Camila Johnson
The homelessness crisis in the United States is reaching concerning levels. The number of people who don’t have a place to call home has been steadily rising over the last several years, especially now that the protections put in place during the pandemic have been removed. For such a wealthy and powerful country to have so many of its population struggling and suffering without housing is an embarrassment.
In California, the homelessness issue has become a crisis – almost 200,000 people in the state are homeless. This number represents nearly a third of the country’s homeless population. A worryingly high percentage of those people are also teens and young adults under the age of 25.
In 2022, a ballot measure that would have raised funds to combat homelessness by legalizing online sports betting was overwhelmingly rejected by voters, despite the fact that reducing homelessness is a major issue for most state residents.
This article will look at why the situation got so out of control and the reasons why Proposition 27 was unsuccessful. Then we’ll discuss potential alternatives we may see in the coming years.
The current situation in California
It’s impossible to ignore the issue of homelessness in California. Unlike New York, where most of the homeless population is placed in shelters or temporary accommodation, most of California’s homeless population is living on the streets, in tents or makeshift shelters, or in their cars.
One of the main contributors to homelessness is mental health. The lack of resources for people struggling with mental health issues puts them at a greater risk of ending up living on the streets.
There are several other factors contributing to the high numbers of homeless people in the state. The first is a lack of affordable housing and the steadily increasing housing costs. The second is California’s climate – if you know that you’re going to be living in your car, it makes sense to choose somewhere where you’re less likely to freeze to death.
The problem isn’t necessarily being caused by a lack of investment. Alongside federal and local funds, the state has spent roughly $20 billion trying to address homelessness in the last five years.
The bigger problem is that there is no cohesive approach to fixing homelessness. By funding anything and everything that sounds like a solution, the government has been inefficient and created competition that does little to help the populations actually at risk.
What was Proposition 27
Proposition 27 was on the November 2022 ballot, and 82.28% of voters voted against it. Proposition 27 proposed to legalize sports betting online and to use a percentage of the revenue to fund homelessness programs. The remainder of the revenue was to be used to regulate the industry and to support tribal initiatives. During the campaign, huge amounts were spent by its supporters on advertising and lobbying, including by some of the major sport betting companies in the US.
The defeat of the proposition isn’t too surprising. California has fairly restrictive gambling laws, and sports betting isn’t the only type of online gambling that is still banned, with online casinos not currently being legal in California after proposition 27 failed to pass. Playing at real money casinos listed on casino.org is an option for residents in CT, DE, MI, NJ, PA and WV, but not yet an option for California residents. It’s important to differentiate between real money and social, as social casinos are legal in every state except for Utah. There are, however, some land-based casinos on Native American land operated by tribal authorities.
While the decision to pass some of the revenue on towards homelessness reduction may have made Proposition 27 more appealing to some voters, it wasn’t enough.
Future alternatives
The state needs a more cohesive approach to combating the homelessness problem. The Housing for All Act introduced in February by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is one of the most exciting and promising steps in that direction that we’ve seen in the last few decades. The act would increase the amount of available housing, while also funding local homelessness efforts that have already proved to be successful.
There is also the recently passed Proposition 1, which won narrowly this month. This measure will open more treatment beds for the mentally ill and create housing options for those struggling with mental illness or addiction. This combination of treatment and housing is very positive.
Conclusions
The push to examine where the money being spent on homelessness is actually going is a good one. Knowing where funds are being wasted or mismanaged means that the money can be redirected in a more positive direction.
Homelessness is a humanitarian issue and if the money is being spent well and actually addresses the root causes of the problem, that’s the best outcome possible.
