California Governor's Race (tenant, business, mayor)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

2016 taught me not to look at polls. There's a lot of unhappy people here. I still have a little hope

Lol. The POTUS polls were wrong - once ... out of many decades of polling hundreds and hundreds of elections. Now hope springs eternal!

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by AmericaBravoCharles

I voted for Cox, unenthusiastically, as I wanted Allen to be the Republican frontrunner. I voted for the rest of the available Republicans or, otherwise, wrote in Republicans, enthusiastically.

I anticipate that this will be my last general election in California. I'm looking to move back to more conservative or libertarian pastures soon, unless I get a job offer in California that is simply, irrefutably phenomenal (which I don't anticipate because just my very aura exudes that I'm not part of the right sociopolitical mode for this state, sadly, despite my skills and background).

Skid Row, Tenderloin, and similar areas throughout the state ultimately shouldn't exist. Yes, I realize that they've been around for decades, since conservative Republicans still had some semblance of power in the state. However, with improvements in crime (overall since the 1990s) and economy (since 2011-12), these areas should be becoming smaller. Meaning, the homeless and mentally ill population should be becoming smaller, or at least such that they have more ample housing opportunities, and areas like Skid Row and Tenderloin should be gentrifying and getting cleaned up. Alas, these things don't appear to be the case.

Actually, the homeless problem started when Reagan (Republican) de-funded the state institutions for the mentally ill, putting them out on the street. And there hasn't been replacement funding since.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Actually, the homeless problem started when Reagan (Republican) de-funded the state institutions for the mentally ill, putting them out on the street. And there hasn't been replacement funding since.

That's only half true. While he did cut jobs (as governor) and funding in 1967, he reversed his budget cuts in 1969 and added back $28 million into the budget for mental health institutions.

If you go back in history and look at where this started it was with President Kennedy. He had begun the Community Mental Health Act but was assassinated shortly after signing it into law. It never got the funding it needed because he wasn't there to push and no one else seemed to care, which is kind of sad.

Then, along comes Jimmy Carter who signs the Mental Health Systems Act in 1980, making it a Federal government responsibility but when Reagan became President, he thought it was best for states to handle their own populations so he signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in 1981, pushing it back onto the states.

He always felt states should be responsible for their own population and not make it a Federal obligation. Personally, I liked his plan of letting states handle their own problems. If it had worked, maybe there wouldn't be such a problem as we have now with the Federal government threatening to hold funding to sanctuary cities.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

That's only half true. While he did cut jobs (as governor) and funding in 1967, he reversed his budget cuts in 1969 and added back $28 million into the budget for mental health institutions.

If you go back in history and look at where this started it was with President Kennedy. He had begun the Community Mental Health Act but was assassinated shortly after signing it into law. It never got the funding it needed because he wasn't there to push and no one else seemed to care, which is kind of sad.

Then, along comes Jimmy Carter who signs the Mental Health Systems Act in 1980, making it a Federal government responsibility but when Reagan became President, he thought it was best for states to handle their own populations so he signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in 1981, pushing it back onto the states.

He always felt states should be responsible for their own population and not make it a Federal obligation. Personally, I liked his plan of letting states handle their own problems. If it had worked, maybe there wouldn't be such a problem as we have now with the Federal government threatening to hold funding to sanctuary cities.

Reagan was a supply sider, he didn't have some noble goal of having states manage their own mental health programs, he just wanted to use the money that Jimmy Carter had put in the budget for state block grants for corporate tax cuts. How was that supposed to work, how were states supposed to pay for building and staffing psychiatric hospitals and clinics? Until the passage of the ACA most mentally ill people had few if any options for treatment. The City I worked in had one walk in county clinic for mental health issues, it had lines around the block, the people with the most serious mental health problems wouldn't wait in line, they would just wander away without seeing a doctor or getting their meds refilled. Even now most states have difficulty getting psychiatric patients hospitalized simply because there are few hospitals with psychiatric beds.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Actually, the homeless problem started when Reagan (Republican) de-funded the state institutions for the mentally ill, putting them out on the street. And there hasn't been replacement funding since.

Reagan did this, in the post-1960s climate which believed that government-run institutions of all types were "oppressive" and "controlling", or so was the popular California, Left-Libertarian argument at the time coming out of Berkeley.

if California liberals -- at the time -- had wanted to keep the state-run facilities open, they could've protested and had them remain open, but alas, they didn't.

So, yes, while Reagan's hand INDEED held the ax, the California Left at the time was the wind at his back, making it that much easier.

I'm a liberal Democrat myself, but I also believe in honesty.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

Reagan did this, in the post-1960s climate which believed that government-run institutions of all types were "oppressive" and "controlling", or so was the popular California, Left-Libertarian argument at the time coming out of Berkeley.

if California liberals -- at the time -- had wanted to keep the state-run facilities open, they could've protested and had them remain open, but alas, they didn't.

So, yes, while Reagan's hand INDEED held the ax, the California Left at the time was the wind at his back, making it that much easier.

I'm a liberal Democrat myself, but I also believe in honesty.

Most Doctors at that time felt that a good number of people who had been institutionalized for years could be safely released and treated in the community due to the availability of effective psychiatric drugs. That was supposed to be the goal of the LPS act, but the community treatment aspect of it was never implemented. What was provided for the mentally ill were board and care homes usually single family homes in poor parts of cities each housing 6 patients without any trained psychiatric personnel on site. Patients would routinely walk away from those facilities which in some case didn't even provide adequate food, and end up homeless on the streets. Police tried to deal with the mentally ill homeless on the streets who were in danger of harming themselves or others but now there were no psych beds, so attempting to 51-50 one of those patients was impossible; instead they would be transported to the ER dosed up on Thorazine until they were zombies and release them back to where they came from.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

Reagan did this, in the post-1960s climate which believed that government-run institutions of all types were "oppressive" and "controlling",,.

You mean JFK, a few years before Reagan was elected governor. The Community Mental Health Act was passed in 1963.

https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/a...al-health-act/

[JohnSoCal]

Originally Posted by tcrox

it's totally time for a regime change
the money has gotten out of control-
there's so much money to be made that no lefty is standing up for the tax payers and that includes police and firefighters.
Things can get better- just having safe, clean restrooms at a public park is too much to ask for the billions we pay in salaries and pensions- that's just one small thing
the intense increase of crime and forcing criminals into the streets in the obama presidency and brown governorship needs to be reversed now!
Cox is a great start- gavin will only make it worse - he has already said as much

+1

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

Reagan did this, in the post-1960s climate which believed that government-run institutions of all types were "oppressive" and "controlling", or so was the popular California, Left-Libertarian argument at the time coming out of Berkeley.

if California liberals -- at the time -- had wanted to keep the state-run facilities open, they could've protested and had them remain open, but alas, they didn't.

So, yes, while Reagan's hand INDEED held the ax, the California Left at the time was the wind at his back, making it that much easier.

I'm a liberal Democrat myself, but I also believe in honesty.

In other words it is both parties fault.

[davidt1]

For me it comes down to who is less likely to help dismantle Prop 13. Of the two candidates, Cox is less likely to that. That's why this independent voter vote for him.