An article from the Los Angeles Times about the government’s inability to spend $2 billion for helping homelessness is remarkable in that a female lawyer is the good guy this time.
“The idea for the homeless housing program originated in January 2016. State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-La Raza*) proposed a $2-billion bond to finance new and rehabilitated housing for mentally ill people living on the streets.
Money to repay the loan would come from revenue generated by Proposition 63, a 1% income tax surcharge on millionaires passed in 2004 that funds mental health services. De León and other supporters argued building housing for chronically homeless people with mental illness met the intent of the 2004 initiative. Gov. Jerry Brown signed a pair of bills authorizing the bond in summer 2016.
But litigation stalled the effort. Mary Ann Bernard, an attorney from Sacramento, said the proposal is illegal. The California Constitution typically requires voter approval for all bond measures, and Proposition 63 didn’t specify financing housing construction as one of the ways money could be spent.
Bernard is relying on a 2006 letter from the state attorney general’s office that cast doubt on a prior proposal to spend the mental health dollars on housing bonds, a plan that was later abandoned.
“We conclude that strong arguments would support a finding by a court that the securitization of funding from Proposition 63 to issue housing bonds for mentally ill homeless individuals is inconsistent with the intent of Proposition 63 and that any state contract to secure these bonds would create an unconstitutional debt,” said the letter, which was first reported by Sacramento’s Capital Public Radio.
Most of the revenue generated by the income tax surcharge now goes to local mental health agencies to spend on crisis intervention, prevention, employee training and similar programs.
Bernard, who represented state mental hospitals outside of California before moving to Sacramento, said she filed suit to ensure the money provided the most help to the state’s severely mentally ill residents.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in treatment money could be diverted toward interest and administrative payments to support the bond, Bernard said. She also believes that cities and counties are often reluctant to approve homeless housing development, leading to fewer new homes funded by bond money than proponents suggest.
“I recognize that this housing is needed, but stealing treatment money from the severely mentally ill is despicable and counterproductive,” Bernard said.
Y’now, the female is right. This is a standard liberal falsehood, that the homeless exist because they don’t have homes, and a standard liberal solution, give them free housing then threaten to take it away if they don’t vote for The Party. She is particularly right about the possibility of funds being skimmed off to banksters and administrators.
Even today, most homeless tend to fall into three categories: the addict, the crazy and the willing. It isn’t true that the failing economy causes homelessness; most people have families or friends to help out temporarily and those that don’t, get off the streets as quickly as they can. An RV or rented room isn’t much of a home but it’s enough.
Of course, the government does what it can to make more addicts (legalizing marijuana, pushing Ritalin), more insanity (criminalization of manhood, social and sexual experimentation on schoolchildren) and more willing homeless (cult of victimhood). Then it pretends to worry about the increase in homelessness.
The way to end homelessness is to incarcerate the addicts, treat the crazies (sometimes by force) and ignore the willing homeless unless they panhandle tourists or something (no welfare). But what politician needs a solution when he can have an opportunity for fraud and enslaved voters instead?
Later in the article:
In the Los Angeles area, the homeless population is continuing to grow, according to a county report released this month. The increase is occurring even though the region recently added thousands of beds for homeless residents and approved a local bond measure for housing and a sales tax hike to cover services. The annual budget shortfall in the county’s homelessness program could now be more than $270 million, according to a Times analysis.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and mayors from 10 of California’s largest cities have endorsed new legislation that would provide $1.5 billion in state funding to help finance new homeless housing and provide rental assistance. Los Angeles County has by far the state’s highest homeless population, nearly 59,000 people, and would receive the largest amount of revenue from the bill.
Emphasis mine: the increase is occurring because the government is adding thousands of beds and throwing money at the problem. You get more of what you subsidize. Even liberals understand this, which is why they try to subsidize helplessness (and laziness, and greed, and now mind-altering drugs) in every form in order to have guaranteed votes for the next election.
There’s a MGTOW moral here: never accept public charity. Its purpose is to make you dependent upon the system. They are not helping you for YOUR sake.
*Originally D-Los Angeles. But I’m not wrong.