• Printer friendly
• E-mail to a friend
• 5 comment(s)
• Recommend

  ( 0 )

• 

Victor Maccharoli

Cube Ad

Locals rail against state propositions

By COLBY FRAZIER — April 24, 2009

Twenty-six days before voters hit the polls to decide the fate of six ballot measures aimed at helping the state get a grip on its tenuous budget situation, local politicians and residents railed yesterday against two of the most controversial propositions, 1D and 1E.

The propositions, which aim to divert into the state’s general fund hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for programs for children and the mentally ill, were called “misleading shams” by opponents, who pleaded with residents to vote no.

“These measures are aiming their sights on the most vulnerable,” said Santa Barbara County 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal. “These two measures are misguided, inappropriate shams.”

The rally, held at the county courthouse Sunken Garden, was the first large local event aimed at thwarting the propositions. The Consumer Advocacy Coalition (CAC), a group of local mental health consumers, organized the event.

Roger Thompson, executive director of the CAC, said his best friend was hospitalized this week, just days after he was released from a psychiatric hospital.

“Such is our reality, but we don’t give up,” said Thompson, who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder three years ago. “Without help I fear what could happen to me.”

Though the CAC is primarily focused on Proposition 1E, this effort has merged with Proposition 1D.

If approved, Proposition 1E would divert roughly $500 million over the next two years from the Mental Health Services Act, also known as Proposition 63, into the general fund.

Approved in 2004, Proposition 63 levied a 1 percent tax on personal incomes above $1 million.

Thompson said it provides a significant source of funding for 10 county programs, including the one he relies on, Sanctuary Psychiatric Centers. In all, Thompson said the county of Santa Barbara will receive more than $11 million in Proposition 63 funding this year.

Barry Schoer, executive director of Sanctuary Psychiatric Centers, said he had a hand in helping get the Mental Health Services Act approved, and for the state to dip into this money under the guise of balancing its budget would “undo what took 45 years to create.”

Schoer said the intent of Proposition 63 at the time of its approval was clear: to provide funding for mental health programs that had suffered decades of neglect.

They’re trying to “do so much harm to what we’ve worked so hard to create,” Schoer said of the Sacramento politicians who are supporting 1E.

Opponents of Proposition 1D are equally passionate, saying it will strip nearly $1 billion over the next five years from the First 5 Commission, which allocates roughly $2.5 million per year to children’s programs in the county.

This proposition would take money from Proposition 10, approved by voters in 1998, and reallocate it to an array of other programs.

Proposition 10 imposed a 50-cent tax on cigarettes. The funds garnered from the tax go to improving and creating development and health programs for children under the age of 5.

Proponents of the proposition say the funds will be used to improve other children’s programs, and furthermore, the diversions of funding, to the tune of $268 million per year, would only be for five years.

But opponents argue local programs that have proved effective will fall by the wayside, putting children across the state at risk.

Additionally, Schoer said the argument that the two propositions will somehow alleviate strain on the state’s budget is simply not true.

He said both propositions would account for no more than 1 percent of the state’s total budget. And if the proposition were to be approved, he said they would put such a strain on local preventative services, that the state and counties would pay far more in the long run on the needs of the mentally ill and children.

Though the city of Santa Barbara receives no direct funding from Proposition 63 or 10, its citizens benefit from the services, and when these are cut, cities will pay as well, according to city councilmember Helen Schneider.

Schneider, who was joined by councilmember’s Grant House, Iya Falcone, Das Williams and Roger Horton, said she’d be voting no on both propositions.

Sacramento is “balancing the budget on the backs of children and the mentally ill …,” she said. “That’s not going to solve the state’s budget crisis.”

More information about the propositions is available at www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/.

The last day to register to vote for the May 19 election is May 4. The last day to request a vote-by-mail ballot is May 12. Voter registration forms can be downloaded at www.sbvote.com, or request an application by calling 800-SBC-VOTE.

