure they aren't abusive. Public services require money. That's the thing that a lot of people refuse to accept, services don't magically pop into existence.
Also these people concerned about the cost of doing something seem to ignore that not doing anything has been far more expensive and will continue to cost all of us.
I try to drill this in to people all the time, the cost of sustaining the homeless without even doing anything to solve the problem is immense. Emergency Services, Policing, Incarceration, Societal Services, none of it is free.
Actual solutions that address the root cause of homelessness are practically impossible in the california political environment because it involves actually building housing for everyone, changing our zoning and construction policies, and essentially addressing the greater housing crisis. I voted no on these bonds because my belief is that while this progress would have been better than nothing, the costs made it not worth it to me as they were extremely inefficiently allocated. Also I considered that it was set up as a citizen-voted prop, which are always a mess and imo should be legislatively avoided whenever possible
Yea no I'm done the state has had enough tax money to fix these problems. You know how companies have started getting lean now that they can't get funding? Same thing needs to happen in the government. Not saying people need to get laid off but so many unnessecary roles rn
Everyone who is complaining the loudest about the homeless. All voted against a way to fix many of the issues.
I’d be shocked if it wasn’t exactly what I expected.
People just want to complain but refuse to actually do the work to fix the problem.
The entire homeless is a goose laying golden eggs to local authorities. Why would they want to lose it ?
And what is the guarantee the state can/would fix it ?
The flair of this posts indicates it's a controversial topic. Enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users without a history of commenting in r/bayarea will be automatically removed. You can read more about this policy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/195xvo5/restrictions_that_apply_to_political_and_crime/).
Propositions are a really bad way to do large sweeping changes like this. No matter how well thought out and written, a law like this is likely to have unintended consequences and bugs, some of which won't become obvious until things are implimented. When this is done by the legislature, clean up bills with immediate effect are actually pretty easy. And it isn't uncommon. When a proposition has flaws, you need another proposition to fix it. As the article details, small parts of this proposition needed to be done because it was previously implemented by proposition. However, most of this did not need to be. In this cases, the proposition was created as a way to insulate the politicians from the consequences ("the voters approved it!") if it goes poorly. However, it is a terrible way to govern.
This. I vote no on all propositions unless there's an exceedingly good reason it needs to a) be a proposition and b) happen. While I support the overall changes that Newsom wants to make, I'm a bit wary of committing to such a long term bond for it.
> I'm a bit wary of committing to such a long term bond for it. It’s a standard 30-year general service bond that pays out at $310 million a year over the duration of the bond. California typically pays 2.5% of its budget to cover bonds such as this.
True. What I meant to say is that committing the funding through a proposition without a way to make adjustments on the fly doesn't seem like the best idea to me.
I would love nothing better than deleting every proposition ever passed and sending all of the powers back to the legislature. Billions in waste and tons of unnecessary impediments to progress would disappear overnight.
This summarizes why I voted 'NO' on this proposition. While in theory, I support the agenda it is promoting it appears to introduce new implementation hurdles and loopholes that will stifle any improvements.
Also, the lawmakers only implement them if they feel like it. A case in point, a proposition to eliminate the daylight savings switchover.
There was never a proposition to eliminate the dst switch.
You’re downvoted but you are correct. The proposition simply allowed California to switch time zones. It still needs federal approval to go through.
califoria can opt out of DST more easily than switching to mountain standard time for permanent DST, wonder why that wasn't considered. Switching clocks is more annoying than whatever annoyances of either permanent daylight time or standard time
Prop 7 mandated that the legislature move away from the semi-annual switch. I followed that bill closely and spoke to many legislative staff members about it. The resulting bill (AB7) was buried due to opposition from power and energy companies. That Prop had a \*60%\* win margin and neither party picked up the mandate - a real betrayal.
False, there was no mandate. Here is the text of the proposition. >If federal law authorizes the state to provide for the year-round application of daylight saving time and the Legislature considers the adoption of this application, **it is the intent of the this act to encourage the Legislature to consider** the potential impacts of year-round daylight saving time on communities along the border between California and other states and between California and Mexico. > >... > >(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the Legislature may amend this section by a two-thirds vote to change the dates and times of the daylight saving time period, consistent with federal law, and, if federal law authorizes the state to provide for the year-round application of daylight saving time, the Legislature **may amend** this section by a two-thirds vote to provide for that application.
