Passage of Jail Tax Praised, but Prop. B Loss Brings Dismay

For the second time in seven months, San Diego County voters have opened their wallets and agreed to shoulder an increase in the local sales tax, narrowly endorsing a ballot proposition expected to generate $1.6 billion for the construction of courts and jails.

At the same time, however, residents rejected a plea by county officials for permission to exceed a state-imposed spending cap that bars San Diego from access to millions of dollars in local taxes and state grants. The defeat of that measure, Proposition B, at the polls Tuesday means the level of services residents now receive from county government will drop, officials predicted Wednesday.

“I was very relieved that the people passed the jails tax measure because it enables us to fight back against crime and get criminals off our streets,” County Supervisor Susan Golding said. “But the defeat of Proposition B is very disappointing . . . . It means that citizens will be losing out on millions of dollars that are rightfully ours and desperately needed in our community.”

Proposition A Narrowly Approved

Although the jails tax measure--Proposition A--won at the polls, its victory was by no means decisive. Unofficial results from Tuesday’s primary election show that Proposition A garnered just 50.56% of the vote, barely more than the simple majority it needed to pass.

Indeed, if not for state legislation that reduced the required margin of victory from two-thirds of the vote to a simple majority, Proposition A would have met the same fate as a similar measure defeated in November, 1986. That measure received 50.7% of the vote but was subject to the two-thirds approval requirement.

The passage of Proposition A means that beginning Jan. 1, most purchases made in San Diego County will be subject to a 7% sales tax. Over its 10-year life, Proposition A will produce funds for an $850-million laundry list of chronically needed jails and courtrooms, plus about $265 million for operating costs, according to county projections.

Prop. B Failure Creates Financial Bind

The balloting on Proposition B, which sought to lift the so-called Gann limit that restricts government spending according to a formula based on population growth and inflation, also was close. Final returns showed that the measure was defeated by just 8,989 votes, with 51.09% opposed and 48.91% in favor.

Reactions to the election results varied radically Wednesday. While officials in some county offices exulted that money is finally available to help them tackle a longstanding jail crowding problem, other administrators were in a somber mood, troubled by the financial bind voter rejection of Proposition B has created.

Perhaps the most direct impact of Proposition B’s demise will be felt by the county’s courts. The measure was needed both to free up funds for 13 new judicial positions on the Superior Court bench and to provide San Diego with $34 million in state revenue for courthouse operating costs.

Superior Court now has 58 judges, but a state study has concluded that it needs 91 judges to cope with the county’s swelling caseload. Presiding Superior Court Judge Michael Greer said he would have settled for the 13.

“We’re now facing the prospect of getting no new judges until next year--and then only if (the Gann limit issue) is placed back on the ballot and approved by the voters,” Greer said. “Until then we can only shore up the walls and work even harder and hope for the best.”

Greer noted that San Diego’s new “fast-track” system, which is designed to alleviate delays in bringing civil lawsuits to trial, is particularly vulnerable to the loss of the new judges. With the criminal caseload rising 58% in the last five years, Greer said, he has been able to assign just seven judges to hear civil matters. That makes it tough for the court to comply with fast-track rules requiring that most civil cases go to trial within a year after they are filed.

Other segments of county government also lost out with the defeat of Proposition B.

Because officials drafted the proposed 1988-89 fiscal year budget on the assumption that the funds freed up by the measure would not be available, no more cuts are expected. But hopes that $10-million worth of planned budget reductions to a variety of county departments could be avoided have been dashed.

Mental-Health Cuts

Among the hardest hit will be the mental health division of the Department of Health Services. David Janssen, assistant chief administrative officer for the county, said budget proposals include $8 million in cuts--or a 20% total reduction--in services for adult mental health patients. If Proposition B had passed, Janssen said, officials could have averted those and other cuts.

The only consolation buried in Tuesday’s results, Janssen said, is that “the passage of Proposition A removed pressure to further cut social and health programs to pay for the construction of jails and courts.”

In a related arena, Proposition B’s failure also hurts San Diego’s efforts to obtain a more equitable share of money from the state. San Diego now ranks 57th out of 58 counties in California in the per capita general revenue it receives from the state. The county has sued the state over that issue, but, even if it wins the battle, it could not spend the $72-million prize because of the existing Gann limit.

Theories on why Proposition B failed to pass muster with the voters abound. Most officials, however, agreed that confusion over the measure did it in. They noted that a similar statewide initiative also failed.

“If I hadn’t already known what Proposition B was all about, I would have voted against it,” Judge Greer said. “It was poorly worded and the voters just weren’t sufficiently educated. They thought it was another tax.”

Golding expressed hopes that her colleagues would agree to place the measure back on the ballot in November.

“This was a long, complex ballot and our attention was mainly focused on Proposition A,” Golding said. “We need another chance to make the citizens aware of what this means to them.”

On a more positive note for county leaders, Proposition A’s success means that a master plan of jail and court projects will be sent to the Board of Supervisors as early as July. That plan will then be forwarded to a seven-member panel called the San Diego County Regional Justice Facility Financing Agency, which will administer the money raised by the tax increase.

Rich Robinson, the county’s special projects director, said the two projects likely to receive the highest priority are the doubling in size of a planned 968-bed jail in Otay Mesa and construction of a 1,000-bed pre-arraignment facility near downtown. He said the Otay project would cost an estimated $36 million, while the center city facility--tentatively planned for a site on Midway Drive--has a budget of about $37 million excluding the land purchase.

As for new courtrooms, Judge Greer speculated that North County would receive attention first. The region has seen vast population growth but no attendant expansion of courts, and its Vista facility is badly overloaded.

Robinson said the jail and court construction will be financed through issuance of bonds that will be repaid from money collected from the tax increase.

Surprised that Proposition A failed to receive a heartier endorsement by the voters, supporters of the measure said Wednesday that their most daunting challenge was to convince San Diegans to approve their second sales-tax increase in seven months. In November, voters approved the county’s first-ever sales tax increase, a half-cent rise for highway and transit improvements that took effect April 1.

“The fact that we got over 50% right after the people approved another tax increase is testament to the problem Proposition A was addressing,” Lance Abbott, manager of the pro-A campaign, said. “It’s not easy convincing people to tax themselves, but people recognized there were legitimate public safety needs going unaddressed, and they got out and punched the button for us.”