ARTICLE
A couple of months ago, a consultant firm from Sacramento presented the pros of Proposition 36 to the Chamber’s Community Affairs Committee (CAC). We did not have a quorum for that meeting so no action was taken. However, I think it is important that our members and the community are educated on the measure that will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot. Prop. 36 is an alternative to Proposition 47, which was approved by California voters a decade ago. Prop. 47 was seen as a means to reduce the overflow at our prisons and other incarceration sites (county jails) where ‘minor crimes’ were granted misdemeanor penalties. It was an attempt to help small-time criminal activities to seek help through counseling. However, during the past decade retail crime, car break-ins, and petty thefts have become a common place and a nuisance in our cities. The law enforcement officers, if they could capture criminals at the scene, would see the arrested person returned to the streets. Prop 36 is described by the proponents as a balanced approach that is supported by Democrats, Independents, Republicans, small businesses, local elected leaders, law enforcement, social justice organizations, and crime victims and drug survivor advocates. The Prop. 36 ballot language reads below. Proposition 36 1959. (23-0017A1) ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs, including fentanyl, and for thefts under $950—both currently chargeable only as misdemeanors—with two prior drug or two prior theft convictions, as applicable. Defendants who plead guilty to felony drug possession and complete treatment can have charges dismissed. Increases sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes. Increased prison sentences may reduce savings that currently fund mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims; any remaining savings may be used for new felony treatment programs. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state criminal justice system costs potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to an increase in the state prison population. Some of these costs could be offset by reductions in state spending on local mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services due to requirements in current law. Increased local criminal justice system costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to increased court-related workload and a net increase in the number of people in county jail and under county community supervision. (23-0017A1). Again, according to the Yes on Prop. 36 campaign, Prop 36 creates effective tools to hold individuals accountable for repeat retail theft and fentanyl trafficking while incentivizing treatment for those suffering from addiction to hard drugs. Yesterday, I participated on a zoom call with business and community leaders across the state who are a part of the New California Coalition (https://www.newcaliforniacoalition.org/about). Two big city mayors were on the call to present their reasoning for supporting Prop. 36. Mayor Todd Gloria of San Diego and Mayor Matt Mayan of San Diego described Prop. 36 as a compromise solution. Their major points when discussing the pressing issues in the respective cities was Crime, Homelessness and Cost of Living — and of course how lack of housing is a driving factor for their communities. Gloria stated, Prop. 36 is not a cure-all to the problem of crime, mental health and drug addiction. He said, “when a person is on the street corner yelling out at a ghost person and making a scene because of their mental health and drug addiction, an innocent bystander doesn’t call their state assembly member or county supervisor, they call the Mayor.” The city police show up and have few options but to arrest the person and the repeat cycle of returning to the streets is an ineffective result. Mayor Mayan noted that Prop. 36 combined with the Care Court will lead to better outcomes. The criminal will have two choices: Go to jail or seek treatment. Prop 36 will create real accountability for those habitually breaking these laws and making our communities less safe. The Yes on Prop. 36 website is: (https://voteyesprop36.com/the-facts-about-prop-36/) Of course when the Initiatives system was created in California over a 100+ years ago, it put the decision making process into the hands of the voters. The No on Prop 36 committee has finally opened its doors, and in recent weeks has taken in its first major contributions — six-figure gifts each from leading criminal-justice reform donors Patty Quillin and Quinn Delaney. But the campaign to defeat Prop 36 does not expect that to be a prelude to the gusher of progressive cash that emerged to pass criminal-justice reform at the ballot a decade ago. “From our position, we have to assume the worst,” said committee spokesperson Anthony York. “It’s a little late in the game, but here we are.” The No on Prop. 36 describes the measure as a prison spending scam. It is led by the ACLU. The No on Prop. 36 is: (https://www.aclunc.org/no-prop-36-tools-and-resources). If time permits in the next month, the Chamber CAC may revisit Prop. 36 and other measures on the state ballot. Until then, we want to inform and educate our community on both sides of this ballot measure.
A couple of months ago, a consultant firm from Sacramento presented the pros of Proposition 36 to the Chamber’s Community Affairs Committee (CAC). We did not have a quorum for that meeting so no action was taken. However, I think it is important that our members and the community are educated on the measure that will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot. Prop. 36 is an alternative to Proposition 47, which was approved by California voters a decade ago. Prop. 47 was seen as a means to reduce the overflow at our prisons and other incarceration sites (county jails) where ‘minor crimes’ were granted misdemeanor penalties. It was an attempt to help small-time criminal activities to seek help through counseling.
However, during the past decade retail crime, car break-ins, and petty thefts have become a common place and a nuisance in our cities. The law enforcement officers, if they could capture criminals at the scene, would see the arrested person returned to the streets. Prop 36 is described by the proponents as a balanced approach that is supported by Democrats, Independents, Republicans, small businesses, local elected leaders, law enforcement, social justice organizations, and crime victims and drug survivor advocates. The Prop. 36 ballot language reads below.
Proposition 36
1959. (23-0017A1) ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state criminal justice system costs potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to an increase in the state prison population. Some of these costs could be offset by reductions in state spending on local mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services due to requirements in current law. Increased local criminal justice system costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to increased court-related workload and a net increase in the number of people in county jail and under county community supervision. (23-0017A1).
Again, according to the Yes on Prop. 36 campaign, Prop 36 creates effective tools to hold individuals accountable for repeat retail theft and fentanyl trafficking while incentivizing treatment for those suffering from addiction to hard drugs. Yesterday, I participated on a zoom call with business and community leaders across the state who are a part of the New California Coalition (https://www.newcaliforniacoalition.org/about).
Two big city mayors were on the call to present their reasoning for supporting Prop. 36. Mayor Todd Gloria of San Diego and Mayor Matt Mayan of San Diego described Prop. 36 as a compromise solution. Their major points when discussing the pressing issues in the respective cities was Crime, Homelessness and Cost of Living — and of course how lack of housing is a driving factor for their communities. Gloria stated, Prop. 36 is not a cure-all to the problem of crime, mental health and drug addiction. He said, “when a person is on the street corner yelling out at a ghost person and making a scene because of their mental health and drug addiction, an innocent bystander doesn’t call their state assembly member or county supervisor, they call the Mayor.” The city police show up and have few options but to arrest the person and the repeat cycle of returning to the streets is an ineffective result. Mayor Mayan noted that Prop. 36 combined with the Care Court will lead to better outcomes. The criminal will have two choices: Go to jail or seek treatment. Prop 36 will create real accountability for those habitually breaking these laws and making our communities less safe. The Yes on Prop. 36 website is: (https://voteyesprop36.com/the-facts-about-prop-36/)
Of course when the Initiatives system was created in California over a 100+ years ago, it put the decision making process into the hands of the voters. The No on Prop 36 committee has finally opened its doors, and in recent weeks has taken in its first major contributions — six-figure gifts each from leading criminal-justice reform donors Patty Quillin and Quinn Delaney.
But the campaign to defeat Prop 36 does not expect that to be a prelude to the gusher of progressive cash that emerged to pass criminal-justice reform at the ballot a decade ago.
“From our position, we have to assume the worst,” said committee spokesperson Anthony York. “It’s a little late in the game, but here we are.” The No on Prop. 36 describes the measure as a prison spending scam. It is led by the ACLU. The No on Prop. 36 is: (https://www.aclunc.org/no-prop-36-tools-and-resources).
If time permits in the next month, the Chamber CAC may revisit Prop. 36 and other measures on the state ballot. Until then, we want to inform and educate our community on both sides of this ballot measure.