A different view of Prop. 36 – The Ukiah Daily Journal

By Susan Sher

In his weekly “The Observer” column in the Sunday, Oct. 13 edition of the UDJ, Jim Shields easily proclaims that the Ukiah city council has “freaked out on Prop. 36,” a measure of November vote. In large part, Mr. Shields is based on an account by Adam Gaska who attended and made a comment at the Oct. 2 Council meeting. Since Mr. Gaska cited just one of several reasons why I voted “No” on the passage of Proposition 36, I would like to take this opportunity to further explain my position.

In general, I appreciate the apt observations of Mr. Shields on local issues. I also admire the dedication of Mr. Gaska to clean up the homeless camps and his sincere attempts to tackle this huge problem. Unfortunately, both gentlemen have been lured into believing the false promises promoted by Proposition 36.

Known as the “Theft, Drug Addiction and Homelessness Reduction Act,” Proposition 36 is the wrong solution to all of these problems. It does nothing to alleviate homelessness and neither does Mr. Shields nor Mr. Gaska suggest that he do so. Sure, we have a deep problem here in Ukiah with retail theft, drug addiction, and homelessness, but 36 plays on the deep concerns and anger of well-meaning voters without offering real solutions.

Proposition 36 increases prison time for those who use drugs despite evidence that incarceration for drug possession does not reduce drug use. Charging people with serious crimes that could result in jail or prison will not result in treatment. Although it mandates mandatory drug treatment in some cases, it will reduce funding and availability of such treatment. Additionally, eighteen counties do not have drug treatment programs.

Proposition 36 does not include any plans to increase drug addiction services or to get those who need it most, ie people on the street, to access treatment or extension services. Charging people with serious crimes that could result in jail or prison will not result in the treatment that Prop 36 seeks to mandate. And under the provisions of Article 36, someone who enters rehab and habitually relapses would be subject to imprisonment for failure to complete a treatment program.

And what happens when the increasing number of incarcerated people are released? It is well documented that homelessness often follows release from jail or prison. In fact, according to a recent statewide study on homelessness, 19 percent of people experiencing homelessness, or nearly 35,000 people on any given night, enter homelessness from prison or an extended stay in jail .

Proposition 36 would return California to our worst days of ineffective mass incarceration, while eliminating roughly $100 million a year in funding for drug treatment, housing, reentry services and truancy prevention, the same things that ‘have proven to prevent crime in the first place. The effect of 36 will be to put more Californians in jail or prison for low-level crimes, while costing taxpayers an additional $5 billion a year on top of the $27 billion that goes to prisons , prisons and courts.

Moreover, in light of recent legislative reforms, the necessity of Proposition 36 is questionable. The Legislature passed and Governor Newsom recently signed comprehensive criminal law improvements for both retail theft and the sale of drugs, especially fentanyl for which there is now a three-year sentence enhancement for anyone who sell more than one kilogram. District attorneys can add related thefts, meaning multiple thefts from the same store in the same week if they are worth less than $950 (the current ceiling for a misdemeanor) and charge them as a felony while the police can even arrest. if they are not witnesses to a crime. Additionally, burglary, burglary, and grand larceny are all premeditated crimes.

The misguided “solutions” offered by proponents of Proposition 36 will not address the frustrations of California residents regarding housing, substance abuse, and retail theft. If passed, we will see more people cycling in and out of prisons and jails with no chance of improvement. Proposition 36 also fails to address the root causes of homelessness which are often due to high housing costs rather than just addiction and substance abuse.

As a member of the Ukiah City Council, I did not refuse to pass Proposition 36 because I “overreached” as Mr. Shields, but because I truly believe that this measure taps into the public’s anger and frustration without effectively addressing the problems it is intended to solve. .

-Susan Sher, Ukiah City Council member