Does this site look plain?

This site uses advanced css techniques

Primary Election, Tuesday, 5 March 2024

Each election I research and analyze the propositions on the California ballot to create this voting guide, and they represent nothing other than my own personal view of these measures. I do this analysis on a non-partisan basis, but that doesn't mean I have no opinion. I do, but I believe it's transparent (note that transparency means only that I claim no hidden agenda, not that I'm trying to be unbiased).

I generally have no connection with any group supporting or opposing any of these propositions.

My main intent is to get to the bottom of these issues, knowing that the real purpose is not always evident. Once uncovered, I apply a mainly libertarian eye to them.

I'm more interested in examining the issues thoughtfully than I am in getting you to vote the way I do, so I hope these pages help you understand the issues in front of us.

Educated votes are better votes.

I hope my thoughts are helpful.

Other resources:

Important Note: if you are tempted to say "The hell with it" and just vote "no" on all of them, please do not. An uninformed vote, even a no, may have an unintended consequence that you don't want.

Either educate yourself on the measure, or leave that spot blank. Really. This matters.

Summary of positions

Click each link for the rationale for each position.

Proposition Source Result My Position Description / Title
California icon Prop 1 Legislature Yes 50.8% No Mental Health; Bonds

California icon Prop 1: Mental Health / Homelessness bonds

This measure means to increase support for mental health and homelessness, and allocates around $6B in bonds to pay for it. It amends the Mental Health Services Act passed as Prop 63 in 2004 to change the allocation of these funds somewhat.

It's clear to me that the problem of homelessness has little to do with housing and everything to do with mental health and drug addiction, especially given the dramatic rise of fentanyl on the streets. One can't see tent cities strewn with used needles and strung out people to think this could all (or mostly) be solved with "affordable housing".

But one also can't help but take notice of the tens of billions of dollars spent by the state on homelessness, with little to show for it. These programs, with presumably noble goals, usually get hung up in red tape and local graft, where local and vocal homeless advocacy groups get funding, but little actually gets done.

It doesn't take too many reports of $100M in spending for this or that homeless program that ultimately helps 150 people to realize that the government is not very good at spending money on homelessness.

Supporters of these programs claim that homelessness would be worse without these programs. Ok then.

My knee-jerk reaction to bond spending is to vote no, especially given California's budget deficit of $73B after the orgy of spending during the COVID pandemic, but this is a real-deal problem, so I wanted to give it real consideration.

Ultimately I decided against it.

The current Mental Health Services Act is funded by a tax on the wealthiest in the state, with 95% going to the local counties and 5% to the state, but this measure would change that mix to 90/10%.

My strong preference is to keep spending decisions as local as possible, because you have some hope of influencing how your local officials spend your money, but almost none at the state level. Local control is better.

Nevertheless, the relatively small 5% shift seems modest enough not to warrant much concern, though I do note that opponents of this measure are hysterical about this "drastic cut in local funds", making it hard to take them seriously on other points.

The other portion of this measure issues bonds (i.e., borrows money) for mental health and homelessness programs, with some portion earmarked for services to veterans.

The $2B for housing seems particularly ill-spent, because twice that amount has already been spent with little to show for it, so borrowing money to go into that rabbit hole seems like a bad idea.

I believe we should be spending more on mental health services, but we should not be borrowing money to do so, and it pains me to say no to this measure.

I will make my usual snarky note that when supporters of bond measures claim, as this measure's supporters do, that it will not raise taxes, this is simply disingenuous. At last this time it's not IN ALL CAPS.

My Vote: No

Those discovering bad/missing links, typos, or even errors in judgment are encouraged to report them to me: steve at unixwiz.net

Last updated: Sun Mar 3 14:17:39 UTC 2024