Borrego Sun - Since 1949

During our January 23 Board of Supervisors meeting, we delved into the details of Proposition 1, which is on the March ballot. I wanted to provide a recap of our discussion.

I expressed reservations about Proposition 1’s approach despite recognizing some potential benefits. The proposal seeks to rearrange funds from the county and give them to the state. This reallocation would decrease funding to our county, as highlighted by the analysis from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

I emphasized the importance of resources for individuals grappling with addiction, a group previously overlooked under the Mental Health Services Act. While acknowledging the necessity for additional support in areas such as housing and infrastructure, I voiced skepticism about the proposed $6.4 billion bond. I am concerned about the long-term financial burden on taxpayers, estimated to reach approximately $10 billion over 30 years.

I believe the rise in homelessness is from failed policies rather than a lack of money, as the State of California has spent over $20 billion on homelessness yet has seen it rise dramatically. I believe that the root causes of homelessness are linked to ineffective policies hindering access to essential assistance. Additionally, I am apprehensive about the potential loss of local control, with decision-making authority shifting to the state, which may not adequately address the unique needs of San Diego County.

Furthermore, I raised concerns about the proposed housing-first approach and its applicability to all scenarios, particularly those involving individuals with severe mental illness. I fear a potential reduction in funding for crucial county services such as outpatient care, crisis response, prevention, and suicide services.

In summary, while I recognize some positive aspects of Proposition 1, I doubt its overall impact, particularly its financial implications and the potential loss of local control.

Jim Desmond

– San Diego County District 5 Supervisor