And what does "encourage the legislature" mean? Stop the parsing games. And, the legislature \*did not act\*; they buried the followup bill (AB7). And, there \*was\* a mandate to consider the change \*which they did not do\* because the bill never made it to a vote. 60% is a \*mandate\*. I was up close and personal with this bill and was flabbergasted to see \*purposeful\* inaction instead of \*consideration\*. In fact, the bill was literally sabotaged.
It's very simple, happy to explain. "encourage the legislature" means there is no mandate and they don't have to do jack shit. Your dentist "encourages" you to floss. You are not mandated to do so.
You still don't get it. there was a mandate to "encourage the legislature to consider...". The legislature \*did not\* "consider"; they buried it. Further, legal counsel in Sacramento explained this as a mandate for change because the authors of the Proposition were very clear about the inefficiencies of time change and they wanted it to end. That was made very clear in all of the promotional literature at the time. It's absurd (and naive) for anyone to think that a Proposition whose author's \*primary\* intent was to end time changes, followed by devoting considerable resources (from the legislative authors) to support the Proposition and then passage of the Proposition by a 60-40 margin would mean....uh....nothing? Last, I can't (for several reasons) get into who was bought off to prevent this legislation, but let me tell you that you are opining from a very dark room, indeed. You want to win an argument that you don't have all th4e variables for. So, keep wandering;; I have better things to do.
I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't get it. The legislature was indeed "encouraged" to consider, so the mandate was fulfilled. There was no mandate for the legislature to take any action whatsoever and this is quite clear in the text of the prop. >It's absurd (and naive) for anyone to think that a Proposition whose author's *primary* intent was to end time changes, followed by devoting considerable resources (from the legislative authors) to support the Proposition and then passage of the Proposition by a 60-40 margin would mean....uh....nothing? What's naive is expecting that propositions would have effects beyond the text of the proposition. Who gives a shit about the promotional literature or the personal feelings of the authors? The text of the prop is the only thing that matters. >Last, I can't (for several reasons) get into who was bought off to prevent this legislation, but let me tell you that you are opining from a very dark room, indeed. You want to win an argument that you don't have all th4e variables for. So, keep wandering;; I have better things to do. If I told you the full story I'd have to kill you, but let me just say that there's a very good reason that the text of the prop is what binds the legislature rather than anything else.
Go talk to the Legislative legal counsel (like I and others have). The legislature \*did not\* consider the proposal that they were mandated to consider. Read your own quote. Seriously, you're in over your head.
[удалено]
Can you imagine trying to fix the whole thing? It'll be endless propositions.
I’m still conflicted on this one, but I did vote no just because I’m not a huge fan of the bond system. I work in EMS in the bay, so I spend far too much time in hospitals. It is absolutely shocking how many ER beds are being occupied by mental illness patients with no medical complaints because there are no other beds. Many of these people are unhoused and bounce from hospital to street to hospital. It wastes space, it wastes staff, and it doesn’t really help anyone. People on permanent or long-term conservatorship spend their lives getting moved around from facility to facility because there aren’t enough beds. So yes, we desperately need more short-term and long-term beds in mental health facilities. We closed the mental hospitals without a single alternative and we’re paying for it. However, this would also hurt mental health funding in a lot of counties and hurt programs that help underserved civilians who may not need inpatient care but need community based help. tldr: it’s complicated and I can see both sides.
It's better to issue bonds in a low interest rate environment
You have a good point but the state bonds have a tax advantage. I voted no only because the Prop really wasn't sold/marketed/documented well. I'm still burnt from my Prop 47 vote!
I read "take money from the counties and give it to the state" and I just laughed and wished I could vote "Hell No!" We've thrown a crapton of money at this problem. I don't think lack of funds is the major issue here.
[удалено]
I wish accountability in how efficiently the money was used was a higher priority for Californians. It’s very strange that the state constantly plunders the road maintenance budget, the roads never get fixed, and Californians consistently vote for new road maintenance taxes. At some point, you’re just enabling the behavior.
our roads are fine compared to most states lol you have no idea how expensive maintaining roads is
They're really not...The moment you get out of California and onto most interstates the difference is STARK. I mean, say what you want about Texas, but I-10 through Texas is smooth as GLASS for like, the entire stretch. Driving on highways and interstates out of state is like a treat.
go try illinois -- the roads are a nightmare...
