.
Feedback

Town Hall Meeting Set to Discuss Inmates Coming to County

About 100 "low-level" inmates have already been freed from state prisons and sent to San Mateo County since October 1.

The plan to move inmates from overcrowded state prisons into county correctional situations is still a work in progress.

This Tuesday night, a countywide town hall meeting in Redwood City will address what's been done so far in San Mateo County, and request public input on where we should be going.

"Yes, it will be two-way discussion," says San Mateo County Chief Probation Officer Stuart Forrest. "Now that we have more specifics of expectations and assumptions surrounding this population, we've begun working on the local plan."

AB 109, signed by Governor Jerry Brown last year, pushed so-called "low-level" inmates out of state prisons, and into the hands of counties throughout California.

The state's hands had been tied; the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2011 ruled that overcrowding in California's prisons created a potential for human rights violations.

Sacramento legislators responded by passing AB 109. The law forced counties to create what's called the Local Implementation Plan for Public Safety Realignment to deal with the influx.

San Mateo County has received about 100 prisoners so far, criminals granted early release from their state sentences in order to move to county supervision. Most were initially serving 18-month sentences; in fact, says Forrest, prisoners the county has received have served only four or five months prior to their release.

Forrest expects the county will receive 500-600 prisoners by October 2016. He wants the public to know just who is arriving.

"When you read the legislation (AB 109), it talks about non-serious, non-sexual, non-violent offenders," says Forrest. "It's really very misleading, because it refers to the offense that the person was last convicted for. Let's say the last offense that a person was sent to prison for was in that non-, non-, non- category, like a drug conviction. It may ignore the fact that the person has other aspects of their criminal history that are violent."

It's a misnomer to think these newly-arriving prisoners are heading into our county jails. In fact, most will be out in public, under the supervision of probation officers, not incarerated behind bars.

"Our information is that almost 90 percent of the people we're getting back have a documented substance abuse problem," says Forrest. "A lot of our efforts are for making sure people get appropriate treatment when they return, as well as making sure that they are not going to commit new crimes, and that the public is protected."

The state has created a funding mechanism for the plan. Forrest says money saved from closing certain state facilities, and diverted to the counties, will make up the bulk of the funding. Initially, additional dollars also came from vehicle license fees and state tax revenues. San Mateo County, in the first year, is expected to receive about $4.2 million for management of the program.

California is not alone in attempting to reduce its prison population through realignment. Oregon began a similar program about ten years ago.

"Their outcomes are very good," says Forrest. "We anticipate replicating, if not exceeding their results. They did it by having a very good balance of accountability and law enforcement on one side, and treatment on the other."

The chief probabation officer of the county does not mince words when he considers the challenge ahead, and how citizens ought to think about AB 109.

"I think they ought to consider it the most significant policy and legal change ever, ever in the state's history," says Forrest. "It completely re-works criminal justice, and it offers an opportunity to demonstrate how effective local supervision is."

The town hall meeting, hosted by Forrest and other members of a community corrections partnership, will be held Tuesday, January 10 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. in Room 101 of the County Government Center in Redwood City. Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to attend.

"Don't assume criminal justice has the entire job," says Forrest. "Citizens are involved as well."

To receive news feeds about Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated Coastside between Montara and Pescadero, visit Half Moon Bay Patch on Facebook and "like" us here. Follow us on Twitter here.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.