The homeless/houseless numbers in California are staggering and it is overwhelming communities urban and rural as people live and die miserably in numbers unseen in this country since the depression. Much of it began in the aftermath of the Vietnam War as the Veterans Administration failed tens of thousands of veterans. Endless wars since have exacerbated the problem as have the epidemics of crack and fentanyl as well as the endless epidemic of alcoholism. Everyone acknowledges that we have a failed mental health system, even conservatives when they want to deflect discussion of gun regulation following our endless mass shootings.

We have a mental health crisis as well as a substance abuse crisis all wrapped into the changing of economic structures which has generated the permanent underclass since the 1980s as the middle class continues to erode into politics of anger and grievance.

There is no real national discussion of the issue except to blame opposing politics. It is a nationwide problem as many of the homeless in California have come from other states with less survivable weather; more hostility towards the poor, or lack of services.

The state is experiencing collective burnout as many individuals and communities who were once empathetic are becoming more numb or more agitated to the poverty they drive and walk by. It is overwhelming.

Until the federal government takes up the issue of street poverty in a comprehensive and regional way, the states are on their own and California is uniquely impacted because we have more survivable weather; more generosity for panhandling, and more relief services public and private. But we cannot seem to even mitigate the crisis as it facilitates crime and is damaging economies even more.

There is no single policy which will solve houselessness and all of the associated problems. But as a former prosecutor once told me, “we need to address the elements of crime and poverty on a medical basis.”

California has spent tens of millions trying to address the problems, but there has been little by the way of comprehensive policy and it is not clear how the money, much of it, has been spent in the localities to which it has been distributed. While I agree that there should not be a singular one size fits all program that does not address the particular needs of communities, simply sending money to local agencies has not worked. We need a comprehensive policy.

I was at the Democratic Party Nominating Convention this last fall where the Proposition 1 was proposed for nomination (it was so granted) by a representative of the firefighters and first responders associations which are apparently very optimistic about the initiative’s approaches. The testimony included stories of crisis encounters where the responders recognized the need for residential treatment, but ran into the inability to refer anyone for lack of facilities.

Proposition 1, the “Treatment not Tents” initiative, will restructure the mental health system by expanding the concept to “behavioral health” and incorporate substance abuse given that there is huge overlap the needs between the two issues. It will require that 30 percent of the Behavioral Health Department spending (from the 1 percent tax of people earning over a million annually) be used for housing intervention programs. It will nearly double the size of the oversight committee. And mostly it will issue 6.8 million dollars in bonds, about two-thirds of which will be dedicated to the construction of residential facilities for mental health and addiction treatment while the other third is dedicated to housing for those living on the street.

This will lead to a bit of centralization of the organizing around these issues and it will draw money from some existing programs, some of which are working, and some of which are apparently a waste of money. But this doesn’t mean that the legislature can’t be pressured to fund the working programs. It strictly pertains to the Proposition 63 money (the above-described tax passed by voters in 2004). It does not pertain to the general fund.

There are civil libertarian concerns that the allocation of some of the money to facilities for treatment of the involuntarily committed will lead to more court decisions depriving people of freedom. However, Proposition 1 does nothing to change the criteria for involuntary commitment, which will remain a question of whether individuals are proven to be danger to themselves or others. It may be that some judges will be more likely to issue such orders if they know there are more facilities available, but that is an argument for more precise guidelines, not whether the facilities are needed.

Most of the rest of the opposition comes from the usual tax posses complaining about the money. It is not free. The state will be paying off the bonds for some years. But that is how stuff gets built. We expend the money and then we have the infrastructure. That’s how we build schools, firehouses, parks, police stations, etc.

The official ballot opposition tries to make an argument that fits all, and so contradicts itself from one paragraph to the next. In one paragraph it points to the ineffectiveness of the current programs.

“The State has failed at reducing California’s homelessness problem. Sacramento has already thrown $20 billion at the crisis in the last five years without making significant progress. The number of unhoused people increased 6% last year. The State Auditor’s Office is still trying to find where the billions went. We will indeed have more tents in our neighborhoods and fewer people in treatment if Prop. 1 passes. If the state wants a grand solution for homelessness, it should attack the heart of the problem through the regular budget process—not expensive bond measures that RAISE TAXPAYER COSTS LONG-TERM. Californians are already some of the most over-taxed people in the country.” (emphasis added)

And then in the next paragraph it states opposition based upon the fact that these very same ineffective programs may be defunded.

“PROP. 1 CUTS SERVICES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL. In 2004, the voters passed Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which dedicated funds for community-based mental health services. Prop. 1 STEALS AWAY almost 1/3 of that guaranteed annual funding from the “millionaire’s tax” leaving already underfunded programs to fight for the remaining money. That’s why CalVoices, California’s oldest mental health advocacy agency, opposes it.”

But obviously these programs aren’t working, so which is it?

Proposition 1 attempts to incorporate some of the European models – countries which are facing similar economic challenges, but which do not suffer the same degree of houselessness (probably also because they tend to fight fewer wars and because they take a more holistic approach to drug regulation).

It’s not going to solve the problem of street poverty, but it may mitigate it significantly. In any case, nothing else is working. And it’s not just theory. Similar approaches have worked in other countries. Let’s give it a try.