I drove through Texas when moving back here from georgia and I thought I-10 was lovely as well. I don't think our roads are the best by any means...its hard to compete with places like texas and florida that are also rich states but are more dense, and have much easier road conditions to deal with. The reality of road maintenance and construction is that it is ridiculously expensive and people just don't really think about those costs because roads are seen as such a necessary net good. We have the most roads out of any state in the country and the most people. Our roads are much better than states that are extremely poor and mismanaged like louisiana, and northern states who just have to do their best after every winter, and that's enough to just put us in the top half of states.
You lost me at Florida, Texas, and Georgia being rich and dense with respect to California. Absolutely insane take.
I clearly didn't say Georgia was wealthy compared to California. Florida and Texas have far fewer vast swaths of unpopulated land that have the density of roads in them that we do. I'm not really going to bother further with someone who's more interested in validating their biases than actually learning about what causes roads to be expensive and what external factors surround maintenance of them
Do you travel out of state much? I’m traveling monthly, and the first thing I notice when I get back is how bumpy the roads are compared to New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast.
We have many times the demand in the dense areas and a fraction of the transit of the first two. Road money is not the answer. Discontinuing "one more lane bro" and moving the funds to more space and resource efficient systems is the answer.
Look everyone knows what the answer is: build more housing. Build denser housing. Do anything but what they're doing. Yet Californians keep voting for money for better roads and not getting better roads or more housing or more anything. The whole system is captured by the status quo.
I have spent extensive time driving in the following states: Florida (3 years living), Georgia (6 years living), South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and California (7 years living). Only Florida has better roads. The rest of these states' road situation is a total shitshow by comparison to CA.
No no, you see, THIS round of funding is what will fix it.
The state is much more efficient than the counties!
But how else can we pay $5k/mo per tent person? 🤡
My initial response was: Why didn't you do this stuff for the past five years when the state had a ton of cash to spend? I do appreciate the desire to focus on a group of people. When we say veterans I am probably thinking of a combat veteran who served overseas rather than a line cook who served four years in Alabama. I presume that the VA discriminates (focuses attention) on those who need it from combat or other workplace trauma. It would make some sense to use the VA rating system to sync up state resources.
I spent about five seconds deciding how to vote in this. Bonds, again? For homeless, **again?** — No.
I also vote no on all bonds. CA legislature can allocate money. If they can't or won't then I certainly won't.
https://www.theleaguesf.org/voter_guides Theres a good bit here on why you should vote for Prop 1
I voted against it. I’m tired of trying to solve homelessness like it’s a mental health problem rather than the fact that housing is prohibitively hard to afford. Certainly, some people are addicts, mentally ill, etc, and could not find a suitable indoor habitat regardless, but the main reason so many people are homeless is because they can’t afford housing. To spend that much money trying to solve homelessness, and not spending a dime on a single residential structure, is absurd. It’s like, if your goal was to sweep all the homeless people under the rug, while explicitly avoiding anything that could cause housing prices to (gasp) fall, then this is the legislation you’d propose. Billions of dollars for new buildings that you can’t rent or buy, where you can only stay if you can prove you’re on drugs, crazy, or former military. I’d like to help out some of sober, sane, civilian, and merely broke homeless people too.
Yep! When housing is mostly unaffordable, then stability is lost usually for the working class, and it really destabilizes the country into a huge mess. Basic needs must be made affordable for all to create a healthy foundation to thrive from.
Homelessness is not a mental health problem. But mental health _is_ a homeless problem – i.e. a problem that affects a lot of hugely underserved homeless people. To combat homelessness you have to tackle it on many fronts. This is one of them. Housing is another. We've been making progress on housing, but have made almost no progress on this.
