Senate Authorizes Two Prisons in L.A. County : Breaks 2-Year Stalemate by Naming Eastside, Antelope Valley Sites; Assembly May Vote Today

The Senate broke a two-year political stalemate over where to build a prison in Los Angeles County by resoundingly passing legislation Monday that would authorize two prisons, one on the city’s Eastside and a second in the Antelope Valley.

Facetiously dubbed the “great compromise” because it “spreads the pain” between Democratic and Republican-dominated communities, the legislation was approved 29 to 6 and sent to the Assembly, where it could be acted on as early as today.

‘An Unhappy Day’

As it emerged from the Senate, the bill authorizes a 1,450-bed prison, mainly to be used for processing new inmates, in an industrial area two miles southeast of the Civic Center and adjacent to the heavily Latino and Democratic community of Boyle Heights. The second prison, with 2,200 beds, would be near the County Jail in a Republican and rapidly urbanizing area just outside the western city limits of Lancaster.

Even those who once bitterly fought the prison bill reluctantly embraced it, citing overcrowding in the state’s penitentiaries and the lack of political mileage in continuing the fight.

“This isn’t a glorious day, it’s an unhappy day,” said Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), whose opposition to the bill delayed a vote for nearly a year. “But it is a day when we legislators have to discharge our duties.”

Gov. George Deukmejian, whose demands for a prison on the city’s Eastside set off the debate that has continued for 22 months, expressed concern that certain provisions of the measure could delay opening the Eastside prison.

Asked by reporters if he would sign the measure in its current form, Deukmejian said: “I’m going to have to wait and see exactly what transpires. I’m concerned about anything that is likely to delay the opening of a Los Angeles prison.”

Kevin Brett, Deukmejian’s press secretary, said the governor remains opposed to the Legislature’s naming the Lancaster site, rather than the Department of Corrections. Deukmejian also had asked the Legislature to give him authority to appeal any lawsuits directly to the state Supreme Court rather than allowing opponents to delay the project with appellate court reviews.

Nonetheless, Republicans in the Senate indicated that the governor, a hard-line law-and-order advocate, would be hard-pressed to veto the legislation. “There is too much at stake,” said Fresno Sen. Ken Maddy, the GOP’s floor leader.

The state’s prison system is operating at 170% of capacity and two new penitentiaries, in San Diego and near Stockton, are prevented by law from being occupied until the Los Angeles dispute is resolved.

Even before the Senate vote, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown was preparing to put the bill on the fast track to Deukmejian’s desk by suspending rules to allow it to be heard in two committees and voted on by the full Assembly as early as today.

“We will want to act as quickly as possible in view of the overcrowding situation,” Brown told the Assembly. Later, he told reporters, “Yes, I support the L.A. prison bill. I support all the L.A. prison bills.”

The Senate’s vote represented a dramatic turnaround for legislation that had passed both houses of the Legislature in one form or another only to be held up in partisan bickering.

In its original form, the bill proposed just the Eastside prison. Amid growing community opposition, Democrats in the Senate blocked the bill last year, contending that it was an effort by Deukmejian to punish his political enemies. The addition of the Lancaster site was seen by Democrats as a way to break the deadlock.

The amended bill then drew opposition from Republicans whose districts are affected. Sen. Newton Russell (R-Glendale), who represents the Lancaster area, asked the Senate to reject the compromise. When it became clear that he had little support, Russell turned to his Senate colleagues and bitterly suggested that they were backing the bill merely “because it’s not in your districts. That’s what makes the difference.”

Maddy said that Russell and Sen. Art Torres, who represents the Eastside community, would simply “have to swallow, vote no and accept it.”

Torres, equally bitter about the outcome, said Eastside residents would continue to fight the project in court. In a terse statement aimed at Roberti and other Democratic leaders, Torres also told reporters that he could no longer be counted on to support Democratic legislation or candidates.

“I have not received support in this house, when I have given to the Democratic Party for 14 years,” Torres snapped. “Their colors were clearly showing today.”

Roberti tried to soften the blow to Torres and Eastside residents, who doggedly attended hearing after hearing on the prison.

Addressing his remarks to them, Roberti said the fight had gone on long enough. “Everything we’ve said over the past year is still the same,” he said. “There should be no prison in an urban area. But we have to balance all the interests. . . . I don’t regret the fight.”

Under the bill, both sites would be subjected to “shortened” environmental studies before construction could begin. The state would be given the authority to immediately purchase the Eastside parcel.

That site would be located within a 20-acre area located southeast of Olympic Boulevard and Sante Fe Avenue.

The area includes a nine-acre parcel once owned by Crown Coach International and now targeted for new industrial development. Although owners of that land say they do not want to sell to the state, the property could obtained through condemnation.

If either prison site turns out to be unfeasible, the Department of Corrections would have six months to find new locations. In the case of the Lancaster prison, the alternate site must be within a 200-square-mile-area surrounding Lancaster.

The bill would also prevent either prison from being occupied until construction has begun on the other.