Vote Called Turning Point for S.D. Jails : Best Remedy for Overcrowding Debated as Fight Over Sales-Tax Hike Heats Up

Both the proponents and the opponents of Proposition A agree that there is a pressing need for more jails in San Diego County. The only thing separating the two sides is how best to accomplish that goal--and about $1.6 billion.

Proposition A, if approved by voters next month, would authorize a half-cent increase in the local sales tax to raise funds for new jails and courtrooms. Over its proposed 10-year life, the half-cent increase, which would raise the sales tax to 7%, would generate about $1.6 billion.

With the inmate population in the county’s six jails currently exceeding 225% of their official capacity and the local court system badly overextended, few people seriously dispute the reasons that prompted the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to place the proposed tax increase on the June 7 primary ballot. But whether San Diegans are concerned enough about the problem to be willing to increase their sales tax for the second time in eight months is another question. Last November, voters approved a half-cent boost to fund highway and transit improvements.

Adverse Publicity

In addition to their concerns over voters’ reaction to the timing as well as the content of Proposition A, the measure’s supporters also are worried that recent news stories concerning allegations that deputy sheriffs have used excessive force in jails also could undermine support for the proposed tax increase.

“Put crooks behind bars, not the public” is the theme that supporters of Proposition A have adopted as a rallying cry in their effort to overcome the public’s traditional resistance to any type of tax increase.

That campaign slogan is designed to draw attention to the fact that the jail overpopulation problem has forced police to daily release more than 100 persons arrested immediately after booking rather than jail them until they are arraigned in court. Many of those released, sheriff’s and court officials say, are chronic offenders who simply ignore court summonses while continuing to commit other crimes for which they will again be processed through what Supervisor Susan Golding describes as “the revolving jailhouse door.”

“The message we’re trying to get across is that we have a problem of major proportions that can be remedied for pennies a day,” Proposition A campaign manager Lance Abbott said.

Variety of Objections

While agreeing that new jails are necessary, the loose coalition of groups opposing the measure have raised a variety of objections, ranging from the oft-used complaint that a sales tax is a regressive form of taxation to arguments that local criminal justice needs could be financed through greater efficiencies in county government.

Noting that up to 25% of the funds raised under Proposition A could be used to operate--not simply build--new jails and courts, opponents also contend that the county could become dependent on the revenue, raising questions about whether the half-cent increase will, indeed, prove to be temporary. Voter approval, however, would be needed to extend the measure’s duration.

Campaign to Pick Up

With only two weeks remaining before the primary, the campaign to date has been a low-key one focused more on debates before small community and service groups than widespread countywide appeals. That trend will change, though, because Proposition A backers have carefully husbanded their $200,000 campaign treasury, much of which has come from the legal community, for a flurry of radio advertisements and mailers in the race’s closing days. Opponents, however, admit that they are depending largely on the news media to carry their arguments to voters.

“We don’t have any money to spend, but we do have the people’s common sense and dislike of new taxes working for us,” said Jack Sanders, a lawyer and president of the United Taxpayers of San Diego, a group of about 100 members that opposes Proposition A. “If this loses, it will be mainly because people don’t want another tax.”

When a similar five-year half-cent sales tax for jails appeared on the November, 1986, ballot, it received a narrow 50.7% majority but failed because it fell far short of the two-thirds margin then needed as a result of Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 statewide tax-cutting initiative. However, under legislation since approved by the state Legislature, a simple majority vote would suffice for passage of this year’s Proposition A--a change that opponents view as a piece of electoral legerdemain designed to circumvent both the spirit and the letter of Proposition 13.

The revenues produced by the proposed half-cent increase would be administered by the San Diego County Regional Justice Facility Financing Agency, a seven-member board consisting of two representatives from the Board of Supervisors, a Municipal and Superior Court judge, and one member each from the City of San Diego, another incorporated city and the Sheriff’s Department. The funds, in turn, would be spent in accord with plans developed and approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Under county planners’ projections, $850 million will be needed by the year 2005 to build new jails and courtrooms, plus operating costs of $265 million--well within the tax’s estimated $1.6-billion total take.

