Do opponents of Prop. 1 have history on their side?

With more than $12 million in its war chest and the backing of Gov. Gavin Newsom, the campaign for Proposition 1 — the only statewide measure on the March 5 primary ballot — has all the money and many high-profile endorsements on its side.

In comparison, opponents of Prop. 1 have raised only about $1,000 so far. But their underdog effort to persuade voters may ultimately be bolstered by a history lesson.

Prop. 1 is a dual measure to reroute roughly $1 billion annually from mental health funding to housing for people with behavioral health needs, and includes a $6.4 billion bond to pay for 4,350 supportive housing units and 6,800 mental health treatment beds.

But as CalMatters’ Jocelyn Wiener, Marisa Kendall, Kristen Hwang and Erica Yee explain, the measure is similar to a 2018 ballot measure, known as No Place Like Home, that has so far fallen short of its lofty promises.

Like Prop. 1, No Place Like Home used money earmarked for mental health services to pay for a $2 billion housing bond. The campaign to support the measure promised 20,000 new supportive housing units — a number in a Legislative Analyst’s Office report that projected “half of the units would likely be completed within five years” — and it was enough to persuade 63% of voters to say yes.

Five years later, however, the state has built just 1,797 No Place Like Home units as of Feb. 2, according to the program’s most recent annual report.

Why the holdup? In addition to high construction and insurance costs, it can take years for developers to line up funds. Resistance from neighborhood groups and communities also delays projects. Two of the 10 No Place Like Home projects proposed by real estate developer Eden Housing, for example, were hit with environmental lawsuits.

Prop. 1 supporters, such as Democratic Sen. Susan Eggman of Stockton, who authored part of the measure, said the state has learned lessons from No Place Like Home. Prop. 1 includes exemptions to California’s environmental law to speed up development, and it requires more transparency by mandating counties to submit annual spending reports.

• Eggman: “With No Place Like Home there wasn’t a lot of accountability from the communities. Now there will be measurements and outcomes to really be able to see what the community needs, what they have and what their plan is to make sure those resources are there.”

Besides citing the difficulties of building more affordable housing, critics of Prop. 1 are concerned that the measure will slash current services for behavioral and mental health programs. Advocates for people with disabilities have also raised flags that Prop. 1 would allow money to be spent on involuntary confinement facilities.

For more on the potential lessons for Prop. 1, read CalMatters’ story.

Decisions, decisions: Many voters may not realize it yet, but there are different rules for the presidential primaries on March 5 and the other races. CalMatters explains the fine print. 

Other answers to your questions are in the comprehensive Voter Guide, with what you need to know on the U.S. Senate, U.S. House and legislative races, as well as Prop. 1. And as the primary campaign heats up, keep up with what you need to know from CalMatters’ coverage.

Describing California’s homelessness crisis as “inhumane” and “unhealthy,” Senate GOP leader Brian Jones of San Diego and Democratic Sen. Catherine Blakespear of Encinitas announced Tuesday a bipartisan bill to ban homeless encampments near “sensitive community areas” statewide. 

Modeled after San Diego’s “Unsafe Camping Ordinance,” Senate Bill 1011 prohibits encampments within 500 feet of schools, open spaces and major transit stops. It also bans camping on sidewalks if shelter space is available; requires cities or counties to give an unhoused person 72-hour notice before clearing an encampment; and mandates “enforcement personnel” to provide information about homeless shelters in the area.

• Jones: “California has spent $22 billion in the past six years on homelessness and what do we have to show for it? Nearly a 40% increase in homeless population…. Clearly California’s current approach to homelessness is failing and Californians are tired of it.”

The most recent count found more than 181,000 unhoused Californians last year, 28% of the national total.

Adding that it was “not our goal to criminalize homelessness,” Jones said that the state’s homelessness issue was a nonpartisan issue. He touted the bill’s 18 other co-authors of both parties, including Blakespear, who said that San Diego’s camping ordinance has moved about 60% of people off its downtown streets since going into effect in July.

Though both legislators emphasized clearing encampments “compassionately,” advocates for unhoused people argue that displacing homeless people from their dwellings is traumatizing and dangerous to their health. And despite the state’s current $750 million, multi-year initiative to clear homeless encampments, it remains uncertain whether a significant number of the displaced homeless individuals will find permanent housing.

If the bill is passed, it’s also unclear how it will shake out with a highly-anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In January, the high court agreed to hear a case that has the potential to either grant California cities and counties more authority to clear homeless encampments and penalize those who sleep on streets — or continue to restrict them from enforcing camping bans.

There is also bipartisan support for giving local governments more power. Gov. Newsom, in particular, has railed against court rulings that have tied local officials’ hands.

This morning, the federal government announced new standards for fine particles — a dangerous pollutant known to cause serious health issues — that could put as many as seven more California counties out of compliance.

As CalMatters climate reporter Alejandro Lazo writes, fine particles, commonly known as soot, can be inhaled into people’s lungs, worsening respiratory diseases and triggering heart attacks. The particles can come from burning diesel fuel, gasoline and wood; are spewed from trucks, tractors and fireplaces; and can be stirred up by farming and construction.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is required to evaluate the soot standard every five years. The last time the standard was strengthened, back in 2012, the annual average concentrations of fine particles could not exceed 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Under the agency’s new rules that cap has been lowered to nine micrograms.

California has a long list of counties with unhealthy levels of soot, but a CalMatters analysis finds that the new rules could throw Colusa, Mendocino, Mono, San Diego, Shasta, Siskiyou and Tehama onto the list, too. And regions that have been trying to clean the air for decades, such as the Los Angeles basin and San Joaquin Valley, now face an even higher mountain to climb.

The agency predicts that the more stringent standard will save 4,500 lives, but states and other industries are expected to push back, fearing economic problems and job losses. A lobbyist for the California Chamber of Commerce argued the new rules could “effectively put all permitting into a gridlock.”

If a state fails to come up with a plan to cut emissions, the federal government can withhold highway dollars, though that is considered a rare, extraordinary measure.

To learn more about soot and what officials in Los Angeles and San Joaquin Valley will do to comply, read Alejandro’s story.

In one California city, developers are proposing affordable housing without any public subsidies. Where is it, and how is it happening? If you haven’t already guessed from the photo, read the story from CalMatters housing reporter Ben Christopher to find out.