Proposition 1 deserves a no vote on Election Day

Regarding state Proposition 1 in the March 5 election, I agree with California's League of Women Voters. In urging voters to reject the proposal, it wrote that “budgetary decisions should be made by the Legislature, not by earmarking funds through ballot initiatives.”

In 2004, voters approved legislation that imposed a tax on millionaires to finance mental health services, generating between $2 billion and $3 billion in revenue each year. That money goes to counties to fund mental health programs as they see fit.

Over the last 20 years, California counties have used their allotments to create a diverse array of programs meeting their communities' unique mental health needs.

A recently published article by the Associated Press (“Some say Prop. 1 would worsen unhoused crisis,” Feb. 18) reported that the state would take control of 60% of county allotments, with a “one size fits all” formula, should the proposition pass.

Proposition 1 would also authorize the state to borrow $6.38 billion to build treatment units and supportive housing.

Joe Wilson, who runs Hospitality House in San Francisco, said it well in a quote from the article: “Everyone agrees that we need more resources for housing . ... Is this the best way to do it? We don't believe so.”

The League of Women Voters sums it up by stating that Proposition 1 “has the overall effect of reducing counties' ability to set priorities based on local needs for mental health services. While the additional housing resources offered through Prop. 1 are sorely needed, they do not outweigh its flaws.”