At least two aspects of a proposed plan to spend $2 billion to fight the scourge of homelessness in California fit the bill for the right approach to the problem.
First, the proposal takes the “housing first” tack that many experts on mental health and addiction have long said is the best initial way to tackle the issue.
There is simply no way to expect people to be able to get treatment for the problems many of them face with illness, drugs and alcohol until they have roofs over their heads.
This includes many of the tens of thousands now living on the streets, along the freeways and in unsafe riverbeds in Southern California.
The housing-first approach provides those who are experiencing homelessness “assistance to find permanent housing quickly and without conditions,” according to The National Alliance to End Homelessness.
It’s the “without conditions” aspect that is key. While it may make would-be do-gooders for the homeless feel better to offer what they see as the “carrot” attitude of: “We’re here to help you just as soon as you stop drinking,” that is in fact a “stick” approach, punitive in its very nature.
Housing initiatives in Seattle and elsewhere have found that simply by getting homeless alcoholics into subsidized apartments, many stop drinking as much as they did on the streets on their own. In fact, some stop drinking altogether once staying warm and dry is not a daily problem.
A famous inebriate in downtown Seattle did just that after his 25 years on the streets came to an end.
“He no longer had to worry about violence or finding a place to sleep. He met with a counselor who encouraged him to drink less. By his second year at 1811 Eastlake, John decided he was going to stop drinking, and he did,” an analysis in the online magazine Pacific Standard found. Others doing as did John “means huge taxpayer savings on arrests, hospitalizations and welfare.”
Second, the plan floated this week by state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, would take the $2 billion to build homes for homeless people with mental illnesses from existing funds generated by Proposition 63.
This 2004 voter-approved proposition levied a 1 percent income tax on Californians earning $1 million or more per year to pay for mental health services. That means the money would come without seeking new taxes or other revenue sources.
Not that the plan, which could fund the construction of about 10,000 new housing units around the state, will necessarily come about easily.
There are complexities to it, including floating a bond measure that would require about $130 million in annual debt service from about $1.8 billion in annual Prop. 63 revenue.
It would also require negotiations with Gov. Jerry Brown, who unveiled his own annual budget plan Thursday.
But the good news is that the Democratic state Senate leader was joined by two Republicans, Sen. Bob Huff of San Dimas and Sen. John Moorlach of Costa Mesa, at the press conference announcing the plan.
All of us need to work together to solve the problem of homelessness.
Its human tragedies surround us daily, real people in flimsy tents with rickety shopping carts, as we go about our own relatively secure lives.
