The County’s Commitment

The opening of the 580-bed temporary men’s jail in Santee last week bought San Diego County a little breathing room for its dangerously--and illegally--overcrowded jail system.

But the jail also bought the county the enmity of the city of Santee because it was built over the city’s vigorous and understandable objections.

The temporary facility could not be avoided. It was the most expedient way to get some relief for the jail system, which has been housing more than 2 1/2 times as many inmates as the state says it should. The County Jail downtown is under a court-ordered inmate cap, and an out-of-court settlement places limits on the other jails.

A quick fix was called for.

But the wood-frame barracks and razor-wire fencing, adjacent to the also-expanded women’s jail, jeopardize nearby downtown Santee’s development plans. The city says it has already lost one deal and fears that other developers will shy away from building so close to the compound of almost 1,000 inmates. As the environmental impact report stated, the temporary jail is “incompatible with existing surrounding land uses.”

The county has said it will close the jail within seven years--just as soon as other planned jails are built. But its assurances are full of “what ifs.”

What if the sales tax designed to pay for those other jails is overturned by a court challenge?

What if the county needs to expand the women’s jail?

What if the county decides to use the buildings as a drug treatment center?

No wonder Santee is skeptical.

The supervisors say they gave as much commitment as they could legally, that they were not permitted to tie the hands of future boards by putting the promise in writing. They also say that the jail was built without a kitchen or laundry to help ensure that it would remain temporary.

Both are good arguments. And, given the county’s budget woes, hedging is probably understandable. But it undermines the county’s credibility.

The county should start honoring its commitment to Santee right now, by eliminating the “what ifs” from its vocabulary before they become acceptable fallbacks for planners and policy makers.

The “what ifs” should not be allowed to become self-fulfilling prophecies.