this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
78 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19626 readers
5836 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
78
Opposition concedes that Newsom likely to eke out a win on Proposition 1 in California (www.latimes.com)
submitted 10 months ago by Rapidcreek to c/politics
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Prop 1 would fund a $6.4 billion bond, of which $4.4 billion would go to sharply increasing the availability of substance abuse treatment, while the rest would build permanent supportive housing for unhoused folks. Half of that would go to housing for veterans with mental illness or addiction.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gAlienLifeform 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Nice to see that the opposition did as well as they did, historically sending cops after homeless people is a big winner at the polls but maybe a new generation of voters will be able to get us past that kind of thing some day

Civil rights organizations and advocates for the disabled community opposed the measure and raised alarm bells in 2023 over a last-minute change to Proposition 1 that allows counties to use the bond money for “locked facilities,” where patients cannot voluntarily leave.

American Civil Liberties Unions in California and League of Women Voters of California urged voters to reject the measure, arguing that community mental health services are more effective than institutionalization.

“I think the governor and mayors often just want the encampments to disappear by any means necessary,” said Katherine Wolf, a doctoral student in society and environment at UC Berkeley, who said she voted against Proposition 1.

Wolf said she believes that community programs that provide stability to some mentally ill Californians will lose funding if money shifts to involuntary treatment. Similar to the ACLU and League of Women Voters, she also opposes forcing people into care.

“For them to sneak it in at the last minute after promising all summer that the bond would only be used for community-based voluntary unlocked treatment, I think is really underhanded and I think they did it specifically to avoid objections from the groups and people who they knew would object,” Wolf said

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Oh, crap. I voted for this, and I didn't realize this happened. I'm in favor of more housing across the board, but shifting the money to locked psych facilities just to add more three day hold capacity is not what I meant to vote for.

[–] just_another_person 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I get where you're coming from. The issue in California is other states shipping their "undesirables" in because it's in large part habitable through the year outside. I'm against what is the new asylum system as well, but there are thousands of people here who need legitimate help. What do we do about it?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The tl;Dr answer is build more housing. The long answer is that we need better urbanism. Our cities are awful, and have been for a long time, and the best and worst part is that it's a consequence of seventy years of deliberate and terrible policy choices. It's terrible because we've been choosing for almost a century to have the shittiest cities in the developed world while thinking that it's completely normal. It's great because the problem really is as simple as working to reverse these policy choices and their consequences.

This subject really deserves its own book (or even series), but the series that NotJustBikes did with StrongTowns is a good place to start.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa&si=R2TD6rICxWvUAIvs

We can have more affordable, more livable cities, it's just a matter of making those choices. The great news is that for most Americans, these aren't policy choices that are as out of reach as, say, universal healthcare. A lot of these policies are controlled at a municipal or county level, and can be affected by your city council. Try showing up to a meeting once in a while and making a public comment; they don't know what people want without us telling them, and the people who want awful cities are vastly overrepresented. It's easier than you think and the cops can't stop you.

[–] dirthawker0 2 points 10 months ago

Affordable housing is key. Homeless people are homeless for a variety of reasons and there's not a one size fits all solution. However, the greater part (statistics vary, but they are the majority) of homelessness is caused by unaffordable housing which is a result of both low wages and overpriced housing.

[–] TheRealKuni 2 points 10 months ago

Asylums and care facilities that you cannot leave are not inherently bad. I was made to stay in one for a few days in my early twenties, against my will. But it was a valuable few days, and as much as I wanted out it was, overall, a positive experience that benefited me.

There are people who need care in facilities they cannot leave. Those facilities must be regulated and held to a high standard, but psych facilities need to exist.

[–] QuaternionsRock 3 points 10 months ago

Civil rights organizations and advocates for the disabled community opposed the measure and raised alarm bells in 2023 over a last-minute change to Proposition 1 that allows counties to use the bond money for “locked facilities,” where patients cannot voluntarily leave.

I don’t know how to feel about this. On the one hand, this seems like a clear violation of personal rights. On the other hand, without some sort of detainment mechanism, I don’t see how any program would help drug addicts who aren’t interested in recovery.

[–] Jackcooper -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Isnt this like the 4th Prop 1 in California in 5 years

[–] jennwiththesea 7 points 10 months ago

Prop 1 is just the first proposition on that ballot. It gets reused every time. It's preferable to reference the actual title of the proposition, rather than just saying Prop 1.