Riley Removes His Backing to Build New Jail Near Anaheim : Government: Supervisor’s move signals the end of the coalition lobbying for the Gypsum Canyon site.

SANTA ANA —  County Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, who has supported construction of a new jail near Anaheim for years, formally withdrew his backing for that project Monday, collapsing the coalition that has kept it alive and setting the county on a new, uncertain course.

“The tap-dancing is over,” declared Supervisor Don R. Roth, who has lobbied against the Gypsum Canyon jail site first as Anaheim’s mayor and for the past five years as a county supervisor.

Riley’s reversal, which he outlined for his colleagues in a letter distributed Monday afternoon, came just three days after Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed legislation that would have made it easier for the supervisors to condemn land for the jail.

Wilson’s action represented another setback for backers of the Gypsum Canyon site, whose position was weakened recently by a financial report that raised questions about the economic feasibility of the proposed facility.

Riley’s comments also signaled the end of the project’s political backing. A formal vote to end county expenditures for Gypsum Canyon is expected next Tuesday, and, in light of Riley’s letter, almost all observers now believe that the motion to abandon the site will pass easily.

“With Governor Wilson’s veto . . . it is clear that the county of Orange has no choice but to abandon its pursuit of Gypsum Canyon as a site for a new county jail,” Riley wrote. “Given the direction of the courts in this area, however, I feel that we must continue to aggressively pursue other options for addressing jail overcrowding.”

Like Roth, other opponents of the canyon jail welcomed Riley’s letter and said it marks the end of a debate that has taken four years and cost Orange County taxpayers $7.3 million.

“We’ve endured a long process,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez, a Gypsum Canyon opponent. “This issue has been through just about everything that a public policy issue can be put through.”

In 1987, county supervisors named Gypsum Canyon as its preferred jail site, but only three of the five members--Supervisors Harriett M. Wieder, Roger R. Stanton and Riley--backed the proposal. Their three votes were not enough to condemn land for the jail, however, because state law requires four supervisors to approve such a measure.

Neither Vasquez nor Roth would budge, and that left the project politically deadlocked. Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove) tried to break the logjam with legislation that would have let three board members condemn the land. But Wilson vetoed the bill Friday.

The defeat of a half-cent sales tax for jail construction last May also left the county without a plan to pay for the facility, and a financial report released two weeks ago said that the first phase of the canyon jail would cost taxpayers $119 million a year. Those estimates have been disputed by jail supporters, but they helped rattle the already wavering support for the project.

In an interview Friday, Wieder said she too believed the time had come to drop the Gypsum Canyon project. Although Stanton said he thinks such a move is unwise, he appears now to be the lone Gypsum Canyon backer on the board.

In his letter, Riley acknowledged that the canyon jail no longer appeared viable. Instead, he proposed that the Board of Supervisors appoint members of their staffs to a special task force to review options for jail expansion. That task force, Riley said, should concentrate on county-owned land.

“I would suggest that the task force limit its discussion to options utilizing existing county-owned property and the use of cost-efficient methods for housing inmates, such as modular units,” Riley said. “This would not constrain the task force from investigating an incremental approach to building a new jail, nor from investigating opportunities for housing more inmates within existing facilities.”

Vasquez agreed that the county should focus on land that it owns, but said he wanted to discuss the composition of the task force with Riley. The county administrative office has formed a panel of its own, and Vasquez said he might urge Riley to let that group take the lead, rather than form another one.

While the committee or committees meet, there will be pressure to take some action to compensate for dropping the Gypsum Canyon proposal. County jails house more than 4,400 prisoners in cells designed to hold 3,203, and another 850 prisoners a week are released early to relieve overcrowding.

The county is expanding its Theo Lacy Branch Jail in Orange, as well as its programs that provide alternatives to incarceration, such as electronic monitoring of inmates in home confinement.

Other ideas are expected to encounter opposition--and cost money that the county does not have--but they too will almost surely be aired in the coming weeks and months.

They include double-bunking of the Theo Lacy jail, expansion of the James A. Musick Branch Jail near Irvine, building new jails either in Anaheim or Santa Ana and construction of a jail medical center, probably in Santa Ana.