Last Train to Dogville
WEIRD AND WEIRDER:
Thursday, September 9, 2010
WEIRD AND WEIRDER: Politics, as we’ve been told, makes for strange bedfellows. But the coalition Sheriff Bill Brown has assembled in support of his proposed new North County jail — and the half-cent sales tax increase that entails — goes well beyond mere opportunistic political cohabitation. Brown has managed to get the proverbial lion and the lamb to lie down together in a temporary state of connubial bliss. In so doing, he’s pushed the outer limits of animal husbandry into the foothills of political bestiality. What else can you call it when Das Williams and Dale Francisco — the feuding yin and yang of the Santa Barbara City Council — find themselves singing from the same hymnal. He’s gotten every law enforcement group in the county, as well as the Fund for Santa Barbara — the closest thing we have to a communist conspiracy — on his side. Last week, Brown — a card-carrying Republican — managed to secure an endorsement of Measure S by the Democratic Central Committee despite passionate objections by party boss Daraka Larimore-Hall. The $5-million-a-year Measure S will generate specifically for prevention and intervention programs designed to keep repeat offenders out of jail proved more persuasive than Larimore-Hall’s argument that the tax was regressive and would fall disproportionately on the shoulders of working people. Brown also got endorsements from the Goleta City Council, the Santa Barbara City Council, and all five members of the Board of Supervisors. It would seem a no-brainer. The jail’s been so overcrowded for so long that the ACLU successfully sued to impose a population cap on the number of prisoners it can take.
Angry Poodle
As impressive as these endorsements are, they’re probably not enough. Measure S requires approval by two-thirds of county voters to pass. That means any two wing nuts having a bad-hair day can knock it off without breaking a sweat. Given that 42 percent of the American people remain unconvinced President Barack Obama is actually a United States citizen, we can conclude the wing nut population is alive and vigorously reproducing. Sucker-punching Brown already, Santa Barbara’s Republican Party — dominated by ideologues, anti-tax purists, and COLAB (the institutional mouthpiece for chronically cranky conservatives) — has come out against Measure S. The Taxpayers’ Association may soon follow. If Brown’s not sleeping easy at night, he has ample cause for insomnia. In fact, the only thing still giving Brown a fighting chance against “the extremists” of his own party are the smoked-out potheads of Isla Vista. Given Brown’s steadfast opposition to pot shops and his kill-joy crackdown on the I.V. party scene, there’s no shortage of irony here. That it’s so, however, remains a fact, and one that didn’t just happen by accident.
Elections are all about numbers, and Isla Vista is endowed with an almost freakish abundance of numbers. The only trick lies in waking up these voters and getting them to the polls. Obama did so. But the gubernatorial showdown between obnoxious billionaire Meg Whitman and political relic Jerry Brown almost certainly will not. The only item on the ballot that might possibly excite younger voters is Proposition 19, which will legalize marijuana once and for all. Statewide, the Democratic Party has kept its distance from Prop. 19, officially taking no position on the measure. It is, by all reckoning, a terribly written law, embodying all the worst attributes of ballot-box legislation. Local governments will be allowed to regulate and tax pot as they see fit, meaning that California would soon become a crazy quilt of differing pot laws. What’s legal in Santa Barbara might get a person locked up in Goleta. But to those less swayed by the technicalities of good government, such objections are totally beside the point. As dumb as Prop. 19 may be, its stupidity pales in comparison to laws outlawing pot in the first place.
When the Santa Barbara Democratic Central Committee met last week at Andersen’s Pea Soup emporium in Buellton, it seemed that party chieftains were inclined to take an official no-position position on Measure S and Prop. 19. On the county jail, Democrats have a hard time endorsing law-and-order measures. On Prop. 19, candidates running for office in North County worried the value of an official party endorsement might be compromised in the eyes of some voters if the same party had endorsed legalizing pot. Polls show that voters are pretty evenly split on Prop. 19, with little middle ground. But others argued that the war on drugs has been an utter failure, not to mention a colossal waste of human life and money. Whatever social problems arose from using pot recreationally, they argued, were dwarfed by the social violence inflicted by treating it as a criminal offense. Prop. 19, they argued, offered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to say so in a way that counted. Joining the fray on behalf of Prop.19 was political consultant Jeremy Lindaman, who wears enough hats to keep three haberdashers in business. The biggest hat Lindaman is now wearing is that of campaign manager for Sheriff Brown’s Yes on Measure S campaign. Lindaman showed up to the meeting with Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider, who led the charge on behalf of the jail tax. Lindaman himself jumped into the debate over Prop. 19, feet first. Whether Lindaman’s arguments changed the outcome of the Democratic Central Committee endorsements remains open to speculation. But Lindaman certainly thinks he made a difference. He said he entered the fray only when he thought the a no-position position would prevail. Regardless of Lindaman’s role, his arithmetic adds up. To get a two-thirds majority countywide for Measure S, South County voters will have to come out in exceptionally large numbers in favor of the jail tax. This is necessary to offset the narrowness of the victory expected for Measure S in the North. To achieve these numbers, the sleeping giant of Isla Vista has to be roused from its traditional slumber. Once woken by Prop. 19, these voters — overwhelmingly Democratic in party affiliation — could be expected to vote the party line. But first you have to get them to vote. For that to happen, the party absolutely had to endorse the jail tax and Prop. 19.
Time will tell.
If Prop. 19 passes, certainly there will be fewer prisoners in the county jail. Given that victimless crimes account for less than 5 percent of all its inmates, it’s doubtful this alone could obviate the need for a new jail. Conversely, if the jail tax passes, there will some serious money on the table to fund drug treatment. In the meantime, if you hear the roar of the lion and the bleating of the lamb, rest assured Sheriff Bill Brown is close at hand.
