San Diego County Supervisors Reject Support For Proposition 36

SAN DIEGO, CA — The county Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Wednesday against endorsing Proposition 36, a criminal sentencing measure on the November ballot that would reverse another initiative passed a decade ago, should voters approve it.

Following a county staff report, Board Chairwoman Nora Vargas voted no, along with Terra Lawson-Remer and Monica Montgomery Steppe. Their colleagues Joel Anderson and Jim Desmond were in favor of a resolution supporting Prop 36, which backers say is needed to correct unintended consequences of Proposition 47.

A vote on the resolution -- backed by Anderson, Desmond and county District Attorney Summer Stephan -- was continued from the Tuesday regular meeting. In late September, supervisors voted 3-2 (with Anderson and Desmond opposed) to direct the chief administrative officer to prepare a report on how Proposition 36 might impact county homeless-services funding and other programs.

In 2014, voters passed Proposition 47, which reclassified some "non- violent" felonies as misdemeanors. Recent concerns about organized retail thefts and burglaries have led some to rethink the measure. That led to the development of Proposition 36, also known as the

"Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act," which is backed by a host of prosecutors and law enforcement leaders.

If passed, the measure would:

-- classify repeat theft as a felony for people who steal less than $950 if they have two or more prior theft-related convictions, although a third theft charge could be reduced to a misdemeanor (and the fourth conviction would remain a felony);
-- allow stolen property values from multiple thefts to be combined to warrant a felony charge, if the total exceeds $950;
-- allow for an enhanced penalty if an offender steals, damages or destroys property via organized theft (with two or more offenders) or by causing losses of $50,000 or greater;
-- add fentanyl to the list of hard drugs;
-- legalize stricter penalties for drug dealers whose actions result in death or serious injury, and warn them of potential murder charges if continued trafficking results in fatalities similar to the warnings issued in driving under the influence cases; and
-- establish a classification that gives those with two prior hard- drug possession convictions the option of entering drug and mental health treatment, instead of incarceration, and allow for the charge to be expunged.

In a statement after the vote, Desmond called Prop 36 "a vital step towards making our community safer and giving people a chance to rebuild their lives."

"The voters will ultimately have the final say, and I believe they'll choose a safer, stronger future for us all," Desmond added.

Vice Chair Lawson-Remer said later that if Californians passed Prop 36, the county would lose around $14 million in state money for drug addiction and mental health treatment, along with homelessness programs.

Lawson-Remer added that the new proposition would result in the county spending $58 million more per year for criminal justice duties.

"Getting rid of the successful programs that provide treatment for people abusing drugs and alcohol will create more criminals, and will result in hundreds more people living on our streets," Lawson-Remer said in a statement.

During the meeting, Vargas said Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a law cracking down on retail crime, and that is the solution.

"You can be tough on crime without sacrificing the well-being of communities," she added.

Drawing a comparison, Montgomery Steppe noted how on Tuesday she and her colleagues voted for a resolution supporting Proposition 6, which if passed would amend the state Constitution to remove language allowing forced labor as a form of punishment for criminal offenders.

Montgomery Steppe said overly harsh criminal justice remedies led to "thousands of broken families, which one could argue produced more people that are in the system, lonely children, and a prison population so saturated that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that our policies amounted to cruel and unusual punishment."

Prop 36 would mean a return to failed policies, and disproportionately harm communities of color or poor ones, Montgomery Steppe said.

"I guarantee you if (Prop 36) passes, and we implement it, we'll be back here a decade or two later reversing what we did before, because we have a knee-jerk reaction to trying to solve problems that over time we have created," she added.

She cited Public Policy Institute of California statistics showing lower crime rates in San Diego County, and said the claim that Prop 47 "has anything to do with increasing crime rates is a complete fabrication with no basis in reality."

Asking for his colleagues' support, Desmond said that while there are costs associated with passing Prop 36, "there are also costs if we do nothing."

"The damage that Prop 47 has done to California is really impossible to monetize, but people are fed up with rampant crime and homelessness in the state, and they want something done," Desmond said.

Desmond noted that offenders get three chances before facing any consequences, and a judge can decide to release them.

"We can't allow shoplifting to continue just because it's expensive to enforce," Desmond said.
During a brief public hearing, social justice advocates asked the board to reject Prop 36. A member of Pillars of the Community said the proposal is deceptive.

"We aren't afraid of people who are under-resourced, but we are afraid of people who believe that people who are under-resourced deserve to be thrown in prison," she added.

A woman who called in favor of Prop 36 said she believes the criminal justice process isn't racist, but does discriminate against the poor. However, she added that Prop 36 would focus on providing help for those struggling with addiction.

By KAREN WEIL / City News Service