California has long been known as a "compassionate state". But despite progressive Democrats completely controlling the state government, the homelessness problems are getting so bed that there is a push by Governor Gavin Newsom to start clamping down and get tough on the homeless problem. So far this has mostly not resulted in any consistent change in enforcement, but rather passing new laws -- laws that will allow government officials to do things without making it explicitly obvious that it will change things that way. It typical progressive fashion, that is so they can pass laws and make them sound good rather than bad. I previously posted another thread about this issue, which I titled (and I still believe correctly) "California passes law allowing homeless with mental illness to be harassed and imprisoned". A moderator in this forum apparently believed that title did not fit the story or the news article, or was not accurate, so changed the title to a much more innocuous sounding "Why housing advocates oppose a new California law designed to help the homeless". Though I really believe that ignores and glosses over the whole main problematic issue I was trying to point out. Why housing advocates oppose a new California law designed to help the homeless (in Civil Liberties section, Sept 18, 2022) Well, it now seems The Guardian has issued a news article that agrees with me. The Guardian is a very well-respected newspaper. Here are a few excerpts and simplified summary from that article: California wants to force people into mental health care. Advocates say it will backfire California's Proposition 1 - the only statewide measure on the ballot - would significantly restructure California's mental health system. It is also one of the most complex and convoluted measures voters have had to decide on in recent years. The full text of the state's 112-page proposition takes up 68 pages. The measure has two parts. First, it would raise $6.4 billion over 20 years to build more housing and treatment facilities for people with mental health and substance use disorders. (with about a third going towards housing assistance and another third going towards treatment) Disability rights activists, mental health advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the law, saying that it would take money away from community-based preventative mental health programs to finance locked-door psychiatric institutions and involuntary treatment. "It's good politics, as Newsom positions himself to run for president in 2028," said Samuel Jain, a senior policy attorney for Disability Rights California. "It's not good policy." The bond measure was not controversial until late last year, when last-minute amendments to the bill placing it on the ballot stripped language preventing the funds from being used on involuntary confinements. The changes came hours before it was too late to change the legislation, said Jain, who added: "It came as a really big surprise." The result, Jain said, is a hefty, opaque ballot measure that lumps housing for veterans and unhoused people and treatment programs for people with severe mental illness and substance use disorders alongside funding for programs that could facilitate coerced institutionalization. Critics have also pointed out that the $6.4 billion bond would only fund about 4,350 new homes for people, according to the state legislative analyst’s office - which is hardly enough to shelter California’s estimated 180,000 unhoused people. And of course the state doesn't have the money to be paying for this. They would be borrowing money by issuing bonds. The governor's other landmark mental health reforms include the Care court program, which will empower families, healthcare providers and outreach workers to ask state courts to compel people with certain severe mental disorders into treatment programs designated by local governments, and SB43, which expands the group of people who can be placed in involuntary psychiatric holds or forced to undergo medical treatment to include people with serious mental health and substance use disorders who are deemed unable to provide for their own personal safety or medical care. Of course this could include a great number of people, since it is already so difficult for many ordinary middle class people to be able to afford housing for themselves in the state, let alone someone with some moderate mental health challenges. Critics also warn the new legislation will be likely to target the Black population, depriving individuals of their freedom. Big hospital providers, Sutter Health and Kaiser Permanente, have donated a huge amount of campaign money to support Proposition 1, $14.3 million. Apparently these hospitals will stand to benefit from the increased spending, and perhaps the hospitals also hope to have fewer homeless persons in their emergency rooms (using up expensive resources which hospitals currently do not get reimbursed for). Meanwhile it looks like no money has been raised for any campaign to oppose it. Interestingly the prison guards union (CCPOA) also supports Proposition 1, which on the surface seems a bit odd and suspicious. (Though CCPOA only donated $1 million to the campaign) Does the union think that putting more homeless people in prison will benefit them? Or maybe they are just doing this to be loyal to Governor Newsom. California wants to force people into mental health care. Advocates say it will backfire, Maanvi Singh, The Guardian, March 1, 2024 I'm very concerned about the civil liberties implications behind this law. Progressive liberals on the Left are usually opposed to criminalization of homelessness, taking away people's freedom because they have no other options other than to be homeless. But this law seems like it could be very close to that very thing. For anyone who is a liberal Libertarian, this law does raise some serious and worrying questions about liberties and individual rights. In my personal opinion it's totally understandable that there is a reason to force drug addicts into treatment. But what about on the mental health side? Where the individual is not at fault, and no real cure exists. And it should be emphasized again that with the very high cost of housing in that area, it is not difficult for individuals to end up becoming homeless. In some cases it is not a choice. 12% of the United States population resides within the state of California, and 28% of the country's total homeless population is in California.
