Divided Supervisors Decline to Endorse Prop 36, Measure That Boosts Penalties for Theft, Drug Crimes

The county Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Wednesday against endorsing Proposition 36, a criminal sentencing measure on the November ballot.

Following a county staff report on the measure, which could reverse another initiative passed a decade ago, Board Chairwoman Nora Vargas voted no, along with fellow supervisors 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. County District Attorney Summer Stephan also had backed the resolution.

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 critics to rethink the measure, leading to Proposition 36, also known as the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act.” A host of prosecutors, like Stephan, and law enforcement leaders have thrown their support behind it.

If passed, the measure would enhance penalties for drug dealers if their sales lead to a death, certain repeat offenders and those who participate in organized theft, while adding fentanyl to the list of hard drugs.

In addition, it would 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.

Lawson-Remer said 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, while also spending $58 million more per year for criminal justice.

“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,” she said in a statement.

During the meeting, Vargas noted a new state law that cracks down on retail crime, which for her is the better approach.

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

Prop 36 would mean a return to failed policies, and disproportionately harm communities of color or those who are poor, 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, while citing statistics from the Public Policy Institute of California that show crime rates in San Diego County have fallen

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.

During a brief public hearing, social justice advocates asked the board to reject the resolution in favor of 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 spoke in favor of Prop 36 said she is pleased that the measure would focus on providing help for those struggling with addiction.