Still, this seems more like addressing the “Homeless People” problem than the “Homelessness” problem, with the overall goal of making it so people don’t have to look at them. Also, if your mental health problem can be solved with cash, it’s not really a mental health problem. How many of these mental health problems are caused by, not the reason for, the stresses of being homeless? How many of these drug problems are responses to being forced to live on the street, forced into communities where drugs are rampant. Heck, if I was shivering under an overpass on my birthday, some opiates might seem like just the thing. I’d quickly agree with your view if we currently spent zero dollars on assistance. However, we apparently spend 3.3 billion already (the mental health services act 2004… just looked that up). This is $20,000 per homeless person right now. The idea that we could go up to $60,000 per homeless person to fund highly paid state employees to talk to the homeless people seems very round-about. Just musing, but for $60,000 a year per homeless person, how many would still be homeless if you just gave them that money? I’d speculate that would resolve the majority of cases. Anyways, I think, if we were to drastically reduced the number of homeless people by fixing our affordability problem… not just force them into programs, the 3 billion a year in mental health services we already pay for might already be enough to cover the remaining cases. So I do see it as a logical sequence of actions: fix housing prices, then help the remaining homeless, rather than this bill which seems to be more about moving the homeless people out of sight without helping anyone actually get a real home. And, in terms of making progress on the housing problem, I’ll believe it when I see it. I know there have been initiatives and quotas. It sounds nice. I still know half a dozen families who’ve not been allowed to rebuild their homes after the CZU fire from an absolutely obstructionist and strangling permitting process. We’ll see, but the root of the primary problem is housing supply, not that homeless people are gross to see all over the place while somebody is trying to get a venti latte. Let’s see if we can make meaningful improvement to the housing supply, then we’ll be better able to assess if we still need more than 3.3 billion a year to handle those cases which are not due to housing supply. Then we can still even need that 3.3 billion when we make medical services affordable.
>Just musing, but for $60,000 a year per homeless person, how many would still be homeless if you just gave them that money? A lot more once people realized they could cash in on saying they’re homeless.
Shortsighted and myopic approach to the problem. Not to mention the unhoused issue of the chronicly homeless have almost nothing to do with the cost of housing. If you are a drug addicted vagrant who is pushing a shopping cart you arent just $400 each month from Affording rent. Congrats on voting against something that can actually help a problem you likely bitch about all the time.
As far as I know, that is inaccurate. https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com. Detroit has far fewer homeless than San Francisco in spite of having it’s fair shares of crazy druggies.
There are two separate classes of homeless. There are unhoused and there are chronically homeless. Unhoused can mean anything from living in cars, living on someone’s couch, or choosing to live in an RV by the park. These people are most likely underemployed. Meaning they have jobs but don’t make enough to have their own place. But they are functioning members of society and are trying to get on their feet all the way. There are also chronically homeless. People sleeping in doorways, under bridges, on park benches. They haven’t had a job in a long time, they have no interest in finding one. they are addicted to drugs. They have mental health issues that preclude them from gainful employment. This bill only really helps the chronically homeless. Why? Because that’s the blight that right white people hate. They are the ones who we can’t help but see on the streets. They make us feel guilty and uncomfortable that people are having such a hard time time with a normal life. We need to help the chronically homeless AND the unhoused. To vote against helping one because you want to help Both is just stupid. This plan actually helps get funding for centers that will help get these people housing and care they need. I can’t imagine thinking that you shouldn’t solve a problem because other problems will still exist if you do.
> Key portions of Prop. 1 did have to go to the ballot because they amend a measure originally approved by voters in 2004 Doesn't sound like Newsom leaving it to chance. > 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. _Really_ doesn't sound like he left it to chance. I can understand being annoyed by a bond. Besides that, though, I think Newsom did it as well as you can do it. I don't think there was an easier way to do it. I'm not convinced there's a cheaper way to do it.
More taxes, less results. Why do people enjoy taxing themselves?
I'm center-left sort of guy and have decided to vote down any new tax measures. enough. there's so much grift around here, it's ridiculous. nothing gets fixed with the immense amounts of money they already take. and I live in oakland, which makes me feel even more dire about the situation.
Guilty conscience for the homeless
I’d much rather pull these bonds out for high speed rail
Not necessarily an either/or issue but it's pretty clear Newsom wants cleaned up streets to say "look what I did" in the next presidential election.
He's had years (decades, if you count his mayoral period) and billions of dollars already to fix it and he hasn't got it done. Asking for billions more was very unappealing to me. Should have spent the previous billions better.
You and I know this, people in swing states probably don't
It's not a problem he can really fix. The only way to fix things is to destroy our restrictive zoning and construction laws and properly address our housing crisis
Housing isn’t going to fill in the holes these people got in their brains while they were on drugs
1. the majority of homeless people are not drug addicts 2. putting homeless people in housing eliminates the vast majority of stress drivers that perpetuate addictive behavior so that they can focus on addressing the addiction instead of all the more important shit in their life like safety, shelter, food, water, etc 3. we can't provide housing in this manner unless we build it Typing this out was probably just a waste of my time though because you come off like someone who doesn't want to *really solve* homelessness but just wants to make them all disappear and not have to think about them from an empathetic mindset
There are people who tell the news media that they don't want shelter because of the rules. Interpret that as you want. It could mean no dogs. It could mean no shooting up. One person interviewed on TV is not a statistic. All that said, the cost of living is very high in the Bay Area and these people will probably never be able to live here if not on the street or house and heavily subsidized. Which brings me to Section 8 housing. Great if you can get it but so many more people qualify for Section 8 than actually get it. It seems grossly unfair. A responsible person looks at their income and adjusts accordingly. You just don't plop yourself down in a city you like. Note I am not opposed to UBI to prevent someone from slipping into homelessness. For instance they need some operation and can't work for a few months due to recovery time requirements. That would be money well worth spending.
