California Prop 1 vote split almost 50/50

[John Dule]

https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/03/election-result-proposition-1/

Proposition 1 is a two-part ballot initiative. It includes a bond to build treatment facilities and permanent supportive housing for people with mental health and addiction challenges. It also proposes changes to a longstanding tax on personal incomes over $1 million, known as the Mental Health Services Act, by requiring counties to spend 30% of that revenue on housing instead of other services.

As of 6:40 a.m. with about 3.7 million votes counted, the measure is leading by a margin of 50.2% to 49.8%.

I voted yes on this proposition-- not because I think the state actually needs the money for this (they have more than enough to solve this problem several times over), but because I don't want them to be able to point to the failure of this proposition as an excuse for why they haven't cleaned up the streets. If this loses, Newsom will simply claim that it means the voters don't think homelessness and mental health are significant problems, and the do-nothing Democrats will continue to ignore this crisis.

[Sestak]

Surprised this was so close; has to be disappointing for Newsom regardless of where this ends up.

[DrScholl]

I didn't vote on it at all because I wasn't sure how effective it would be. With that said it's hard to get people to vote to give county money to the state especially in more conservative counties.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I didn't vote on it at all because I wasn't sure how effective it would be. With that said it's hard to get people to vote to give county money to the state especially in more conservative counties.

I also didn't vote. There was talk of forced treatment and the state taking all the power away from local areas, which was enough for me to not vote for it, but not enough for me to vote against it.

[John Dule]

I didn't vote on it at all because I wasn't sure how effective it would be. With that said it's hard to get people to vote to give county money to the state especially in more conservative counties.

I also didn't vote. There was talk of forced treatment and the state taking all the power away from local areas, which was enough for me to not vote for it, but not enough for me to vote against it.

That was what convinced me to vote for it.

[LostFellow]

I have no clue how housing-first (as opposed to treatment-first) has not been thoroughly discredited at this point (particularly in a state like CA that can't freaking build homes). I'm hoping that this passes, and the alliance against this by "progressive" mental health professionals looking out for their own jobs, "I just feel local control is better" non-ideological voters, and right wing budget hawks is emblematic of what is so wrong with CA politics.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

My gf voted against it cause she doesn't trust Newsom (she's mostly apolitical)

[Vosem]

Almost certainly against; I think better-quality housing can be produced by the private market than the state and demanding that counties spend some fraction of their income on housing no matter what just incentivizes developers to rely on government contracts as much as possible, which would be bad. (I also just think progressive taxation is bad, period, and if it can't be eliminated then at least we can keep the proceeds from getting used for anything.) I also have very little confidence in the mental-health stuff, but it's honestly not what jumps out immediately.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Californian here. Voted yes, but I don’t really know. There’s a lot of these propositions that go to the electorate that are just esoteric and seem like things that the legislature should just take care of.

[Not Me, Us]

Maybe it's just because I'm 100% ignorant about this proposition, but based purely on the description it kinda seems like a no-brainer. More funding for mental health and addiction treatment and more housing are both good things, what's the downside here? I guess the only thing I'd question is what's gonna get cut in favor of more housing, but I assume that's up to the counties. I probably would've voted for it, but I'd have to look into it more.

[John Dule]

https://www.dailynews.com/2024/03/08/prop-1-mental-health-measure-hangs-on-by-slim-0-1-lead-in-friday-vote-update/

Hanging on by literally .1%

[Vice President Christian Man]

I'd vote yes. I'm surprised that it's this close, although California is known to be a more moderate state when it come to propositions.

[Sir Mohamed]

I voted Yes. Not sure how effective it will be, let's give it a shot though.

[RI]

I don't care for the handcuffs this puts on local budgets.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I don't care for the handcuffs this puts on local budgets.

I do understand that concern, though I feel like this should be something that's getting funded anyway, so if it isn't then forcing a floor is probably for the best. If localities want higher funding then they can, but mental health *does* need to be funded, and this is at least one way to do so.

[John Dule]

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/11/prop-1-results-california-elections/72934312007/

It looks like the opponents are conceding, but this was still one of the closest proposition races in my lifetime. This article also has some good info about why California takes so long to count its ballots (mostly due to mail voting).

[Agonized-Statism]

Voted yes and glad it's looking likely. As someone who's been menaced regularly and attacked once by deinstitutionalized mentally ill and addicts (in both the blue and red states I've lived in by the way), and who's always dodging needles and human waste in the streets, we need to house and treat the downtrodden in our society- if not for their sake, then for ours. One of many band-aids this state needs so long as capitalism remains.

[PSOL]

Should have lost, oh well.

[Mr. Smith]

This one would literally require a coin-flip on my part to decide, especially since I've tuned out of the specifics, because at face value, I could go either way.

I'd have to ask family and friends more attuned for their views.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

How on earth did the margin stay the exact same as the vote count when from 30% to 95% Has that ever happened brfore?

[ottermax]

I voted no because friends of mine who work in housing were strongly opposed to losing local control. The proposition also felt deceptive because it wasn't really doing anything different just giving the state more control.

That being said I'm not that upset that it has passed, but I am skeptical that the state will magically do a better job with solving this problem which is complex and needs coordination between all levels of government.

[Open Source Intelligence]

I voted no because friends of mine who work in housing were strongly opposed to losing local control. The proposition also felt deceptive because it wasn't really doing anything different just giving the state more control.

So if it passes, what's the end goal of the proposition, state local zoning laws in a certain respect are eliminated?

[Ferguson97]

NYT calls it in favor of passing

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Would have voted Yes if I was in CA. This is worth trying given circumstances.

[bayareabay]

I voted no because it sounded Prop 1 has mandatory, forced treatment. It was brought forth by a squarely centrist Dem who recently praised Reagan.