Relocations for mental health in our state

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature are attempting to come to grips with the mental-health crisis that, along with dependency, is clearly the cause of much of our state's awful scourge of homelessness.

Two cheers for democracy, as Mencken had it, half-praise that so appropriately applies to a lot of what our elected leaders get up to in the state they run. A lot of their time is invested micromanaging the economy and on making sure that members of the public-employee unions that make their way of lives possible are likewise well-compensated, that it can be hard to laser-focus on the real social problems that everyone see every day: ill, unfortunate individuals by the tens of thousands and more living on our streets.

Under the governor's proposed plan, we the voters will be participating in the tough democratic choices about how to offer mental-health care. Newsom this spring unveiled a bond step that, if put on the ballot by the Legislature and after that approved by we individuals, would raise billions of dollars to develop mental-centers, real estate and treatment centers all over the state. His proposed bond step would raise $3 billion for psychological health schools and permanent housing for the unhoused.

Obviously it's a great idea to lastly come to grips with huge holes left in the well-meaning but practically completely unsatisfied guarantee of mental-health reforms passed by legislators of both parties and authorized by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1967. Is Newsom's strategy the best one? And does he have the political skill to persuade Californians it is?

If it might go a long way to supplying treatment for the mentally ill among us, lots of Californians would probably think about the interest payments on that $3 billion we would all be paying a bargain. As always, the devil is in the information.

We do have hope for the governor's CARE Court, which permits relative and physicians to petition judges to get mentally ill relative into care. In April, the California Supreme Court turned down a challenge to it.

There's likewise Senate Bill 43, which would significantly reduce the bar on getting distressed individuals into treatment. Can California find the appropriate balance? That remains to be seen, but at least we're having these debates.