County Supervisors Narrowly Back Newsom's Mental Health Plan

SAN DIEGO, CA — The San Diego County Board of Supervisors Tuesday voted 3-2 in favor of a resolution to support Gov. Gavin Newsom's $6 billion bond measure to modernize the Mental Health Services Act.

With Supervisors Joel Anderson and Jim Desmond opposed, the vote came after a lengthy debate about how Proposition 1 — if passed by voters this year — would affect county funding access.
Resolution proponent Terra Lawson-Remer voted yes, along with colleagues Monica Montgomery Steppe and Nora Vargas.

In a statement, Lawson-Remer said she was happy the resolution passed.

"I hope our residents will do their homework on Proposition 1 before completing their ballots in March," said Lawson-Remer, the board's vice chair. "Given all the changes we have made at the county when it comes to the way we deliver mental health and addiction treatment, we stand to benefit if Proposition 1 passes and the funding from the Mental Health Services Act is able to be re-prioritized."

Along with stating the county's challenges in treating those living on the streets, the resolution states that "Californians will have a direct opportunity to transform and rebuild our mental health system and modernize programs to meet the needs of our communities."

However, Anderson said Proposition 1 "is disguising itself as the solution to California's homelessness and behavioral health crisis, but in reality, this measure would hamstring San Diego County's efforts to serve our most vulnerable populations by shifting funding out of existing county treatment and upstream prevention programs and diverting 10 percent back to the state budget. That is why I could not support today's resolution."

Backers say Prop. 1 as designed would help to build 11,150 new treatment beds and supportive housing, create 26,700 outpatient treatment slots, and set aside $1 billion for veteran housing along with recruiting and training 65,000 mental health workers.

But a group known as Californians Against Proposition 1 deride the measure as "huge, expensive and destructive," saying it would cost taxpayers more than $9 billion over the life of the bonds, while ordering the redirection of $30 billion in existing mental health services funds in the first decade, "cutting existing mental health services that are working."

"Prop. 1 breaks promises made by the voters when they first passed the Mental Health Services Act in 2004," according to the opposition group. "The idea then was to create permanent, dedicated funding for long-neglected mental health services, including prevention, early intervention, programs for youth, programs for struggling and under-served populations, including racially and ethnically diverse groups and LGBTQ people. The MHSA is a proven model, offering `anything it takes' to help individuals who need a range of services.

"Now, Prop. 1 would sharply reduce that funding, end its dedication to mental health programs and take a hatchet to dozens of programs across the state that cannot survive without MHSA funding. It orders counties to do more with less," according to the organization.

During Tuesday's meeting, supervisors heard from those in favor of the mental health care overhaul, including Crystal Irving, president of SEIU Local 221.

"It's time to do what's right and take care of the people who are suffering from mental health problems in our streets," she said.

Josh Bohannan of Father Joe's Villages also spoke in favor of Proposition 1. He denied that behavioral health issues are the root cause of homelessness, but said life on the street can cause mental anguish and substance abuse — and the situation won't change without housing or stable care.

Some critics told supervisors that Proposition 1 would give state bureaucrats far too much power or carry too much financial risk. Desmond said that while Proposition 1 may have good features, the "bad outweighs it."

Desmond cited a recent a Legislative Analyst's Office report stating that about half the behavioral health money the county receives now would be returned to the state. He added that the proposition involves the state taking out a $6.4 billion loan, paid back by the state's general fund, for which taxpayers would be responsible.

Anderson said Proposition 1 "pits multiple vulnerable communities against each other for the same dollar funding. It doesn't increase the funding at all."

Vargas, the board chairwoman, said it was important for people to realize what led to California's homeless crisis, starting with the state shutting down many of its mental health institutions in the late 1960s without adequate money for related treatment.

Vargas added that she believes Prop. 1 will help the county move forward and get additional funding to treat those in need.

Lawson-Remer on Monday held an event to tout Proposition 1, and was joined by San Diego City Councilman Raul Campillo, Irving and medical professionals.

"Proposition 1 will ensure local best practices and state funding are aligned, which will allow us to help more people get more people treated and on a path to a better quality of life," Lawson-Remer said. "The way we treated mental health and addiction when the Mental Health Services Act was passed is not the same as it is today. The old way of funding behavioral health is no longer the right way. It's time for a change."

The March ballot initiative is intended to "refocus billions of dollars in existing funds to prioritize individuals that have the greatest mental health needs, are living in encampments, or suffering from substance abuse issues," according to a statement from Lawson-Remer's office.

Earlier this month, Campillo authored and secured votes from his colleagues on the San Diego City Council to support Proposition 1.

"San Diegans deserve dignified care," Campillo said. "Proposition 1 will help our entire region address our mental illness and substance abuse crises by investing billions in behavioral health beds across California."

— City News Service