Supervisors Slam the Door on Canyon Jail

The Orange County Board of Supervisors formally abandoned its pursuit of a jail in Anaheim Hills on Tuesday, ending an effort that has taken four years and cost $7.3 million, while delivering nothing in return.

“It’s a dark day for the people of the county of Orange,” Sheriff Brad Gates, a longtime supporter of the Gypsum Canyon jail proposal, said after the board’s 4-1 vote. “We had a site. Now we have no site.”

But jail opponents, who have fought the proposal for years, were jubilant.

“A dark day? It’s a great day for the citizens of Orange County,” said Bob Zemel, chairman of a group that successfully fought a half-cent sales tax initiative in May that would have paid for the Gypsum Canyon jail. “It’s just a dark day for Brad Gates.”

The board’s action had been widely anticipated, coming after a dramatic month in which once-solid support for the Gypsum Canyon jail quickly evaporated. And while the vote formally concludes the pursuit of that proposal, it leaves several questions unanswered and will force the supervisors to consider other suggestions for relieving jail crowding.

Although the supervisors have added more than 1,700 beds to the county jail system during the past six years, inmates continue to overwhelm the capacity of the county’s five jails. The facilities usually hold about 4,400 inmates in cells designed for 3,203, and hundreds of them are in military-style tents that were meant as a temporary remedy for overcrowding but have been up for years.

Another 850 or so inmates are released early every week to make room for more serious offenders.

Even in the face of those numbers--which all five supervisors acknowledge, though some see them as more serious then others--the Gypsum Canyon jail has long faced significant political opposition and financial concerns.

Two events in recent weeks appeared to turn the tide against a canyon jail: A county financial report suggested that the facility would cost taxpayers $119 million a year; then, on Oct. 11, Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed legislation that would have made it easier for the supervisors to condemn the land for the jail.

Without the bill that Wilson vetoed, the county could have used the land for a jail only if four of the five supervisors had voted to condemn the Gypsum Canyon property, which is owned by the Irvine Co. Supervisor Don R. Roth and Board Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez have long said they would refuse to join the board’s three canyon jail supporters in condemning the land.

“Events of recent months have made it quite clear that the site is no longer viable and that our future efforts must be redirected,” Vasquez said during Tuesday’s meeting.

Vasquez moved that the site be dropped, and Roth seconded his motion. They were joined by Supervisors Harriett M. Wieder and Thomas F. Riley, both of whom had supported the canyon jail in vote after vote since 1987 but who said the new situation had forced them to rethink their positions.

“I’m sorry that this day had to arrive,” Wieder said. “This day is a sad day for all of us, or at least for the majority of the board.”

Only Supervisor Roger R. Stanton continued to support the project. Although he acknowledged at the beginning of Tuesday’s debate that the votes were lined up against him, Stanton urged his colleagues to reconsider and not close off an option without offering an alternative.

“There is no compelling case to take Gypsum Canyon off the books as a designated jail site,” Stanton said. “You know that old thing about not letting a bird in the hand go because there’s one in the bush? Well, we’re letting a bird in hand go when there’s none in the bush.”

Stanton proposed that the county leave the proposal on the books while it reviews its options.

His colleagues, however, said the time had come to end the debate for good. “I think that the action that we’re taking puts this to rest,” Wieder said. “It won’t come back to haunt us.”

The canyon still offers a potential spot for a county landfill, however, and the supervisors did not vote to withdraw the county lawsuit that seeks to block building homes in the canyon.

Recognizing that, jail foes said that while they are thrilled to have the canyon jail proposal behind them, they are ready to do battle again.

“I still don’t believe that the final chapter has been read on Gypsum Canyon yet,” said Zemel, leader of the jail opponents. “But the landfill doesn’t belong there for the same reasons that the jail didn’t. . . . Believe me, we’ll be back.”

GYPSUM ALTERNATIVE: Anaheim is expected to OK 8,000 homes in canyon. A17

NEXT STEP

With the Gypsum Canyon jail proposal officially dead, the county will now have to turn to other ideas to relieve jail overcrowding--and the county administrative office is developing a list of suggestions. Programs that provide alternatives to incarceration will almost surely be proposed, and the Theo Lacy Branch Jail in Orange already is being expanded. That jail could be double-bunked, and more beds could be added to the James A. Musick Branch Jail in El Toro. New jails will probably be considered for Anaheim and Santa Ana. The drawback: Almost every suggestion is expensive, and the county is strapped for cash.