Order Blocking State Prison Reversed, but Delay Still Possible

An appellate court reversed a judicial order that blocked the state from acquiring Los Angeles County land in Lancaster for a prison, but state officials said Wednesday that they may delay work on the site until additional legal challenges are settled.

Department of Corrections spokeswoman Judith McGillivray said state officials have not decided whether to resume the acquisition and construction process or wait until after the lawsuits are heard.

Lawyers for the county and the city of Lancaster filed written arguments Wednesday in preparation for a Superior Court hearing Sept. 24 in Los Angeles, when a judge will hear arguments on a state environmental impact report on the proposed prison. A hearing on other issues is set for Nov. 14.

The city and county have both sued to block the proposed 2,200-bed prison, attacking the environmental review of the site as inadequate. The lawsuits argue that the county needs the 252-acre site for county facilities and that the 1987 state law siting prisons in Lancaster and East Los Angeles is unconstitutional.

The state won a significant victory this week before a three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeal, which overturned a lower court ruling in July that had blocked the state’s acquisition of the land through the power of eminent domain. The ruling last month by Superior Court Commissioner Herbert Klein, on a motion by county lawyers, had forced Department of Corrections officials to cancel a call for bids on the contract for grading the prison site.

In an opinion delivered Monday in response to an appeal by the state attorney general’s office, the appellate justices said Klein violated “the spirit if not the letter” of legislation requiring that the prison be built with all possible speed.

The justices said Klein’s decision that the acquisition process should be frozen until legal challenges to the prison are resolved was based on insufficient procedural grounds.

County Supervisor Mike Antonovich expressed disappointment Wednesday with the appellate court ruling, urging the state to delay action until the legal dispute is resolved.

“It makes more sense for the state to keep its plans on hold until the Superior Court rules on the county’s case to prevent this land grab,” Antonovich said in a written statement. “I am confident that the county’s position will be upheld.”

Although opponents have argued that work on the prison during the legal dispute may waste taxpayers’ money if the state loses in the end, McGillivray said the delay is also costly, increasing expenses by about $650,000 a month.

In written arguments filed Wednesday, attorneys for the city reiterated their arguments that the state conducted a shoddy environmental review that failed to consider the impact of a prison on western Lancaster.

They said the pace of development since the state completed the environmental study has resulted in the “potential construction” of about 35,000 dwelling units, including developments that have been approved by the city and those in the proposal stage. This demonstrates that the area is becoming unsuitably urban for a prison, which would aggravate traffic and other local problems, they contend.

Attorneys for the county could not be reached for comment. The state’s written arguments are due Sept. 10.