Commentary : Jail Controversy Raises Questions About How the Initiative Is Used

While the statewide initiative process has received extensive scrutiny in recent years, the most peculiar initiative developments sometimes occur at the local level. Local initiatives can have the same sweeping public policy impact as their more well-known statewide cousins, but have been little discussed in the media.

Little discussed that is, until something like what is now happening in Orange County, where a city and wealthy residents of suburbia have locked horns in a battle that underscores the good, the bad and the ugly of the local initiative process. It is perhaps the money, and the special interests’ ability to use it to get their way, which makes this saga interesting. Critics of both the local and statewide process say initiatives allow proponents to buy public policy.

In this case, the wealthy want to get around the County Board of Supervisors by using an initiative to force Santa Ana, already home to more than 54% of the county’s jail inmate population, to be the home of all new county jails. So far, it has been a free-for-all with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent. And the issue remains unresolved.

The initiative is sponsored by “The Taxpayers for a Centralized Jail” and is touted as a way of forcing the county to build jails in safe places without hurting existing communities. Opponents call it a brazen attempt to demonstrate that public policy can be bought if you have enough money.

The subject of locating a new county jail came to a head in 1986 when a federal court ordered the Board of Supervisors to eliminate jail overcrowding or face stiff fines. The pressure intensified when the judge threatened to put the supervisors in jail for contempt of court if the problem was not mitigated. In July, 1987, the Board of Supervisors designated Gypsum Canyon as the new jail site needed to meet the county’s needs through the year 2006. This decision was based on recommendations of a countywide advisory group, technical studies and many public hearings. Gypsum Canyon was occupied by an inactive gravel mining operation. It was surrounded on three sides by undeveloped, sloped terrain and bounded to the north by the Riverside Freeway. The nearest residential neighborhoods or schools were more than two miles away.

The supervisors also considered three sites in Santa Ana that were each eliminated because they were either across the street from schools or were in the middle of high-density, low-income neighborhoods.

The decision to locate the jail in Gypsum Canyon, reaffirmed Wednesday, was based on extensive analysis and appeared sound--except to some residents of Yorba Linda and Anaheim Hills. Residents of this wealthy enclave several miles from Gypsum Canyon vigorously opposed the supervisors’ decision. They didn’t care about the more than $5 million already spent for the environmental impact study, public hearings and feasibility studies undertaken in the selection of the Gypsum Canyon site.

The residents were furious and had the money to give form to their fury. A small group mounted a campaign to place an initiative on the ballot that would have required all new jails to be built in Santa Ana. Officials of the County Supervisors Assn. of California could not recall any other county in the state in which residents qualified an initiative limiting the location of a public facility.

The purpose of the initiative was to ensure that “the quality of life of the people of Orange County (was) fully considered” when determining where to build a jail. The petition further explained that the quality of life of the people of Orange County would be enhanced if all jails were located in Santa Ana.

The proponents’ first attempt to get their initiative on the ballot was in 1987 when they raised a modest $25,000. Failing to obtain the required number of signatures to qualify for the ballot, the group tried another approach. It launched a fund-raising drive to build a large enough war chest to pay professional signature gatherers.

For the 1988 petition effort, the proponents raised more than $137,000. More than $57,000 was spent on professional services and signature-gathering efforts, and the group secured the necessary number of signatures to qualify. Ninety percent of the individuals within Orange County who contributed over $100 came from Anaheim and Yorba Linda.

A jail is only one of many unpopular public facilities for which a location will need to be determined in this county over the next decade. Hazardous-waste facilities, landfills, airports and housing for the homeless are just a few. With the permeation of the NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) mentality, locating these facilities will become more difficult.

The right of initiative was created to empower an impotent citizenry to bypass the legislature and place proposed laws directly on the ballot. Signatures were to be gathered by impassioned citizens supporting a particular cause, not by paid professionals. Hiram Johnson and the reformers would never recognize what has become of their proposal. It is the narrow interest, not the concerned citizens at large, who have perfected the use of the system.

If the Anaheim Hills/Yorba Linda initiative is successful, opponents believe it could become the vehicle by which the rich could strong arm the poor. Should that come about the need for initiative reform would be that much more apparent.