Legaspi 1

Myra Legaspi

Period 1

Ms. Roque

November 26, 2018

Proposition 2 is Terrible Regarding Housing the Mentally Ill Homeless

Today in America, a fifth of the 1.7 million homeless population suffer from untreated mental

disorders and medical conditions such as schizophrenia, and alcoholism. According to Mayo

Clinic, “treatment with medications and physiological therapy can help manage [any] condition.”

As a result, treatments, local mental health institutes, and rehabs are more beneficial for patients

experiencing traumatic conditions, and should remain the main source of proper care in order to

successfully assist homeless suffering from common mental illness or general medical

conditions. California’s major homeless and mental illness crisis led the States to find a solution

resulting in constructing a plan to build houses in unsystematic locations for those who suffer

from a mental disorder. Voter disapproval on Proposition 2 means a more effective approach

such as, Proposition 63, also known as the Mental Health Services Act, which will continue to

only fund and promote for better treatments, foster care, etc. for homeless or low-income

families. Voter approval on Proposition 2 authorizes the States to transfer up to $140 million

dollars from Proposition 63’s treatment and housing funds, and spends that money on housing

projects be spent on administrative expenses which will eventually be given to housing

bureaucrats. Proposition 63 successfully funded for fourteen years to provide mentally ill
 Legaspi 2

homeless with better services, treatments, homes and affordable rent. Proposition 63’s main

objective is to mainly support local mental health programs. Therefore proposition 2’s plan on

assisting homeless by building new homes is unnecessary, considering the fact that housing and

affordable rental options have been available since 2004 through proposition 63, building homes

that provide patients with hospital services is extremely costly, and running mental institutes

without any barriers would be unsafe for communities.

To begin with, communities oppose the idea of placing mentally ill homeless in their

neighborhood as it raises safety concerns. Finding a location where this idea would be supported

by all residents is difficult since residents try their very best to keep mentally ill homeless out of

their neighborhoods. In the article, “Madness in the Streets: Mental Illness, Homelessness, and

Criminal Behavior” the author states that “66% of homeless have problems with alcohol, drug

abuse, or mental illness.” Those suffering from mental illness need to be placed in mental

hospitals rather than allowing them to be unsupervised in their own home. Drug and alcohol

abusers need to be placed in rehab or affordable treatment programs rather than giving them too

much freedom. Many of these people don’t have access to supportive housing options, so some

decide to turn to a crime where they’d be able to have access to shelter, and treatments. Studies

reveal that most people living with mental illness, and substance abusers are usually unaware of

their actions, hence undesirable measures putting residents in harm's way. Leaders from the

National Alliance on Mental Illness argue that it’s wasteful to fund money for building homes,

and not being able to spend that money due to the lack of support from residents. Residents will

feel unsafe in their own homes because proposition 2 is not “addressing systemic legal barriers.”

(Madison, Crowder, and Dunn) Mental illness institutes and rehab locations should be isolated

and guarded so people can feel safe in their own homes. As Proposition 2 goes into effect not
 Legaspi 3

only do States have to worry about the safety of communities, and finding a safe location for

these institutes to be placed in but destroying proposition 63’s work on treatment funds.

Neighborhoods also fear that these people will take advantage rent free shelter. As a result, the

“magnet effect’ will occur, and houses will eventually because heavily populated. People will be

back to living on the sidewalks, and communities know it’s essential to keep their neighborhoods

clean and safe.

In addition, treatments and housing are the main factors for recovery. Proposition 63,

also called The Mental Health Services Act has successfully funded for fourteen years to provide

housing and affordable rent options by creating the “pay as you go” system. Proposition 63’s

clients have the option to pay in payments to cover building home costs, and paying rent. This

act also promotes foster health, advocates for better treatments, develop workplaces with

diversity, and finds new ways to aid those of low income or completely homeless. Proposition

63’s primary goal is to aid children and prevent homelessness. They plan to accomplish this goal

by checking up on advancements within local health programs. Proposition 63’s funds come

from high income residents, and they’ve funded to collect and purchase a sufficient amount of

medicine for their clients. In the article, “Vote no on Prop. 2. Don’t divert mental health funds”

by Catherine Lauren Rettagliata, she states that, “ Prop. 2 is a misuse of funds, an unnecessary

giveaway to investors and bureaucrats, that further reduces access and quality of treatment for

people with severe mental illnesses.” Investors and bureaucrats are demanding for a large

amount of money which will come from Proposition 63’s funds as administrative expenses

instead of going into the actual housing project. Proposition 63 has reserved their money so it

could go directly into The Mental Health Services Act, but as Proposition 2 continues to go into

effect, this money will be taken away in order to fund for the No Place Like Home act, spend on
 Legaspi 4

the new housing project, and to pay people who work on and for the housing situation. Instead of

investing money into treatments, this proposition will waste money on “$2 billion in housing

bonds and fees to financial institutes for marketing, selling, delivering, and then redeeming the

bonds.” (Rettagliata) Meaning that your loved ones who are currently getting help from local

health services will have to suffer more because they’re receiving mediocre care and treatments

due to finance shortage. Once treatment funds began to decrease, people will lose easy access to

affordable treatments meaning people will become sicker, and it can result in people from losing

their homes. The Mental Health Services Act has made progress, and decreased the

homelessness rate. This new No Place Like Home program can negatively impact the

advancements Mental Health Services Act has been and may increase homelessness percentage.

According to the Mental Illness Policy Org, the author states that “$9 million is going to

organizations working prevent the seriously ill from receiving treatment until after they become

violent.” The Mental Health Services Act not only funds but is willing to give money to

organizations that are focusing on similar goals so their own.

