Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to matthewplafever@gmail.com. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.
Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of MendoFever nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.
Dear Editor,
In his op ed piece of October 6, 2024 Adam Gaska explained his support for California ballot proposition 36 and his criticism of the Ukiah City Council for failing to endorse it. Since Mr. Gaska cited only one of the several reasons I offered at the meeting in support of my “No” vote, I would like to take this opportunity to more fully explain my position on Proposition 36.
I admire Mr. Gaska’s dedication to cleaning up homeless encampments and his sincere attempts to address this enormous problem. Unfortunately, in my view, he has been lured into believing the false promises touted by Proposition 36.
Dubbed the “Homeless, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act,” Proposition 36 is the wrong solution to all of these problems. It does nothing to alleviate homelessness and Mr. Gaska does not suggest that it does. Surely, here in Ukiah, we have a profound problem with retail theft, drug addiction and homelessness 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 despite evidence that imprisonment for drug possession does not reduce drug use. Charging people with serious crimes that could result in imprisonment or jail is not going to lead to treatment. While it imposes mandated drug treatment in some cases, it will reduce funding and availability of such treatment. Moreover, eighteen California counties have no drug treatment programs.
Prop 36 includes no plan to increase services for drug addiction or getting those who need it most, i.e. the people on the street into treatment or wraparound services. Charging people with serious crimes that could result in imprisonment or jail will not lead to the treatment Prop 36 purports to mandate. And under the provisions of 36, someone who enters rehab and relapses as is common would be subject to incarceration for failing to complete a treatment program.
And what happens when the increased numbers of those incarcerated are released? It is well-documented that homelessness often follows release from jail or prison. In fact, according to a recent statewide study of homelessness, 19% of people experiencing homelessness or nearly 35,000 people on any given night enter homelessness from a prison or prolonged jail stay.
Prop 36 would return California to our worst days of ineffective mass incarceration while stripping approximately $100 million annually in funding for drug treatment, housing, re-entry services and school truancy prevention, the very things proven to prevent crime in the first place. The effect of 36 will be to cause more Californians to languish in jail or prison on low-level offenses while it will cost taxpayers an additional $5 billion a year on top of the $27 billion all ready devoted to jails, prisons and courts.
Moreover, in light of recent legislative reforms, the need for Prop 36 is questionable. The legislature passed and Governor Newsom recently signed comprehensive enhancements to criminal law for both retail theft and drug sales, particularly fentanyl for which there is now a three-year sentence enhancement for anyone selling more than a kilogram. District attorneys can add together thefts that are related, i.e., multiple thefts from the same store in the same week if they are less than $950 (the current ceiling for a misdemeanor charge) in value and charge them as a felony while police can arrest even if they do not witness a crime. Additionally, residential burglary, robbery and grand theft are all ready felonies.
The misguided “solutions” offered by the proponents of Prop 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 without a chance to get better. Prop 36 also fails to address the root causes of homelessness that are often due to the high costs of housing rather than solely because of addiction and substance abuse.
As a Ukiah City Council member, I refused to endorse Prop 36 because this measure exploits public anger and frustration without effectively addressing the issues it purports to resolve.
Susan Sher
Member, Ukiah City Council