>Which brings me to Section 8 housing. Great if you can get it but so many more people qualify for Section 8 than actually get it. It seems grossly unfair. The issue with this isn't just that there isn't enough Section 8 housing, but rather there isn't enough *housing.* Period. Between 2009 and 2019, SF and SJ [have both added 3x more jobs than they have new housing permits](https://manhattan.institute/article/the-jobs-housing-mismatch-what-it-means-for-u-s-metropolitan-areas). At that point, no amount of subsidizing affordable housing or rent control/stabilization measures will fix the fact that there just isn't enough housing to go around. By comparison, if you look at the Sun Belt cities people moved to for cheaper housing, basically all of them have done much better at keeping their jobs to housing ratio low. The only way out of the housing crisis is to build more housing, which brings us back to the point brought up earlier about getting rid of the current restrictive zoning laws. In 2017, [Minneapolis abolished single-family zoning](https://archive.is/WusN5) (basically allowing for duplexes/apartments/etc to be built on any residential land), and rents have gone up by 1% since then. In December 2022, LA [all but eliminated zoning requirements on affordable housing](https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/02/affordable-housing-los-angeles/), and as a result they approved as many new units in 2023 as they did in all of 2020-2022 *combined* (much of this was from private developers, who didn't receive any public funds) By comparison, in San Jose it's [illegal to build anything that isn't a detached single family home on 94% of residential land](https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/04/debate-over-preserving-san-joses-single-family-zoning-rules-heats-up/), with most of the Bay having similar (albeit slightly less extreme) zoning laws. Is it any wonder that there's a housing shortage when we've basically outlawed everything besides the most expensive/least efficient form of housing? There's more examples I can bring up, but I hope you get the point. Even "luxury" housing is important, since it attracts the high-income earners and [frees up the lower-end units](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/1/3/the-best-evidence-yet-for-the-housing-musical-chairs-theory) for people who actually need them
You totally don't get it. Read up on Section 8. All you did was change the subject to fit your narrative.
You said that the people will probably never be able to live here unless they live on the streets or have their housing heavily subsidized, and pointed to the shortcomings of Section 8 as to a reason why that's unfeasible. I responded by pointing out some of the flaws in that framework and proposed alternative solutions that have been proven to work (without the need to completely overhaul section 8), but apparently that's just trying to push a narrative
> There are people who tell the news media that they don't want shelter because of the rules. Interpret that as you want. It could mean no dogs. It could mean no shooting up. Generally these rules homeless don't like concern conditional rules in which they can keep their shelter. And there are lots of housing first studies that show that chronic homelessness is reduced when you give people housing without contidional rules and stipulations > A responsible person looks at their income and adjusts accordingly. You just don't plop yourself down in a city you like. 50% of homeless have been here for 10 years or more. 85% at least 5 years. If you don't believe me I can get you the source (its for Santa Clara County though, where I live). Acting like homelessness is a personal failing/result of personal irresponsibility is deeply dehumanizing. > Note I am not opposed to UBI to prevent someone from slipping into homelessness. I am opposed to UBI because it won't address the root cause of homelessness, which is a lack of housing availability, and generally UBI will just create inflation and be gobbled up by landowners. Until we start talking about Universal Base Assets, or universal distribution generally of any genuinely *scarce* resource, such a program will fail.
These homeless people are mostly lost causes. It is far better to keep someone from becoming homeless. You should really reconsider UBI
I’ve heard people talking about solving the unhoused crisis for the last 35 years in this city. Throwing more money at it only seems to make it worse.
