State Issues May Threaten Passage of County Jail Bond

On Nov. 4, when Los Angeles County voters working their way through the ballot finally get to Proposition J, they will have waded through four statewide measures seeking $1.8 billion for uses ranging from schools to state prisons.

That bothers county officials backing the $96-million county bond measure to finance 4,644 new adult and juvenile detention beds for a jail system holding more than 20,000 inmates, but designed for only 12,000. They fear that voter weariness over incurring new debt will set in and lead to rejection of the local measure without a full consideration of its merits.

Because of the acute jail overcrowding problem addressed by Proposition J, the measure’s defeat would trigger as yet undefined reductions of other county services--possibly even fire and police protection--to finance the jail requirements, Sheriff Sherman Block said.

“It is important that people understand that the building, expansion and enhancement (of current jail facilities) will go forward whether Proposition J passes or not; the need is that critical,” Block warned.

Although there have been no recent major incidents of inmate violence in county jails, Block said, the overcrowding could lead to problems. The last prisoner melee was more than a year ago in the Central Jail when 12 deputies and 25 inmates were injured, none seriously.

“By any objective standard, our (jail) system should not be functioning,” Block said.

Proposition J would provide matching county funds for state jail construction funds authorized by voters in 1982. Biggest share--$66.3 million--would provide 2,884 new beds at Pitchess Honor Ranch in Castaic. It would also pay for 752 beds for adult females at Mira Loma honor ranch near Lancaster and 308 beds for adult males at the Central Jail downtown.

Proposition J also would finance 700 beds at two juvenile detention facilities at a cost of $18 million.

The county’s jail system has faced chronic overcrowding for years and has been the subject of protracted litigation in federal court. Late last year, the U.S. Justice Department probed allegations of prisoner abuse due to the overcrowding, but later backed off from any prosecution. But the burgeoning jail population has been a problem that both Block and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors have been wrestling with for years with little visible success.

Earlier this year, to settle a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the county agreed to reduce the inmate population at the men’s Central Jail by 2,000 inmates by Nov. 19. Block said this week that the deadline will be met, but at the expense of other jail facilities forced to absorb some of the inmate load.

Despite programs for doing public works in lieu of serving time and a reduction in the number of prison parole violators, Block said, overall goals have not been met. Rather, the number of inmates has actually climbed to record levels in recent weeks.

Besides potential voter weariness over the cost, Proposition J faces other hurdles. Unlike the Nov. 4 ballot’s four state bond measures requiring simple majority approval, the county proposition needs two-thirds backing.

Moreover, backers fear, voters may confuse the jail measure with the current flap between Gov. George Deukmejian and the state Senate’s Democratic leadership over the placing of a state prison near downtown Los Angeles. Although jails are county institutions different from state or federal prisons, the public does not always make that distinction.

Adding to the possible confusion is one statewide ballot measure, Proposition 54, seeking $500 million for state prison construction.

“Certainly, we believe we’re waging an uphill battle,” Block conceded in an interview. “But now is as good as any time to do it.”

Block said Proposition J backers were encouraged by the fact that in the June primary election, 70.2% of the county’s voters approved Proposition 52, a statewide jail construction bond measure. The local measure would require a near duplication of the support Proposition 52 received.

Despite what local officials view as the need, there apparently will be only a token effort to wage a campaign for the measure’s passage; most of it involving news media exposure.

Supporters, which also include all five county supervisors, contend that while the $96-million figure seems high, individual taxpayers will not be hit hard by it. The owner of a $25,000 home will pay about $7.52 the first year and $3.29 the following year if the measure passes.

The supervisors imply in a sample ballot message that a “no” vote on Proposition J will allow dangerous criminals on the street due to the ACLU settlement of the Central Jail’s inmate population. More likely, Block said, he will try to expand existing programs to permit minor offenders to work off their time.

But Block said there is only so much he can do.

“It’s fair to say there are relatively few minor offenders (still) in the county jail system,” Block said.

The supervisors, headed by the conservative majority of Pete Schabarum, Deane Dana and Mike Antonovich, also contend that without passage of Proposition J, the county may have to curtail other “vital” services for children, health services, criminal prosecution or law enforcement.

Opponents, members of the California Libertarian Party, accused the board in ballot arguments of using “scare tactics” to assure passage of the measure. They argue that the jails are overcrowded because “victimless criminals” such as prostitutes, marijuana growers and alcoholics are behind bars.

“No more prison beds are needed,” said the argument signed by Ted Brown, chairman of the Central Los Angeles Region of the Libertarian Party. “There is plenty of room for real criminals to be held before their trials. Anyone else should not be arrested, let alone jailed.

“What is needed is a reassessment of law enforcement priorities, not a system of locking up more and more people.”