Endorsed by police chiefs, judges, myriad groups and dozens of elected officials countywide, Proposition A is characterized by its supporters as the only feasible answer to the longstanding jail overcrowding crisis posed by housing nearly 4,000 prisoners in six jails with an official capacity of 1,716 inmates. Inadequate state funding and limited local financial resources, county officials say, have left them with little alternative to meet the county’s criminal justice needs.

Beyond Crisis Point?

“It’s actually an understatement to call it a crisis--we’re even beyond that,” said Sheriff John Duffy, noting that court orders aimed at lowering jail populations could force his officers to free even more than the 3,000 arrestees released monthly now if Proposition A fails.

Another of the dire consequences if voters fail to approve the measure, county supervisors have warned, would be shifting scarce county dollars now used for a wide range of social, health and recreational programs to jails. Of the county’s $1.2-billion annual budget, only 7%--or about $84 million--can be used by the supervisors for discretionary purposes, with the other $1.1 billion allocated to programs mandated by state or federal laws, ranging from welfare to indigent defense.

“If Proposition A fails, the simple fact is that there are no additional funds to build jails in this county,” Golding said. “We’ll be sued by the ACLU (to reduce jail population) and they’ll win. A tax increase isn’t attractive to anyone, but you can only point fingers so long and then you have to act. The only alternative would be to cut every discretionary program we have and even that would only be a drop in the bucket compared to what we need.”

Opponents, however, accuse Proposition A’s advocates of painting the issue in an unduly bleak light and of contriving what United Taxpayers’ head Sanders described as a “there’s a criminal at every window crisis mentality” to foster public support.

“First the county says, ‘If you don’t approve this tax, we’ll have to turn dangerous criminals loose on the streets,” Sanders said. “Then they say that if they have to spend regular budget money on jails, they’ll have to eliminate everything from 4-H clubs and libraries to health programs. It’s like they’re trying to scare people into voting for this.”

Reiterating the somewhat hackneyed “fat in the budget” argument, opponents also contend that improved efficiencies in county government could produce sufficient revenues to finance new jail construction.

Responded Golding: “There’s always some waste in any budget that you can’t get rid of. But when you’re talking about $1 billion being needed, that’s not fat, that’s our entire budget.”

Other Opposition

Perhaps the most significant organizational opposition to Proposition A comes from the San Diego Taxpayers’ Assn., a widely respected group--not affiliated with Sanders’ group--that often advises local governments on financial matters.

In announcing its opposition to the measure last week, the Taxpayers’ Assn., which supported the proposed 1986 tax, expressed philosophical and practical economic reservations about the current proposal.

“Philosophically, we think Proposition A sends conflicting signals to the state,” said Mark Nelson, the group’s executive director. “If it’s the state’s responsibility to adequately fund local court and jail systems, then, by approving Prop. A, we’d be rewarding their failure by penalizing local taxpayers.”

The Taxpayers’ Assn. also is troubled by the provision that would permit up to 25% of the funds raised to be used for the operation of jails and courts.

“If this is intended to be a temporary tax, that could be a real problem,” Nelson said. The county’s reliance on Proposition A funds for administrative purposes, opponents argue, could either cause budgetary woes when the 10-year tax expires or make county officials more inclined to ask voters to extend the tax in the late 1990s.

While most of the debate over Proposition A has focused on the need for jails, the measure also would finance expansion of the county’s court system, which Presiding Superior Court Judge Michael Greer describes as the most understaffed in the state. Under state Judicial Council standards, the county should have 91 Superior Court judges, but currently has only 58 judges and three referees, Greer noted.

“We get punished on this bench for being efficient, because the state has consistently ignored us for new judicial positions,” Greer said.

Even so, the county has more judges than courtrooms, creating, by Greer’s own description, “dancing judges” who move from courtroom to courtroom to establish temporary residence in the chambers of their vacationing colleagues.