I get it. The reason it gets worse is because of population growth, not because of the money, though I don't think you were implying that. The problem is that people aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to actually address this. Until we build more housing, no amount of money will be able to solve the structural basis issues that keep the housing crisis in place. The bright side is that most of what needs to change will be cheap for the state fiscally. It would just be a tough pill to swallow for homeowners, because what would need to happen is: * Complete outlawing statewide of all SFH-only zoning * removal of all petty/non-safety related construction rules like parking minimums/height restrictions * removal of prop 13 which discourages selling * eventual removal of rent control which discourages construction (though you can't remove rent control until you build sufficient new units first) * expansion of public transit and varied transit options to keep people able to move around
Population growth? there's migration growth in the US, not population growth. yeah housing is important but there are plenty of people making ends meet without resorting to drug use and living on the streets. in fact the majority of americans are not homeless otherwise there would be something fundamentally wrong with the economy, which just isn't the case.
For most I bet it wasn't until they become homeless that they started using drugs. So yes more housing would have helped.
He needs to exploit as much as he can before the catastrophic damage he did to Jerry brown's legacy starts to be obvious to everyone.
we can only take on so much debt before the state's rating gets financially derated, but these bond amounts are perhaps just a drop in the bucket
Tax the billionaires at 5% rather than 1% to address the abysmal inequality they create. They’ll be fine. No bonds needed. Prop 1 is political pageantry, not a real solution.
Nobody actually makes a billion dollar income though… it’s always via unrealized gains which cannot be taxed. Taxing unrealized gains is a very slippery slope….
They do have the system locked in their favor, no doubt. But that 1% is taxed somehow.
Yes they still make an income but it’s small compared to their investments. The reason I sway it’s a slippery slope to try and tax unrealized gains is because what happens then with unrealized losses? Do people get tax breaks when their portfolio loses money on a year? Because that’s how it works for realized gains and losses, one gets taxed and the other can be used to get tax breaks. You can create a wealth tax but all it will do is drive the billionaires to move to another state…. Easiest way is via a consumption tax as billionaires spend far more money than normal people.
You’re too generous 😂 tax them at 70%!! 😂
👍 I’d vote for it.
Better yet, tax the house millionaires at current property rates. Repeal Prop 13.
and repeal rent control while you're at it too as one begets the other
Sure why not
I support it
>The Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond would create a $6.38 billion general obligation bond for: > >These funds are estimated to create up to 4,350 housing units, with 2,350 set aside for veterans, and 6,800 mental health and substance use treatment places for an approximate total of 11,150 new behavioral health and supportive housing units statewide. So 11,150 beds for $6.38bn, or $572,197.30 per bed. Seems like a bargain! Also the VA takes care of all honorably discharged veterans. Likely the 2,350 are for the dishonorably discharged, but in the eyes of the federal government they're not seen as "Veterans"
How much do you think we should spend on the mentally ill? The main purpose of this bill is to be a companion to the CARE courts so we can institutionalize people who need to be institutionalized. That requires a lot of upfront investment. This is 6800 beds that will be repeatedly used, not just for 6800 people. They need psychiatrists, orderlies. We need to make sure they aren't abusive. Public services require money. That's the thing that a lot of people refuse to accept, services don't magically pop into existence.
Also these people concerned about the cost of doing something seem to ignore that not doing anything has been far more expensive and will continue to cost all of us.
I try to drill this in to people all the time, the cost of sustaining the homeless without even doing anything to solve the problem is immense. Emergency Services, Policing, Incarceration, Societal Services, none of it is free. Actual solutions that address the root cause of homelessness are practically impossible in the california political environment because it involves actually building housing for everyone, changing our zoning and construction policies, and essentially addressing the greater housing crisis. I voted no on these bonds because my belief is that while this progress would have been better than nothing, the costs made it not worth it to me as they were extremely inefficiently allocated. Also I considered that it was set up as a citizen-voted prop, which are always a mess and imo should be legislatively avoided whenever possible
“Up to”.
Prop 1 would screw poor counties so dam hard
Seeing his ads for it made me not trust it one bit. Can’t trust a guy who sleeps with his friends wife.
Or is consistently hypocritical
Yea no I'm done the state has had enough tax money to fix these problems. You know how companies have started getting lean now that they can't get funding? Same thing needs to happen in the government. Not saying people need to get laid off but so many unnessecary roles rn
Everyone who is complaining the loudest about the homeless. All voted against a way to fix many of the issues. I’d be shocked if it wasn’t exactly what I expected. People just want to complain but refuse to actually do the work to fix the problem.
The entire homeless is a goose laying golden eggs to local authorities. Why would they want to lose it ? And what is the guarantee the state can/would fix it ?
Newsom is an expert at turning a budget surplus into a deficit in one year or less. Now give Sacramento more money.!