Editorial: Is homelessness a priority or not?

Last year the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors did something smart, urgent and obvious, yet rather unexpected: It set forth its priorities for the coming year, publicly, so that anyone could see them and hold the supervisors accountable for accomplishing them.

There were four: reforming the Sheriff’s Department, improving child protection, integrating health services — and dealing with homelessness.

The homelessness plan was an ambitious one. The county identified enough one-time funding to begin implementing it this year, but the supervisors will need lots of ongoing revenue for future years to pay for mental health services, substance abuse treatment, counseling and rent subsidies, among other things.

But they made it a priority – so you’d think they’d have prioritized the revenue as well, right?

To be sure, they made efforts to come up with the money; indeed, in the last couple of months, members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors have chased a dizzying array of proposals for generating revenue to fund $450 million a year in services for homeless people. First they had an unusually acrimonious debate over an audacious plan to tax millionaires in the county. That fizzled when they couldn’t convince the state Legislature to give local jurisdictions the authority to impose income taxes.

Then they discussed a countywide parcel tax to fund homelessness programs. But no, they decided instead to put a parcel tax for parks on the November ballot and they didn’t want any competition for that. Then they discussed a quarter-cent sales tax measure that would have provided about $355 million in revenue for homelessness programs. But a motion to put that measure on the ballot — which needed the support of four out of five supervisors to pass — got voted down for fear it might pull votes from a transportation sales tax that will also be on the ballot. While all this was going on, the supervisors unsuccessfully lobbied the state Legislature and the governor to declare a state of emergency on homelessness, which would have allowed some access to state funds.

When none of those alternatives panned out, they finally, two weeks ago, decided to offer up for the ballot a 10% tax on the gross receipts of businesses that produce or distribute marijuana. Analysts estimated that would raise up to about $130 million a year. Even if voters approved the measure, it would be contingent upon the passage of a separate ballot initiative to legalize marijuana.

It wasn’t a very good idea, for a number of reasons, and became a kind of last resort when the supervisors discovered that despite their stated priorities, they had other — well, priorities. And after homelessness service providers expressed serious discomfort with using funds from legalized marijuana sales to aid homeless people, a significant number of whom have substance abuse problems, the Board of Supervisors will vote Tuesday on a motion, introduced by Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, to rescind the decision to put the marijuana tax on the ballot.

Which will probably leave the county with … nothing to put on the November ballot to raise the millions needed for its anti-homelessness programs.

The supervisors technically have until Aug. 9 to put something on the ballot, but they’ve pretty much exhausted all their reasonable and long-shot options.

It’s not easy to figure out how to eradicate homelessness. But what’s frustrating about the county’s behavior is that the supervisors produced a massive and detailed strategy to combat homelessness and made that mission its priority. Then when it came to the challenging task of funding it, they squabbled.

To Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas’ credit, he has never wavered in making homelessness a funding priority. He has gone through a number of options, some of which were rebuffed by state legislators whose approval was needed. But at the county level, his commitment has not been matched by his colleagues. Which is why the board voted for a parcel tax for parks improvement — but not for homelessness services. And it’s why not enough board members voted for the quarter-cent sales tax for homelessness lest it hinder the chances of the transportation tax.

Parks and transportation are important. But the question for the supervisors is this: Is homelessness your priority or not? Because we’re hearing “not.”

It is possible that the supervisors will decide later this year to put the quarter-cent sales tax on the March ballot. If that’s the only choice remaining, they should do so — and they should give it their full-throated support.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook