Supervisor Rexroad Inexplicably Goes To War Against Flatlander

On July 19, 2008, Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad, an elected public official in this county for some reason decided to launch a war against the Yolo County Flatlander, a small, low profile, alternative news publication that is published and distributed primarily in Davis on a bi-monthly basis.

The Supervisor wrote:

"I encourage new ideas, new blogs, and new publications in Yolo County. The Flatlander however, had been a complete piece of trash in the past few years.

We really have no idea who the publishers are and the authors of "articles" are not usually included in the publication. The only thing I can do is hold the advertisers accountable.

If the Flatlander is the same sort of crap it has been, please let it be known that I will be working to hold the advertisers accountable -- all of them. I don't want to hear "I didn't know" or "I can't control content" comments. This publication has a shameful history that certainly is well known by anyone with a clue is aware."

The crime committed by the Flatlander was unclear. However, the Supervisor seemed to back off his threat later on--which was the correct course of action--unfortunately it did not stay that way.

However, this month's publication of the Flatlander seemed to incite him once again.

They write:

"Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad is carrying censorship's flaming torch. In our August issue, we reported on Rexroad's adventures in print-banning."

They continue:

"Of course as an attorney, Woodland's flaming torch of censorship should know that if he uses his position as an elected official to block trade or censor free speech, he will lose his license to practice law. After two-month's, no Flatlander advertiser told me of any response from Rexroad."

Still they say,

"Flatlander editors couldn't help but feel flattered that book burners of the world took the time to classify the Flatlander as a banned paper."

They then inflame passions comparing the Supervisor's censorship attempts to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Sarah Palin?

"Rexroad's flaming torch of censorship puts him in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, and Sarah Palen (sic)."

They conclude,

"Flatlander editor Sally Parker denies that the paper is as dangerous as Rexroad claims. She assures readers, 'The Flatlander is safe to read, just don't inhale."

For his part, Matt Rexroad told me that he does not believe they can sue him based on his proposed boycott.

As he wrote yesterday:

"I am happy to take my understanding of the first amendment and my ability to practice law in this state over theirs. As a result I am boycotting the following businesses..."

He then goes on to list a number of the advertisers of the Flatlander, I shall not repeat them in this space except for two which really emphasize I think how absurd the Supervisor has become on this issue.

"Further -- Vote No on Measure N... Don't reward Manuel Cosme with your vote for Assembly"

In other words, he is now urging that people vote against Republican Assembly nominee Manuel Cosme, who faces Mariko Yamada for the 8th Assembly District and vote against Davis' Charter City, because both have decided to advertise in the Flatlander. Why is he taking his vendetta against the publication out against public policy? Why is he letting this grudge interfere with his primary duty as an elected public official?

He continues:

"If I forgot anyone -- then I am boycotting them too. Everyone that paid to help put out the Flatlander."

Just to be clear here, in the text of his entry he says that he is boycotting those business but the title of the entry does attempt to incite others to do so as well:

"Boycott the following businesses."

Contrary, to the Supervisor's assertions, I had no trouble tracking down the editors, one of whom was mentioned in the article, Sally Parker, and the other is Jim Leonard.

In response, Jim Leonard told me that he thinks Rexroad is a "bad Republican" for undermining small business, a "bad American" for undermining free speech.

"He's in a position to support the will of the people, but he undermines it to achieve his own private ends. Therefore, he's a fraud."

From my perspective, I do not understand why a public official is spending time on this. Matt Rexroad is an elected public official, he has other things that he should be concerned with other than a publication that frankly spends a good amount of its time trying to argue that 9/11 did not occur. The issue here is not what you think of the Flatlander. From my perspective I do not always agree with them, but I do not see a good reason to spend time attacking them either when I disagree. They have the right to lampoon Mr. Rexroad, a public official as they see fit.

Mr. Rexroad's conduct in this instance is completely irresponsible and unbecoming of a public official.

He claims that this is not a tort offense, I have heard varying opinions on it, but that almost does not matter. In this case, his actions seem petty, childish, and he looks like a fool. He needs to drop this nonsense and focus on the serious issues that are facing this county as the result of what is developing into a severe recession and a budget crisis. If the Flatlander what's to satirize him, let them. I have always respected the fact that Mr. Rexroad has been open to criticism and upfront on where he stands on public policy matters. Frankly this is not the kind of conduct I have learned to expect from him.

In short, this needs to stop and we need to get back to the business at hand. There is not another public official in this county that I would have expected to see take on this kind of issue. Can you imagine anyone else doing this? It is very disappointing to see it happen here.

Let me be very clear here: Matt Rexroad's conduct here is irresponsible and unbecoming of a public official. Again, I cannot picture another public official in this county behaving as Mr. Rexroad has. It is very disappointing to see him do this.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Threats Punctuate Re-Entry Prison

On Tuesday, I detected a clear lack of interest in the topic of the re-entry facility on this board. The threat gone from Davis, the number of comments dwindled. Supervisor Matt Rexroad noticed it too. He called it proof of NIMBYism. I think a certain degree of that is understandable. I may dislike toxic waste sites, but I'm probably going to act more strongly and more passionately if it is a few miles from my home than if it's across the country. You can call that NIMBYism or you can call that acting locally.

Bottom line here is that I can sympathize with the plight of those from Madison. They felt disenfranchised by the process not only because they lacked the veto power that an incorporated city would have but because their own board member was partially conflicted out of the discussion. Despite what some have claimed, the fact that Duane Chamberlain farms land adjacent to the airport is a direct conflict of interest when weighing in on whether a prison should have been built there.

Supervisor Chamberlain was back on Tuesday to cast the lone 'no' vote. Supervisor Mariko Yamada abstained. The location was approved by a 3-1-1 vote.

The Woodland Daily Democrat described her decision to abstain:

"Yamada said she supported the idea of a re-entry facility for the county, but had heard nothing throughout the discussion to assure her of the "fairness" of placing the facility in Madison. In addition, she noted, she will not be present to see the facility plan implemented, as she is the heavy favorite in the race for the 8th Assembly District in November.

"I'm not doing this because I'm afraid to make either side mad," she told a packed crowd in the supervisors' chambers Tuesday. "By doing this, I'll likely make both sides mad."

The Davis Enterprise added:

"Yamada said while she supports the concept of a re-entry program, 'siting it in a rural area fails two tests - one of these is certainty, and the other is fairness.'"

I must admit, I do not exactly understand her rationale. Why not just vote no if she is uncomfortable with the location?

The Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians and their tribal leader Marshall McKay wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors urging them to reconsider the Madison site.

"We have serious concerns that the placement of a prison in Madison could thwart what the tribe and county are working to build here, which is a thriving community supported by needed infrastructure, planned growth and economic development."

This process is really somewhat backwards. The next step is a planning process whereby the state will analyze the cite and undergo CEQA process. Should the site not be feasible, the county would likely be granted additional time to find an alternative site.

Now the threats. The neighbors are threatening both a recall and lawsuit. I will deal with the recall first because that has to be dead on arrival. Who are they going to recall? The residents who are actually angry about this live in Chamberlain's district. They are going to recall him. So they are going to try to recall someone else's supervisor? That is not going to work to well. I do not get the sense that there is enough interest in the rest of the county to get enough signatures for recall let alone to enable them to remove and replace someone. Just is not a realistic possibility.

As far as a lawsuit goes it more likely will prolong the process.

I sympathize with the residents of Madison, they do not want this. There is not much solace I can give them, however, there is little evidence to support the notion that a prison would lower property values.

Additionally people fear that the prison could morph into something else. However, the board believes that the site lease agreement of 25 years will preclude that at least in the near future.

At some point, this process needs to move forward. It is unfortunate however that rural residents have found themselves so powerless in the face of such a proposal. That I think is the real tragedy of all this.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Fight Against Re-Entry Facility Continues For Madison

For Davis and much of the county, last week was the pinnacle of the fight against the re-entry facility. For those who want to once again go to the NIMBY-issue, here is your fodder. I still believe there are logical and rational reasons for opposing projects of this sort, even when they are near your backyard.

What I do not think is logical and reasonable are all the charges and conspiracy theories that are floating around.

One of the arguments I hear time and time again is that people are afraid to have the re-entry facility in their community because they fear the inmates will be released there.

Now again, if we are talking about legitimate fears, there are some. This will be a low security facility, I hope the county will work with the state to improve upon the security of the facility because that is a legitimate issue. However, what is not a legitimate issue is that prisoners will be released at the location of the facility. That is neither the intent of the law, AB 900, nor is it the intention of the county.

Indeed, the MOU between the county and state takes care of this issue--if there are any questions. In fact, the CDCR is responsible for ensuring that "all inmates released to parole from the Yolo SCRF will have coordinated transportation from the Yolo SCRF to their approved placement in the community based on the inmate’s reentry plan."

As Supervisor Rexroad put it:

"My main concerns about release points is taken care of. Unless someone lives in Madison everyone will be transported to where they live. That was key to me. "

However, as I mentioned the security arrangement could use improvement:

"On a case by case basis, CDCR is willing to provide a boundary fence, as defined in CDCR’s design guidelines at the request of the County. Such fence shall be constructed so as not to unnecessarily restrict visitors, service providers and other non-CDCR personnel from entering the premises to conduct necessary business in connection with the operation of the SCRF. The design of the Secure Reentry Facility Prototype utilizes a secure building envelope that creates a secure perimeter. As a result, no additional security fencing is required or incorporated into the base prototype design."