As previously stated, billions of dollars will be spent in order to begin the project and to

be able to continue funding to build homes for mentally ill homeless. The total cost will

accumulate to 5.6 billion dollars, which consists of revenue bonds, and the 40 years needed in

order to completely reimburse proposition 63’s funds. Those 5.6 billion dollars will come from

Proposition 63’s treatment profit. Proposition 2 requires $2 billion dollars annually to raise for

housing projects. After dedicating fourteen years to only funding for treatments and affordable

rent, it will be handed to Proposition 2 to build unnecessary houses. In the Official Voter

Information Guide, reported by leaders from the National Alliance on Mental Illness, state that

“It won’t all go to housing because housing bureaucrats have already guaranteed themselves
 Legaspi 5

$100 million.” Housing bureaucrats are demanding their total earnings to be $140 million each

year to pay for administrative expenses. Business operations include administrative expenses

such as insurance, utilities, office supplies, and in this case, hospital, and security services. At

this rate, mentally ill homeless will have no treatments or housing due to the lack of funds in

both The Mental Health Services Act and No Place Like Home program. Housing bureaucrats

will benefit most from this proposition because they will have access to all money funds from

The Mental Health Services Act which has devoted years to fund and help homeless, and now

homeless will be left with minimal to no support. Funds for the housing projects will be removed

from proposition 63 revenue, meaning “less money would be available for county mental health

services.” (Voter’s Edge California) Patients will suffer because they’ll be receiving lousy

hospital services, and poor quality treatments. Proposition 63 can only give up limited amounts

of funds so that Proposition 2 can successfully run those housing projects. The Mental Health

Services Act has been constantly worked for fourteen years to gain earnings, and still the

homelessness issue has still not been solved.

Some might believe that proposition 2 will reduce the horrific rates of homelessness and

mental illness. It cannot be denied that housing is one of the main factors to help homeless

suffering from mental illness. However, Proposition 2 can actually increase the rates of

homelessness because housing bureaucrats will benefit most by receiving proposition 63’s funds

which should be given to the housing projects and treatments. Treatment prices will also

increase, and it wouldn’t be accessible to those in need. Many people will become sicker and

neglected, this can be another reason as to why homelessness rates are increasing. Our loved

ones and those in need will suffer more because they’ll be receiving mediocre treatments and

hospital services. Therefore, treatment services should remain the only and main source of
 Legaspi 6

support. Proposition 2 will provide shelter specifically for those in need, but what about

everyone else? Our loved ones and those already paying for health care in local hospitals will

suffer the consequences. Medicine treatments and physiological therapy are desperately needed,

and it would be quite ridiculous to remove the fund money that goes into necessities to aid

people. Despite the fact that communities will have to live in fear because of the minimal

protection in those mental institutes, they have one benefit; no cost to taxpayers. More

specifically low income taxpayers, States are claiming to only be using residents of high income

tax to fund Proposition 63. However, there is no guarantee that only high income citizens are

taxed. Since the money will only be taken away from proposition 63, communities do not have

to pay for the housing projects, however, financial support is still needed because of operating

subsidies. Operating subsidies are payments from the Government on behalf of the community.

In conclusion, Proposition 2 seems to be benefiting everyone except the ones who are in

need. First of all, residents will be put in danger because proposition 2 has not included

protection such as guards or barriers in their housing project idea. More than half of the homeless

population has been placed in jail due to committing crimes. This raises concerns because

they’re capable of causing more danger to neighborhoods. Secondly, there’s no use in taking

funded money from another programs and do the exact opposite of their main mission.

Proposition 63 is mainly focused on funding for treatments, and affordable rent while

Proposition 2 is mainly focused on building homes. Lastly, States are completely disregarding

the fact that Proposition 63 has been years trying to gather enough money to assist homeless.

Proposition 2 would be completely taking away their funds, and the chance for mentally ill to
 Legaspi 7

recover. Local health programs will have to settle with what they have instead of looking for

ways to further advancements in medicine.

Works Cited

“Proposition 2.” Home, 7 Nov. 2018, www.californiachoices.org/prop-2. 26 Nov. 2018

Boyd-Barrett, Claudia. “In LA County, Mental Health Tax Money Is Making a Difference.”

California Health Report, California Health Report, 29 Mar. 2018,

www.calhealthreport.org/2018/03/29/la-county-mental-health-tax-money-making-

difference/. 26 Nov. 2018

“Online Only: Report Finds Most U.S. Inmates Suffer from Substance Abuse or Addiction.”
 Legaspi 8

The Nation's Health, American Public Health Association, 1 Apr. 2010,

thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/40/3/E11. 26 Nov. 2018

Rettagliata, Catherine. “Vote No on Prop. 2. Don't Divert Mental Health Funds.” San

Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, 7 Oct. 2018,

www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Vote-no-on-Prop-2-Don-t-divert-

mental-health-13287837.php. 26 Nov. 2018

“Schizophrenia.” Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 10 Apr.

2018, www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizophrenia/diagnosis-treatment/drc-

20354449. 26. Nov. 2018

“Voters Guide.” U.S. Senate Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide |

California Secretary of State, www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/2/arguments-

rebuttals.htm. 26 Nov. 2018

“Housing.” Mental Health America, 17 Oct. 2016,

www.mentalhealthamerica.net/housing.
“NAMI.” NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness, www.nami.org/Learn-
More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Related-Conditions/Anosognosia. 26 Nov. 2018
Staff, Investopedia. “Administrative Expenses.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 19 Oct.
2018, www.investopedia.com/terms/a/administrative-expenses.asp. 26 Nov. 2018
Legaspi 9