Among the many items that went before the Long Beach City Council in a busy and long-running meeting Tuesday was a resolution in support of the state propositions that will be on the ballot next week.
The council voted 4-3 to support the resolutions. Council members Suja Lowenthal, Patrick O'Donnell, Dee Andrews and Tonia Reyes Uranga voted in favor, while council members Robert Garcia, Gerrie Schipske and Rae Gabelich dissented. Vice Mayor Val Lerch abstained, as he usually does on resolutions about ballot measures or similar issues. Lerch has said a non-partisan governmental body like the council shouldn't take a position on issues going before voters, just as it shouldn't back political candidates. Councilman Gary DeLong was absent from the vote.
Will the council's vote make a difference? Polls show voters are likely to reject the propositions May 19. Only Garcia articulated Tuesday why he couldn't support the legislation -- he said he can't support Prop. 1D, which would shift First 5 Children's Commission funding to general health and human services programs for children, and he called the Prop. 1E mental health measure "draconian."
Read up on all of the propositions at the California League of Women Voters voter guide site. It's an objective site that shows the arguments on both sides of each proposition.
Paul Eakins reports on Long Beach City Hall, and local and regional
politics. A newcomer to the Press-
Kris Hanson reports on the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles,
covering environmental issues, economic triumphs and
pitfalls and trade trends of America’s largest port.
He also writes a weekly column “On The Waterfront”,
appearing Tuesdays, and also produces an occassional video
and column titled “On The Job,” which follows the hard-working
men and women who keep Southern California’s economy humming.
Karen Robes Meeks came to work for the Press-
Thank GOODNESS Councilman Robert Garcia "Get's it" on the Ballot Props, I applaud him for his vote!
As someone who was fortunate enough to have worked with the Missionary Brothers of Charity shelter for families in Santa Ana, CA, the Casa de las Pobre in Tijuana, Mexico, the Orange County Sexual Assault Network in Orange, CA, Meals On Wheels home delivery program in Laguna Beach, CA, and the Gatekeeper Project of Catholic Charities in Long Beach, CA, I have become familiar with some of the challenges of those hundreds of people struggling daily along the tail ends of our society with few or no resources, and indeed, with little hope in their life.
Maintaining the status quo is not easy during times of significant financial unrest and instability. But there is one significant ballot choice that looms on the horizon that, if approved, may decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable citizens. The May 19th, 2009, special election will allow voters to decide what will be best for those suffering from mental illness. They will decide to dismantle a program by “borrowing” $226.7 million dollars this year to help balance the state’s budget and would reverse significant provisions of the MHSA in the future.
The Mental Health Services Act has proven to be successful. Proposition 1E would put all of our 200,000 (6 out of 100) California citizens, who rely on public services, in not only a no-win situation but would leave them in a world of dangerous survival-of-the-fittest with few options for desperately needed care.
As President of the California Mental Health Director’s Association Wayne Clark explained, “successful community mental health programs save state dollars in health care, homelessness services, law enforcement and corrections costs over the long run.” This proposal would change the face of mental health funding for years to come.
Proposition 1E would literally close the door on people in our community who simply would have no other options for their survival. We would return to an antiquated system where costly hospitalization, homelessness and imprisonment are the only choices for the mentally ill. The consequences would be unimaginable to these good citizens. Institutionalization would become a fact of life where choice is no longer an option for them. We will be placing our friends and family members in the unsafe position of “back to the future“ essentially turning back the clock on the remarkable progress of Prop 63 that has been made over the last five years for those in need of mental health services.
It would simply be wrong to assume that this misguided proposal can help right our financial woes by shifting our current budget problems onto the backs of those who can least afford it. Children, adults, and older citizens will no longer thrive in an environment of limited choices. I urge everyone with vision to let people who want to improve the quality of their lives have a fair shake. All of us can help give them that chance come May 19th.
I urge a “NO” vote on Prop 1E.
James McChesney Ranson
MSW Candidate
School of Social Work
University of Southern California