Leading up to the March 5 primary, Gov. Gavin Newsom appealed to voters by insisting that Proposition 1 is a just reward for veterans, who “have given everything for our freedom often at extraordinary cost to themselves.” It’s not an unpersuasive argument. It was, however, a cheap, emotional ploy.
The vote for Prop 1, which would fund mental health programs and housing for the homeless, was close. It was approved by a thin 50.2%-49.8% margin, a gap of fewer than 30,000 votes. It is the fifth time since 2000 that California voters have approved a bond measure funding housing and homelessness programs for veterans.
The previous four measures issued a total of $6 billion in bonds. Prop 1 alone would issue $6.38 billion: a little more than $1 billion to be used for permanent housing for homeless veterans with mental health or substance abuse disorders; $922 million for permanent housing for those experiencing or are at risk of homelessness with behavioral health needs; and $4.393 billion for grants for behavioral health treatment and housing.
Wayne Winegarden
| Pacific Research Institute
Despite a record of generous spending, homelessness in California has continued to grow. The homeless population exceeded 181,000 last year (an increase of 5.5% over 2022’s 171,521). More than a quarter – 28% – of the country’s homeless call California “home,” though the state accounts for a mere 12% of the population. Even worse, 30% of all homeless veterans are located in California.
To be fair, the state has reduced homelessness among veterans. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that the population has fallen by nearly 7,400 since 2009, down to 10,589 last year.
Was yet another bond issue of several billion dollars necessary to reduce the number even further?
We’d argue that it’s not – and nearly half of California voters apparently agree.
Now that the voters have spoken, what’s next following the agonizingly close vote on Prop. 1? Unfortunately, the answer is more of the same – billions more in government spending that won’t do much to alleviate homelessness.
Let’s start with the fungibility of money. Sacramento is likely going to spend roughly $112 billion on health and human services in the 2024-2045 budget. And those are only state funds. Add federal aid, and the sum is a staggering $252.46 billion. No other agency will have such a rich vein of cash to tap into. Is it not possible to find $6 billion in these poorly allocated funds that can be better used for homelessness and veterans care?
Put another way, Prop 1’s approval means that the worst, most wasteful state spending will continue regardless of program or agency. By creating a separate funding stream through a bond issue, there is no reason to root out expenditures that are of no use and in many cases counterproductive.
Then there is the spending's efficacy, or lack thereof. As previously mentioned, despite spending tens of billions of dollars on homeless programs since 2014, the number of homeless continues to rise each year. The consequences are ubiquitous. This continual worsening of the problem highlights the uncomfortable reality that California's approach to addressing the homeless crisis is ineffective. Throwing more money at ineffective programs is unlikely to achieve the desired results.
Following the lead of the Obama Administration, California subscribes to the Housing First approach to ending homelessness. As we have argued previously, providing homeless persons a permanent home is a costly and inept proposition for helping those struggling with addiction and mental health problems. Instead, policies need to prioritize treatment and life skills first. Of particular importance, the state should leverage the innovative thinking of private charities and organizations that are demonstrating greater competency in helping the homeless.
Prop 1 does not alter the state's approach to the problem. It literally throws more money at it under the apparent belief that, despite spending tens of billions of dollars already, all that was needed was an additional $6 billion. As the old adage would argue, this is hardly a sane approach to the crisis.
More and more Californians are expressing their frustration with the state's reckless policies by voting with their feet. Unlike the governor's attempts to distract voters from the impacts of Prop 1, those Californians leaving the state know what they are voting for -- competent state and local governance that offer residents an affordable and higher quality of life.
Kerry Jackson is the William Clement Fellow in California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute. Wayne Winegarden is a PRI senior fellow in business and economics.