Over the past five years, the county’s criminal caseload has increased by 58%, a rise that Greer attributes in part to the jail overcrowding problem.

‘Coming Apart at the Seams’

“We’re coming apart at the seams and the situation is getting more and more ridiculous,” Greer said. “People are being booked, released on an order to appear in court that they ignore, and then get picked up again and again . . . without ever seeing the inside of a jail.”

Just as they argue that tighter county spending policies could preclude the need for a sales tax to finance jails, Proposition A opponents also contend that more efficient use of existing courtrooms could alleviate that space crunch.

“The problem isn’t a lack of space, it’s the bankers’ hours being worked in the courts,” Sanders said, noting that many courtrooms are used only about six hours daily. Longer hours of operation, combined with increased sharing of courtrooms by judges, could help address the problem without burdening taxpayers, he added.

Noting that some judges already share courtrooms, Greer agrees that that practice needs to be expanded “so that the public gets the greatest bang for the buck.”

“Courts don’t have to be these old mausoleums where a single judge ‘owns’ one courtroom,” Greer said. “If we build more space, we’re going to do it in the most economic way possible.”

Based more on the 1986 vote than any recent polling, both sides predict another relatively close race on Proposition A.

If that proves to be the case, one factor that could play a pivotal role involves the recent intense publicity over more than 50 incidents in which county jail inmates have alleged, many of them in formal claims, that they were assaulted by sheriff’s deputies. The allegations include charges that inmates, many of whom were arrested on misdemeanor charges, were stripped, beaten, chained in padded cells or held naked in jails.

Although several supervisors expressed confidence in Duffy and his department after a closed meeting on the subject last week, some Proposition A supporters worry that the public may have a different perception.

“I’m afraid it’s going to work against Prop. A just because there are so many stories out there,” Golding said. “Regardless of the facts, the public just sees a lot of charges about things that shouldn’t be happening supposedly going on in the jails. And people want to know that the jails are being properly run now before they give more money for that.”

Calling the excessive-force allegations “a real wild card thrown in at the end” of the race, Proposition A campaign director Abbott, like other supporters, has sought to cast those charges as an outgrowth of the seriously overcrowded conditions in jails.

“That’s not condoning that type of behavior, if it happened . . . but simply recognizing that this kind of thing is the result of a very explosive situation in which deputies fear for their own safety in the jails,” Abbott said.

Opponent Sanders said: “Originally, I thought these stories about the beatings and strip searches would help us. But now that I see the other side trying to turn this to their advantage by saying that this occurred because of overcrowding--which is ridiculous--I’m not so sure.”

Turning Point

One thing that Judge Greer said that he is sure of, however, is that, one way or the other, the county’s jail crisis will be dramatically altered on June 7.

If Proposition A passes, conditions in both the jails and the courts will be improved, he said. (The courts’ fate, Greer adds, also hinges on voters’ approval of Proposition B, a waiver of the county’s so-called Gann spending limit needed to, among other things, enable the county to take advantage of about $35 million in state revenue for courts.)

But if voters reject Proposition A, Greer predicts that the courts will not permit the status quo in the jails to continue. While local judges have been “really pretty kind” about enforcing jail population caps, Greer said he would not be surprised to see the federal courts “step in and shut us down” if the measure fails and the county does not take other significant steps to reduce the overcrowding.

“We’re facing an impossible situation that has to be cured on June 7,” Greer said. “I simply refuse to think that (Propositions) A and B won’t pass. Like anything, if that happened, I guess you find a way to make accommodations. But I don’t even want to think about that.”

Libertarian Party Vice Chairman Dick Rider, however, offers a different interpretation of the significance of the two propositions’ placement on the same ballot.

“The troubling thing to me is this trend in which county government is abandoning responsibility at the same time that it asks for the right to spend more money,” Rider said. “Last year, they gave up responsibility for road construction. This year they want to give up responsibility for jails, and next year it will be something else. But they also want to spend more money under (Proposition) B. There seems to be an inconsistency there--you know, spending more while doing less--that I think is going to bother voters.”