Comment on this article

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

Prop 1D is NOT new Taxes! $2 BILLION reserve fund : 4/24/2009

Prop 1D does NOT ask you to pay ANY new taxes. It helps by taking some from taxes that are already being levied. It takes some from an agency that has over $2 BILLION to use up before there are any potential changes required in their budgets. Please do not throw the good idea out with other ones. Read this thing before you vote. Prop 1D is a GREAT IDEA! First 5’s are sitting on over $2 BILLION dollars, funds they can use over the next 5 years while they help the rest of California. It's a total misstatement for them to say that those monies are already committed to certain programs because with one vote their commissions can re-direct those reserves to whatever they choose to. So, who's to be trusted? Well, IMO, it's not First 5. They are run by Commissioners who vote for budgets that direct cash to their OWN departments and organizations. There are now wild exaggerations about how 1D could affect people: just not so – reserves will be used. Perhaps such claims are why Prop 1D puts an auditor on the Commission to oversee their actions. If that does not bother you then this should: the First 5 lobbyist has received $1 million of First 5 funds - about $200K of that went straight to her pension plan - IRS forms say so! Prop 1D stops her from taking any new First 5 funds! Vote YES on 1D !

Yikes 123

---

What an uninformed bunch : 4/24/2009

and what do they think will happen when the narrowly [one vote] achieved agreement falls apart as the result of failed ballot initiatives. Do they think the vulnerable populations will be more protected then. sheesh.

and then what

---

Get it Straight : 4/24/2009

The targeted revenues come from programs approved by voters which were responsible enough to actually identify a funding source for what was asked. Now politicians who don't have the courage to make hard decisions themselves find that they want to gut these programs and dedicate the funding to something else. What gall. The reason there is an alleged "surplus" in these programs is because politicians refused to spend it despite public need. Look around you at the mental health is in crisis in this state. Decades of failure to provide such care and to replace the locked care facilities closed then have resulted in a growing human tragedy. At least 20, maybe 30 percent of the homeless are mentally ill and in need of care that is not available. And lets not even mention the unmet needs of schools. Vote no on all the propositions but especially vote no on 1D and 1E.

RHS

---

Yes on 1D ! : 4/25/2009

Here’s something to chew on about First 5 (Prop 1D): Although some expenditure for evaluating programs is required by the First 5 statute, over the last 7 or so years, audited financial statements reveal that First 5 commissions have spent approximately $100 MILLION on evaluation. How can it cost that much? Well, First 5 evaluation payments go mainly to private consulting firms like Harder and Company, not to children 0 to 5! Based on audited financial statements and adding a standard 3% for inflation, an analysis shows that in 10 years, they are on course to spend over $300 MILLION on evaluation. In 15 years, it will top $500 MILLION. In 25 years: $1 BILLION dollars+. First 5 Commissioners are misspending funds: Proposition 10 was not meant to make the evaluators RICH! Let's put some of the money back towards helping kids and get ourselves out of this budget mess – VOTE YES on 1D!

Archie Maya

---

- - - - - - - - - - Prop 1D is a GREAT IDEA! - - - - - - - - - - - - - : 4/27/2009

$500 MILLION+ First 5 dollars up in smoke?!?!?! - none went to children 0 to 5! It went to the Compensation and Retention Encourage Stability initiative, called “CARES”. According to the 06/07 San Diego First 5 Eval report (p 170), the CARES initiative “originated in response to a major child care crisis: … high (staff) turnovers rates...”. Amongst other things, CARES simply paid people to work BUT on p. 171 it says THEY ARE STILL LEAVING in droves - with a 22% annual turnover rate, within 5-7 years, there will be a 100%+ turn. a highlight: CARES paid people who already had Master's degrees up to $5,000 to stay in their jobs (from publicly accessible CARES database). CARES spent over $500 MILLION on this "solution" (from audited fincl statements) Can anyone say: POOF?

Yikes 123

---