Sacramento report: Crime-fighting measure on the ballot

Perhaps the most controversial of the 10 bills in California that will be voted on in November is the one that would increase penalties for repeat theft and drug offenses, including the sale and possession of fentanyl.

Proposition 36 seeks to reverse some parts of Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot proposal that reduced the punishment for some crimes to misdemeanors in an effort to reduce California's prison population.

Supporters say the new ballot bill gives prosecutors and judges ways to deal with serial thefts and crimes involving fentanyl and other hard drugs such as methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin. Critics warn it could undo criminal justice reforms and restore mass incarceration policies.

What Proposition 36 does

Proposition 36 would include fentanyl in laws against trafficking in hard drugs and possession of those drugs with weapons. It would allow judges to impose prison sentences at the state level rather than the county level for drug traffickers who sell large quantities and increase the length of their sentences.

The measure would reinstate penalties for dealers whose drugs kill or cause serious harm to someone, and would warn convicted drug dealers and manufacturers that they could face murder charges if their drugs cause a death.

To encourage these measures, the law requires that people convicted of drug offenses receive court-ordered treatment programs. Those who complete these programs face a discharge from charges. However, defendants who refuse or fail the programs face up to three years in prison.

It also aims to crack down on burglaries and shoplifting. Thefts under $950 are currently treated as misdemeanors. But under Proposition 36, they could be combined and treated as felonies if several related thefts total more than $950 or if the person has two previous convictions.

Three or more people who steal goods together can also be charged with crimes in an effort to crack down on organized gangs of theft. The measure provides for longer prison sentences for crimes that result in serious injury to someone. If the victim is elderly or a child, prison sentences can be even longer.

This is how supporters of the strategy could reduce crime: San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan sees the measure as a “balanced reform” that offers a graduated approach to punishment for theft and drug offenses. For example, if someone has two convictions for theft as a minor misdemeanor, prosecutors can consider whether to grant another reprieve or charge a third offense as a major felony.

“If it looks like it's a long time apart, so there's a lot of time between the two convictions, then maybe another chance is in order,” Stephan said. “If someone is obviously taking advantage of their victims and is a habitual criminal, you can use the option of promoting treatment or stopping the behavior by sending them to prison.”

She said the provision for court-ordered drug treatment is essential to preventing deaths from fentanyl, a powerful opioid laced with many street drugs. Often, addicts do not seek help on their own but must be forced into treatment. Proposition 36 could actually reduce incarceration rates by breaking the cycle of crime and drug use before it escalates, Stephan argues.

“In my opinion, this can ultimately lead to a reduction in incarceration rates because you are not waiting until someone becomes a criminal,” she said.

Why critics say it is a step backwards: Mitchelle Woodson, legal director of the criminal justice organization Pillars of the Community, argues that Proposition 36 will not reduce crime rates but will instead send more people to prison.

“The consequences for black and brown people who are incarcerated for long periods of time for such minor offenses will be disproportionate,” she said.

Court-ordered drug treatment is not a solution to the addiction problem, Woodson said, arguing that recovery works better when those affected voluntarily choose to undergo treatment.

Proposition 36 could add tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to government costs by increasing the prison population. That money would be better spent on drug rehabilitation, mental health treatment and housing, she said.

“We are for community-based programs that address the root causes of why people commit these crimes in the first place and provide the resources to help people get back on their feet,” Woodson said.

Is David Alvarez trying to repeal Steve Padilla's landfill bill?

Environmental groups opposed to plans for a new landfill in the south of the county are supporting a bill by state Sen. Steve Padilla that would prevent any new landfills in the Tijuana River Basin. They say Rep. David Alvarez of a neighboring district is trying to block the bill.

I contacted Alvarez and his office but received no response.

Our editor Scott Lewis wrote about the proposed facility on the east side of Otay Mesa. The project's developer, National Enterprises, says San Diego needs more space to store its garbage. But Padilla pointed to a CalEPA statement saying the region won't need new landfill space until at least 2053. And if we did need it, we wouldn't store it in the disastrously polluted Tijuana River Basin, say the project's critics.

“Building a landfill in this highly sensitive region has always been a risk,” said Stephanie Peck of Protect Otay Foothills.

Padilla's bill would prohibit the Regional Water Quality Control Board from approving the plant, but Peck said Alvarez was badmouthing it. She called his office and met with Alvarez: “We never got back to him about why he was against this bill.”

A separate note: Earlier this session, Alvarez introduced a bill that would pave the way for more affordable housing in the coastal zone, but on Thursday he withdrew it, saying it had been altered beyond recognition. His bill would have made it easier for developers in the area to apply for density bonuses that would allow them to build more housing units if they included affordable housing in the mix.

But compromise changes left him questioning his own legislation. This week, the Senate Budget Committee rejected AB 2560 at Alvarez's request. Recent changes would give the Coastal Commission too much authority over housing development, he wrote:

“The changes made by the legislative amendments would not serve the purpose of forcing coastal cities to build housing, but in many ways would even work against that.”

The Sacramento Report is published every Friday and is part of a partnership with CalMatters. Do you have tips, ideas or questions? Send them to me at [email protected].