Jail Foes Cheer Law That Slams Door on Funds

Gov. George Deukmejian’s decision to allow into law a measure barring state funds for a county jail proposed in Anaheim prompted cheers from opponents of the site near Anaheim Stadium.

But a majority of the Orange County Board of Supervisors vowed Wednesday to go forward with plans for a 1,500-bed jail at the site east of the Orange Freeway, although the new law leaves the county scrambling to find $141 million in construction funds.

Still, those same supervisors applauded Deukmejian for criticizing two state legislators for meddling in local governmental affairs when they sought the restriction on state spending for the Anaheim jail site.

“Frankly, I had great empathy for the governor,” said Orange County Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, one of four board members who chose the controversial site at Katella Avenue and Douglass Road.

“I think he . . . reacted the only way he could,” Riley said Wednesday.

About an hour before a midnight Tuesday deadline for acting on bills, Deukmejian issued a statement saying that he would allow a $495-million statewide jail bond allocation bill to become law without his signature.

But the governor said he strongly objected to a provision inserted into the measure by Assemblyman Richard Robinson (D-Garden Grove) and Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim) to block the Anaheim jail site selected by the supervisors.

Urgently Needed

“Decisions relating to the siting of a local jail facility should be made by the local governing agency, not by the state,” Deukmejian said.

Despite his objections, the governor said, the measure by Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside) was too urgently needed to veto. It will provide jail construction grants to 51 counties in addition to Orange County.

Anaheim jail opponents cheered the measure’s passage. One, who asked not to be identified, said: “Sticks, stones and vetoes” would have hurt, but critical words from the governor do not lessen the legislative victory.

“I am totally elated,” said Seymour, who has accused the board majority of choosing the Anaheim site in a “back-room deal” because it was in the district of Supervisor Ralph B. Clark, who would not have to face a voters’ backlash at the polls since he is retiring in January.

“Relative to the governor’s strong feeling, I certainly could not agree more that it should be a local decision--except when those decisions are reached by a process that totally lacks local support, public discussion and public input,” Seymour said Wednesday.

‘Remote Site’ Urged

Clark, the only supervisor to oppose the Anaheim site, issued a statement Wednesday saying that the restriction eventually would lead the rest of the supervisors to the conclusion he already has reached: “No urban site . . . exists in Orange County that would be acceptable. . . . The solution is to build a remote site jail.”

“This is an issue which, perhaps, the governor up in Sacramento has some difficulty understanding,” Clark said in the statement.

Clark added, “Seymour and Robinson have been doing exactly what they are elected to do, which is to represent their constituents. They used their skill in the political system to fight the jail.”

Clark predicted that there never will be a jail built at the Katella-Douglass site. But other supervisors said Wednesday that they have no intention of scrapping plans for the jail, even though they are uncertain how to raise the $141 million needed for construction.

The restriction on Orange County’s use of jail bonds would only preclude spending state money at the Katella-Douglass site. Supervisors ordered county staff to prepare a report, due next month, on other ways to finance construction of the much-needed satellite jail. In recent years, state money has paid for roughly 75% of the construction costs for most county jail projects. Orange County could receive up to $25.2 million from the jail bonds measure, which would have to be used on other jail construction projects not so far along in the planning stage.

‘Still on the Tracks’

“We did an analysis. We made a value judgment. . . . We’ve begun the EIR (environmental impact report) process, and if it survives, it (the proposed Anaheim jail) will be there,” Supervisor Bruce Nestande said Wednesday.

“Our train is still on the tracks,” echoed Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder. “If the reasons that site was picked can’t stand up under the glare of intimidation, then it wasn’t a good site to begin with.”

“It’s our responsibility. . . . The governor is right,” Wieder added.

The restriction was added to the jail bonds measure in June by Robinson and Seymour, who frequently clash in Sacramento over issues of concern to Orange County. It said specifically that county officials could not use state money for “an adult jail facility in a charter city on a site that is adjacent to, or within two miles of, a major league baseball and football stadium, and is within three miles of a major amusement park.”

The provision, which was nicknamed the “Mickey Mouse amendment,” was carefully drafted so that it affected only the county-owned Katella-Douglass property. An alternate site on Ball Road, even closer to Disneyland, would not be barred under the wording. Determined to keep the restriction just that narrow, Robinson even vehemently rejected a Bay Area assemblyman’s proposed amendment to change “baseball and football stadium” to “baseball or football stadium.”

Immediately after the amendment was added in June, the board majority denounced it as “blatantly political” and an inappropriate intrusion by the state into local governmental affairs. The four supervisors noted that Robinson was running against Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) and suggested that he was trying to win favor with Anaheim voters in his congressional race.

Compromise Reached

At one time, restrictions were added to the bill that also would have affected jail site controversies in Los Angeles and San Diego counties. But legislators and Deukmejian administration officials reached a compromise that led to their removal in July. Instead, the measure now requires all counties to develop master plans of local detention facilities.

“This is an acceptable compromise as it maintains the counties’ traditional powers” while encouraging “the kind of input and long-range planning that should lessen future city-county conflicts,” Presley said in a written statement, which made no mention of the Orange County controversy.

Orange County officials, who have been held in contempt for failing to live up to an 8-year-old federal court order to ease jail overcrowding, are looking at the Anaheim jail as their first major step toward meeting a federal judge’s demands.

“We really have to find some way to meet the judge’s demand or go to jail,” Riley said.

Supervisors already have expanded branch jails, begun construction of a 384-bed intake center in Santa Ana, launched another search for a remote 5,000-bed jail site, and taken other actions to reduce the inmate population from 2,000 or more to less than 1,500.

But even after the intake center opens next year, county officials have estimated jail capacity must be increased by 8,000 beds over the next 15 years to house the projected number of inmates.