Parolee flare-up intensifies
The long running struggle over the course of the city's developing parolee housing policies is heating up.
In a meeting Dec. 17, the City Council voted 4-1 (with Chas Kelley dissenting, Wendy McCammack abstaining and Neil Derry not present) to discuss parolee housing policies in an ad-hoc committee formed by Mayor Pat Morris.
One day later, a council committee chaired by Kelley voted to deal with parolee housing issues in their forthcoming meeting, effectively barring the ad-hoc committee from specifically discussing parolee housing.
The Brown Act, which ensures the public's right to attend open government meetings, forbids two simultaneous government body discussions on an issue.
Since the ad-hoc committee was yet to be formed when the council voted Dec.17, Kelley's committee has legal precedence on the issue, said City Attorney James F. Penman.
All indications are that the move - which was approved by Kelley and Derry, with third committee member Tobin Brinker exiting the meeting - has deepened the rift between Morris and his allies and a minority of the council that has policy differences with the mayor on this issue.
Kelley said he met with the mayor at City Hall on Thursday, but no resolution could be reached.
"I offered the olive branch," Kelley said, adding that he told the mayor that after the committee brought a proposal to the broader council for approval or rejection, his ad-hoc committee could take up the issue.
Morris has voiced support for a plan to open transitional housing facilities to improve parolee re-entry rates. Part of the plan could include zoning the centers - which are in line for state funding - in industrial areas only.
Derry and Kelley have expressed strong concerns that such a policy could create a magnet effect drawing more parolees to the city, which has historically had a higher proportion of parolees in its population than nearby communities.
But Morris appears to have broader support on the council, whose majority votes he would need to move forward with his plan. Wendy McCammack has expressed openness to both sides, while the other four councilmembers appear aligned with the mayor.
Derry on Thursday pointed out that the three member committee had posted its agenda Dec. 14, prior to the council's vote approving the ad-hoc committee.
The ad-hoc committee is scheduled to meet Jan. 3. Penman said the committee can discuss parolees, but not housing issues specifically.
The sub-text to this whole donnybrook is that it breaks the relative calm that descended on City Hall after the Nov. 6 elections, in which all incumbents retained their seats. Clearly, on the issue of parolee housing, an impasse exists between the mayor and at least some councilmembers. It would appear at this juncture that Morris is confident he can ride over the objections of two, perhaps three, councilmembers.
It should be noted that a temporary citywide moratorium is currently in place against all additional group housing for parolees and sex offenders. But most parolee housing purports to accommodate six or fewer persons, and thus does not require licensing and therefore generally flies beneath the moratorium's radar.
Placing parolees in industrial areas is a good idea. The police should be able to keep a good eye on them, check up on their progress, or, unfortunately, their failure to adapt to society. The "parolee housing for profit" investors should make even better profits from holding industrial property long-term than from using residential property, as San Bernardino promises to grow into a prosperous city in the decades ahead.
Iam aware that the San Bernardino City Charter is likew nothing else in the world, but the whole situation seems quite odd.
Typically, the committees of legislative bodies are panels made up of members of the legislative body, not hererogeneousgroups where legislative and executive participants are intermingled.
Once again, we see a defining example of the manner in which San Bernardino's fundamentally bizarre structure of municipal government impeded the orderly discussion and resolution of public issues. The city needs "strong" mayors and elected attorneys as much as it needs jugglers and clowns.
What I find interesting is that the wards that would most likely be impacted by parolee housing have council persons that support the Mayor’s programs.
Do the residents in Ms. Estrada’s, Mr. Baxter’s, Mr. Brinker’s, and Mr. Johnson’s wards want more parolee housing? I know for a fact that my councilperson (who is in this list) has heard my opinion of parolee housing and is voting against my wishes (and all of my neighbors).
As the cities around San Bernardino “beef up” their ordinances against parolee housing, San Bernardino will become the likely recipient of the group housing. As the mortgage industry continues its downfall and housing prices go into the toilet, San Bernardino will become a city of Parolees.