Related Links
Comments
Secede from the union! The northerners want us sutherners to pay for their jail! After years of promoting financial mismanagement the crankys win! North county agitators, anti-tax zealots, industrialists who blast the south coast for their low self esteem, their own problems and deficiencies want us to fund their jail for their north county inhabitants. I'd rather tax and spend on more productive, preventative and progressive pie in the sky problems for the south county.
But no doubt due to remoteness the North County should have it's own jail. But, with all those massive developments in the pro-growth north county districts of Santa Maria and Lompoc, with uppity and angelic names including Providence and Landing why on earth hasn't there been a development tax to build a jail for their growing communities. The North county already zaps and taxes the south county for such amenities such as miles and miles of little used rural roads as well as parks and social services.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2010 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh so true DonMcDermott. How ironic that the anti-tax citizens of the North are number one in line at the tax teet, the majority of the milk from which comes from the more liberal minded and well-healed South. Why then do the Northers hate the Southers so much? If the jail tax passes, once again the Southern Milk Cow will nurture the Northern suckling's insatiable appetite for tax revenues.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2010 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That’s a lot of political maneuvering. And in the end the Democratic Party got it right. Change the drug laws and improve our jails with prevention and treatment.
LC (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2010 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with the Democrats. What is the world coming to? Yes on 19. Yes On S. It's time to try something new.
local (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2010 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also many democrats and human rights activists will vote No on measure S.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/o...
Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2010 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, many democrats and human rights activists will vote No on measure S.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/o...
Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2010 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A tax is a tax is a tax! First of all, why would anyone vote to give more money to the police? Protect and Serve. Isn't that the police motto? Well, it's obvious, even to the most casual observer, that this means protect their salaries and pensions and serve their own special interests first and foremost! Second, it is offensive that our elected leaders are spouting the "benefits" of the measure as a way to create jobs. The US has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's incarcerated population. Why? Because it is a business! A very profitable business for the police/prison guard unions, private prison corporations, prosecutors, etc..! Third, it's interesting how the treatment aspect of the measure is now being used as a carrot to get people on board. The initial press conference hardly talked about this. Apparently, the Sheriff only recently realized that the only way this measure will pass, is if he can convince people that he is serious about treatment. However, if the Sheriff was truly interested in reducing recidivism, then he should have made the treatment part 50% not 16%! Lastly, how many individuals with mental illness are incarcerated in our local jail? How many individuals are self medicating to cope with their mental illness (anxiety, depression, hearing voices)? The jail should not be used has a holding facility for these people. We need a bona fide treatment center. Let's put are resources towards that!
TheBiggerPicture (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2010 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Holy smokes, Poodle, have you gone to pot, or is there some other explanation for your gibberous narfoosh to the effect that most folks in IV "could be expected to vote the party line" on both 19 and S?
C'mon, whatchabinlickin?
IV voters can be expected to vote YES on 19 by a wide margin because it is clearly in their interest to do so, and they will care not of whit or a waxferber whether or not it is a "party line."
IV voters can be expected to vote NO on S by a wide margin because is will be apparent to them that it is NOT in their interest to do what the Sheriff and his Scrowd think best for them.
Just because SBCAN and other groups who ought to know better drank the Skool-aid, do not expect most voters in IV to follow their mis-lead.
southlander (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2010 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The reason most folks in IV can be assumed to Vote Yes on 19 and No on S is because most folks in IV are generally more intelligent than some of our "leaders" might like.
EZK (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2010 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Georgy, why should human rights activists vote No on measure S? Isn't overcrowded jails a human rights issue?
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2010 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
About half the people in prison should not be there. Prisons are for criminals.
I do not support a system that preys on the mentally ill and the homeless for its business. It's an immoral business model. We need hospitals for the mentally ill, not prisons. Putting the mentally ill and homeless in the criminal justice system is cruel and unethical.
"Prisons were never designed as facilities for the mentally ill, yet that is one of their primary roles today. Many of the men and women who cannot get mental health treatment in the community are swept into the criminal justice system after they commit a crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 56 percent of state prisoners and 45 percent of federal prisoners have symptoms or a recent history of mental health problems."
please read:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/22...
Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2010 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This isn't about Prisons. It's about a local County Jail that holds people waiting for trial. Conditions should be humane. This is America!
local (anonymous profile)
September 13, 2010 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, local, this IS America, the nation which incarcerates its population at a truly alarming rate, greater than an other county on a per capita basis. How humane is that?
You might ask yourself why are so many people being arrested in our county and elsewhere in the country these days. Citizens running amuk? Or foggy pols and stunted cops getting way out of line?
Point of fact: jails are not merely for the purpose of holding folks awaiting trial who lack the means to meet bail.
Again, ask yourself: What are the people in jails IN for anyway?
Who me? Sheriff Brown sez, holding up a chopped penny as he dreams of the millions his $cheme would set us back.
Don't drink the $kool-aid that the Sheriff is trying to peddle. Maybe he can't be arrested for attempted robbery of the taxpayers, but we certainly have every right to slap away the hand with which he is reaching for our wallets.
southlander (anonymous profile)
September 15, 2010 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The only item on the ballot that might possibly excite younger voters is Proposition 19, which will legalize marijuana once and for all. "
Actually Nick what it would do is RE-legalize marijuana. People have been fooled into thinking it was never legal when in fact it was until 1937.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2010 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
UUhhhhmmm!?! Am I reading the Angy Poodle BBQ. PLEEEAASSEE quit talking out of both sides of your mouth. Last column I read could have been published in the SB News Supress.
gsjoh (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2010 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Georgy, I agree with your points, but I can't see how they are relevant to my question. Voting no on S will not achieve any of your goals, it will only result in increased suffering.
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
October 4, 2010 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)