Appeal of Approval for Lancaster Prison Gets Cool Reception

An attempt by Los Angeles County and the city of Lancaster to halt construction of a maximum-security prison in the western Antelope Valley received a cool reception Wednesday from one of the state Court of Appeal judges hearing the case.

Judge Miriam A. Vogel, the only one of a three-judge panel to speak, suggested local attorneys might be asking the courts to overstep their authority by intervening in the prison construction issue.

The county and city maintain that construction of the 2,200-bed prison, which began in October, should be stopped to allow for additional studies of its effect on the region. The Wednesday hearing was held to appeal a September ruling by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, who determined that the state’s environmental study had been adequate.

Vogel questioned whether judges can require the state--as local attorneys have asked--to study building a smaller prison in Lancaster or moving the entire facility to a different location. Construction of the Lancaster prison and a companion facility in East Los Angeles was ordered by state legislators in 1987 as part of a complicated compromise that ended years of political debate.

“There’s a state mandate here,” Vogel said. Later, she said, “You think that the trial court should have second-guessed the Department of Corrections on the size of the prison?”

No decision was reached Wednesday. Under state guidelines, the state appeals court usually reaches a decision within 90 days of testimony, although attorneys for both sides predicted a ruling in this case might come sooner because of the ongoing construction.

Assistant Atty. Gen. Charles R. Shoemaker said the prison site has been graded and some foundations and walls have been built.

A large group of Lancaster residents oppose the prison because they believe it will hinder growth along the western edge of the valley.

The appellate court is one of the last legal chances to stop construction, short of trying to persuade the state Supreme Court to hear the case, said attorney David H. Mann, who represents Lancaster. Mann said he did not yet know whether the local government agencies would be willing to pay the high cost of attempting a Supreme Court appeal.

Mann said he is hopeful that the litigation will at least succeed in forcing the state to make additional compromises.

“The main emphasis remains to get this thing back in front of the Legislature to get them to reconsider,” he said. “But if we can’t win, let’s get the most we can in terms of mitigation.”

Some Antelope Valley residents have suggested mitigation measures ranging from wider landscaped buffer zones between the prison and future housing tracts to additional street widening in nearby neighborhoods.

Shoemaker has criticized the city and county for continuing court attempts to stall construction, even after building is under way. But Senior Deputy County Counsel Helen S. Parker said that the original prison legislation was inequitable. It prevented construction of the East Los Angeles prison until all environmental challenges had been exhausted, but did not extend the same protection to the Antelope Valley.