The Mayor and his compatriots’ views on Parolee Housing will be the downfall of this city. In their workshop they talk about the experiment that Santa Barbara is doing to see if Parolee Housing can work – Santa Barbara is NOT San Bernardino. Santa Barbara does not have the high crime rate that we do, they have money in their coffers to reverse any problems that arise from this experiment – San Bernardino can NOT afford to experiment with dangerous issues like parolee housing.
The last time that the housing market took a downturn over 40% of the housing in San Bernardino became rental housing and look what has happened to our city! How are we going to survive this downturn in the housing market if our elected officials are setting us up to become the Mecca of parolee housing?
Since San Bernardino County is the largest in California, they also have the most people in California Jails, which in turn, San Bernardino has the most Parolee's. Simple #'s. When PEOPLE are paroled, they are given a Bus ticket to Downtown San Bernardino. These people meet others in Jail from San Bernardino...so, they all get together in San Bernardino.
"We the People" need to look at this at its root cause. The Prison Guard Union is the largest in California...with high powered lobbyist getting money for more prisons and more guards. Who fills these prisons? The police.
What we are seeing in California is the PRISON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. Not unlike the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
The prisons/Justice System in California is PRIVATIZED. Lots of STOCK-HOLDERS making money on FEEDING, CLOTHING, SLAVE LABOR, TRANSPORTING...ETC, ETC.
Who is paying the highest price is COMMUNITIES!With no Rehabilitation, Compassion, ect..in place, these PEOPLE go back to their communities and commit crime, keeps the police in business, the prison guards, the MACHINE.
Iraq is a product of the Military-Industrial Complex, and as we can all see...WHAT A SAD FAILURE, as the Prison Industrial Complex is a Sad Failure. The difference is that we as AMERICANS don't have to deal with the Anger, despair and Outrage of the Iraq's at home...but, WE do have to deal with the Prisoners. The prisoners ARE Americans and we should have to help them. The justice system is a Profit system now. Corruption is rampant.
There are very rich people making LARGE PROFITS from others misery. Like any SYSTEM, it needs to be FED......San Bernardino has FED that system well...but now California is Broke and needs to let out 3000 non-violent prisoners....Still think they are Non-Violent? Not after going to a California Prison.....
Love, Compassion, Teamwork and taking the PROFIT out is the only thing that will start dismantling these MIS-CREATIONS that greed has built!
Everyone is a victim of this System, The Criminals, The Police, The Judges, The Communities. Do you think that the ones Holding Stock in the companies that provide all these services have A Parolee Problem? I don't think so...Do they have a Large Police Force that keep these prisons filled? I don't think so...Where there are more cops...there are more criminals....So, I say....Let the Cops and Criminals have San Bernardino...Let them make the rich, richer....and continue to kill one another....OR...The people need to Take back their communities, Demand that their City Council and Elected Officials work for THEM.....There are currently 2.2 million people in jail in America. THE MOST of any COUNTRY. More than China.....The System has ROBBED us, Like The Military System.When I hear that The police are actively recruiting Iraq War Vets, that is absolutely Frightening. Is this the Militarization of our police Force?....These troops have been raiding peoples homes in Iraq with serious weapons, with no regard for human life...now we are going to put them on American Streets?...WAKE-UP PEOPLE.....
Love and Peace,
Jodee
oldcynic is right, partially.
We no longer need a strong mayor form of government. Elected city attorneys work well with city managers. Just ask the majority of managers who work with an elected CA.
What we don't need are more mayors, usurping the City Council's role. That has been the one consistent factor in our city government over the past thirty years of decline, not Penman, not Estrada, and not Rachel Clark.
Other cities are run and managed by city councils acting as city councils, not by mayors acting as city managers and city councils.
When we get past the political hype and realize that it is our strong mayor form of government that prevents trained professionals from guiding our city (i.e. city managers)we will start to see improvement. Until then, Mayors, unqualified to lead a city will continue to mislead ours. Then, as their mistakes become apparant, they will blame their failures on a city attorney who has no vote, cannot give orders to anyone outside his/her office but is a convenient scapegoat for those who broke this city and continue to break it.
71 Year SB Resident