How are you voting on Prop 2? (Sacramento, Redding: low income, real estate, apartment)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

If you want a short non-partisan one-minute video analysis of prop 2, here is one (scroll down to the video):

https://elections.calmatters.org/201...y-for-housing/

And just so you know, I actually read the texts of propositions and do my research.

I've decided to vote no on this one, too. Yes, housing for mentally-ill homeless people would be nice, but, taking county money away from the county mental health services that help both non-homeless and homeless alike - including finding housing for mentally ill homeless patients - isn't the way to fund housing for the homeless. As I said, counties are already helping find housing for homeless people, and this proposition would take away a county's ability to effectively address the needs of their particular population, while also meeting the needs of their non-homeless population.

Again, I see this as a boon for developers. They get to buy expensive CA real estate with tax incentives - and if you look at the wording of the proposition, they have written in expensive administrative costs for the private developers.

These just remind me of the Low Income Tax Credit properties that I am now a tenant in for seniors. These developers are all about profit first. They agree to provide services for the tenants in exchange for the tax credits, and can transition the properties into any use they want to, after something like 35 years, where they no longer have to provide the original services. They can just kick everyone out and turn them into expensive luxury units, if they want to.

For instance, in the low income senior housing I'm in now, security is a joke, they treat us terribly. AND, there is virtually zero oversight by the government to see if they're providing us what they're supposed to provide us. There is no complaint process for someone like me to go through, to force them to give us safe, decent housing.

So, I just see this as another money-grab by developers. And I'm just so irritated with the state legislature and the governor with the way they move funds around that were earmarked and even specifically voted on by CA residents to be used only for a certain purpose - without asking us if that's okay with us after the fact.

This time they are being sued for their new No Place Like Home program. This proposition can't even actually go into effect, depending on how the courts rule on how the legislature tried to funnel funds into this new program that will enrich developers, and take $140 million dollars away each year from county mental health services.

So, they're trying to get the voters to say it's okay, so they can negotiate in court with it.

Just, grrrr. I use my county's mental health services and they're already on a shoestring, and I live in a rich county.

So, again, I'm voting no for another attempt to funnel needed funds for existing services into housing that won't benefit enough people.

And it makes me so mad when they say that they aren't raising taxes. Again - hello - if you take $175 million dollars a year from county mental health services, you just left a $175 million dollar hole in something that needs tax money.

Quit robbing Peter to pay Paul the Developer, by plucking at our heartstrings over homelessness.

Honestly, I wish we'd go back to government owned and run housing. Take the profit out of it and I'd vote for something like that, and for more taxes to pay for it. Privatization doesn't provide decent services, and doesn't save taxpayer money.

They need to go back to the drawing board on this one, too, in my opinion. And I think Sacramento needs to learn that they can't just slip these things past us without our consent. FWIW.

By the way, I'm a moderate Democrat.

Would love to hear your opinions.

[TCROX]

Again! NO!! This is just another money grab prop- with ALL of the money taken with only a deteriorating situation you know they will just steal the money and make things worse as they have done and continue to do! Time to vote no and vote em out!
NO on 1 and 2 for sure !
P.S. Great observations BTW

[janellen]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

For instance, in the low income senior housing I'm in now, security is a joke, they treat us terribly. AND, there is virtually zero oversight by the government to see if they're providing us what they're supposed to provide us. There is no complaint process for someone like me to go through, to force them to give us safe, decent housing.
.s.

Are you not safe where you're living now Snow? Were you safer in Crescent City or Redding? Do you regret moving? In what way is the security lacking?


Living where you don't feel safe is the pitts, especially when you live alone....major anxiety....I know. I live back off the road behind locked gates, and yet I've still had a ton of my stuff stolen although nothing from my house...yet. I'm waiting for the inevitable home break in.


Thanks for the proposition info. Good analysis in that post. Appreciate it.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

They need to go back to the drawing board on this one, too, in my opinion. And I think Sacramento needs to learn that they can't just slip these things past us without our consent. FWIW.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's a no for me. Build more mental hospitals to house them so they get the help they require. Don't give them an apartment they'll be responsible for keeping up on their own. It won't work. Nope. Figure out something else but until they do, it's a big fat no for another bond.

[TCROX]

You nailed it!!
Be sure to spread the word - phone - Internet- social media etc
NO on 1 and 2 !!

[CA4Now]

Interesting that one of the NAMI (National Alliance on Mentally Ill) branches is against this proposition as well. I'm going to have to read more about it.

Proposition 2 Arguments and Rebuttals | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State

[JGC97]

Very informative link. Thanks for posting it. I don't think I'd have had the gumption to look for it but the information in it makes a lot of sense. And if NAMI is against it, you can be pretty sure it's flawed.

[davidt1]

Just received my property tax bills. I am not in a giving mood. LOL. Seriously, I believe all the props asking for money are just smoke and mirrors for more public pension money. For fifteen years now, I have been helping the needy by having a percentage of my paycheck automatically deducted and sent to a charity. I prefer helping this way since I know public employee unions won't get any of it.

[DKM]

If housing is needed for "mentally ill" to live in, they should be setup in institutions like the rest of the world does it.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by davidt1

Just received my property tax bills. I am not in a giving mood. LOL. Seriously, I believe all the props asking for money are just smoke and mirrors for more public pension money. For fifteen years now, I have been helping the needy by having a percentage of my paycheck automatically deducted and sent to a charity. I prefer helping this way since I know public employee unions won't get any of it.

I'm not sure it's necessarily about pensions, per se, but the result is the same. If you move funding from here to over there, you just left a deficit that will need to be addressed - with more money. So, I definitely agree that it's smoke and mirrors when they try to say it doesn't raise taxes. No, not directly, but the result will be the same. The debt will have to be paid back, and where does money come from to pay off state debts? Um, that would be taxes.

This new trend to get us to okay bonds, while trying to convince us it's not going to cost us anything because it's not a "tax," is so insulting.