Ukiah Councilman Criticizes Prop 36 as ‘False Promises’ on Crime and Homelessness – Letter to the Editor

Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send it to [email protected]. Please consider including an image to use – either a photo of yourself or something that fits on the letter. However, no image is required for publication.

Please remember that the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of MendoFever, nor have we reviewed the letters for accuracy.

---

Dear editor,

In his October 6, 2024 editorial, Adam Gaska outlined his support for California’s Proposition 36 and his criticism of the Ukiah City Council for not supporting it. Since Mr. Gaska cited only one of several reasons I gave at the meeting in support of my “no” vote, I would like to take this opportunity to explain my position on Proposition 36 in more detail.

I admire Mr. Gaska’s commitment to cleaning up homeless camps and his sincere attempts to address this enormous problem. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he was duped into believing the false promises in Proposition 36.

Proposition 36, also called the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, is the wrong solution to all of these problems. It does nothing to alleviate homelessness, nor is Mr Gaska suggesting that it does. Certainly we have a deep problem with retail theft, drug addiction and homelessness here in Ukiah, but 36 plays on the deep concerns and anger of well-intentioned voters without offering real solutions.

Prop 36 increases prison time for those who use drugs, even though there is evidence that prison time for drug possession does not reduce drug use. Charging people with serious crimes that could result in jail or prison time will not result in treatment. In some cases, drug treatment is prescribed, but the funding and availability of such treatment is limited. Additionally, eighteen California counties have no drug treatment programs.

Prop 36 does not include a plan to improve services for drug addicts or those who need them most, e.g. B. to include people on the street in treatment or all-round services. Charging people with serious crimes that could result in prison or prison time will not result in the treatment that Prop 36 provides. And under the provisions of 36, someone who enters rehab and relapses as usual would face prison time for failing to complete a treatment program.

And what happens if the increased number of prisoners are released? It is well documented that homelessness often follows release from prison or prison. In fact, according to a recent national study on homelessness, 19% of people who are homeless, or nearly 35,000 people, become homeless on a given night, from prison or from a lengthy prison stay.

Prop 36 would return California to the worst days of ineffective mass incarceration while cutting about $100 million a year in funding for drug treatment, housing, rehabilitation services, and truancy prevention, the very things proven to prevent crime in the first place. The effect of 36 will be to leave more Californians languishing in prison or jails for minor crimes, while costing taxpayers an additional $5 billion on top of the $27 billion already spent on jails, prisons and courts will cost per year.

Additionally, given recent legislative reforms, the necessity of Prop 36 is questionable. The Legislature passed and Governor Newsom recently signed sweeping criminal justice improvements for both retail theft and drug sales, particularly fentanyl, which now carries a three-year sentence extension for anyone selling more than one kilogram. District attorneys can add together related thefts, meaning multiple thefts from the same store in the same week, if the value is less than $950 (the current cap for a misdemeanor charge) and charge them as felonies, while police can even make arrests if they are not a witness to a crime. Additionally, residential burglary, robbery, and grand larceny are all serious crimes.

The misguided “solutions” offered by Prop 36 supporters will fail to address California residents’ frustrations with housing, drug abuse and retail theft. If it passes, we will see more people cycling into prisons and jails with no chance of recovery. Prop 36 also fails to address the root causes of homelessness, which often stem from the high cost of housing and not just addiction and substance abuse.

As a member of the Ukiah City Council, I refused to support Prop 36 because this measure preys on public anger and frustration without effectively addressing the problems it purports to solve.

Susan Sher

Member, Ukiah City Council