See more online at www.bythebay.cool
⚠️ This site shows what By The Bay looked like in November 2018. By The Bay is no longer running, and features on this site may not work as originally intended.
Prop 2 changes how we spend the Millionaire's tax
Last updated on 11/05/18, 01:10 PM
This would help mentally ill homeless residents, but does housing count?
A Millionaire’s tax, eh? 🤑
Yep, it was new to us too. Prop 2 would allow the state to use revenue from the "Millionaire's tax" – a 1% income tax for residents earning $1M or more a year – to pay for housing for homeless people who are mentally ill.
Comments • Mark your vote, write a note, and share it with friends.
Sign upWhat is this?
What’s the backstory?
The Millionaire’s tax was originally passed as Prop 63 in 2004, and it was intended to help counties create and expand mental health services with a "treatment-first" approach. In 2016, however, the state legislature took a “housing-first” approach and passed a program called No Place Like Home to build permanent supportive housing for homeless people suffering from mental illness. The one-time $2B program would have re-purposed funds from Prop 63, but a lawsuit claimed Prop 63 was a voter-approved measure that didn’t specify housing costs. The legislature couldn't modify Prop 63.
So it's thrown back to the voters. If Prop 2 passes, the No Place Like Home program would receive $120M a year from the $2B generated annually by the Millionaire's tax. If Prop 2 fails, we'd leave it up to the courts to decide whether No Place Like Home could use Prop 63's funds.
So it's thrown back to the voters. If Prop 2 passes, the No Place Like Home program would receive $120M a year from the $2B generated annually by the Millionaire's tax. If Prop 2 fails, we'd leave it up to the courts to decide whether No Place Like Home could use Prop 63's funds.
Housing-first or treatment-first?
Homelessness and mental illness aren’t separate issues. We need to tackle both.
Agreed, but everyone already cares about housing. This would be stealing $$ from treating the mentally ill.
We need to build as much housing as possible
Plus, counties have hardly been been spending their money on treatment. They've been stashing it.
They can't spend it all. They're providing a social service that's paid for as long as the economy is good. That might not last.
Don’t forget that cities are often reluctant to approve housing for the homeless. We might end up with fewer new homes than you think.
But you agree we need more housing? Prop 2 does that without adding debt
The $120M a year will go to a lot of administrative fees and interest from the housing bonds. There are better ways to solve housing if that's your goal.
Campaign finance graphic brought to you by KQED and Voter's Edge.
More reading
See more at www.bythebay.cool
Local politics drives our daily life. We strive to be nonpartisan and present all perspectives fairly, so please send us a note via email or text with any corrections, concerns, or questions.
Pretty much all rights reserved © By The Bay 2018
Pretty much all rights reserved © By The Bay 2018