Finally, the MOU does not address another key fear by local communities on this issue and that is that the building not be transferred to other usages should the program no longer exist.

The termination clause reads as follows:

"This MOU shall automatically terminate without notice after seven years from this MOU’s effective date if the Yolo SCRF is not sited and operating."

But it contains no provision for the building. So it is indeed conceivable from this MOU, that the building could move into new usage. The county should insist on a clauses that transfers the building back to their control if this program and current usage ever ceases.

There is a provision in the siting agreement that would enable the County to terminate it "if the County does not receive a conditional award of state bond funds for construction of a jail facility... and has exhausted or has waived, all administrative appeal procedures..."

In other words, the county will not get stuck with this facility unless they are ensured of getting their $30 million for the prison.

For me those two concerns are legitimate concerns with the MOU and the project.

Many have suggested that this building has to be in an urban area. I am far from convinced on that point. The location of Woodland would actually be a bit better in terms of transportation. But Madison is not a horrendous location. It would be problematic for those coming from West Sacramento, but workable from Woodland and convenient from Solano County which will apparently have a good chunk of the inmates.

The release issue, as mentioned above, is a non-issue. The final point is one of services and infrastructure. Apparently that is going to have to occur anyway. The county clearly intends to expand the size of Madison to begin with. The state is responsible for the provision of services and infrastructure. They will be the ones who do the analysis and it will be interesting to see what would occur if they deemed it too costly.

I am generally one that is sympathetic for neighbor-issues with building projects of all sorts. I believe that people have invested huge percentages of their earnings and life-savings into their property. I think people have legitimate concerns about property values and quality of life. I do not begrudge people who do not want a facility of this sort by them as long as they do not in turn want a facility of this sort by someone else.

The notion of NIMBY means "Not in my backyard" but it implies inherently that they are willing to tolerate it elsewhere. By definition, you are not a NIMBY if you oppose it for all. That does not mean you necessarily oppose it for all with equal force. I may not want a biolab anywhere in the country because I fear any number of hazards may occur, but I will also spend far more time opposing it in Davis than I will even think about it in Virginia. That's just a fact of life.

Where I do have a problem is the breakdown of civil discourse, the irresponsible charges, and conspiracies theories that have emerged.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad reports a lot of angry letters and people that have called him up, yelling at him. Sadly some of those folks are from Davis. I understand people's frustrations, but they have to act like adults. It is counterproductive to yell.

As Mr. Rexroad put it on his blog:

"Over the past couple weeks I have noticed that when people start yelling at me about facts I can't control --- I just mentally turn them off. At that point they just need to yell so I let them go. Reason and rational thought just aren't going to do anything for them."

Then there are threats. For example:

"When you make your decision regarding the re-entry today, do so knowing that God has special places for those who make the wrong choices in life. Knowing all you know about this so called "re-entry", how you can knowingly let down the very people that elected you for the almighty dollar is truely beyond me."

Race Card and Brown Act Accusations

An attorney has written a letter to the Board of Supervisors on residents' behalf. Some citizens are considering filing a lawsuit to stop the facility. Unfortunately the letter from the attorney seems counterproductive at best.

The race card has been played. The letter charged that the "proposed site is discriminatory to the poor and Hispanic community."

"The county recognizes Madison as an economically disadvantaged area. It is home to a large migrant labor camp of almost exclusive Hispanic residents. Is Madison being selected as the proposed site because it lacks a significant affluent white population? Additionally, one author has noted that racism among white staff in rural prisons is pervasive."

I see. Of course Woodland and West Sacramento have sizable Hispanic populations as well. That would leave only Davis as a possible site. Of course, then Davis could claim it is being discriminated against because it is the only predominantly white community. I am being facetious here, but this argument does not hold much water.

Then there are charges of Brown Act violations.

As Matt Rexroad put it:

"The point about the Brown Act does not even contain any evidence -- it just states that the Board of Supervisors broke the law."

Not only do these charges not contain evidence, they do not even contain a description of how the law was violated.

The letter simply states:

"The Conduct of the Hearing on the Potential Sites for this Prison Reentry Facility at the Board of Supervisors Meeting on September 9, 2008 Violated the Brown Act."

Okay, can you now please explain what they did in violation of the Brown Act. You can state it all you want, but if you are going to file a legitimate complaint with either the District Attorney's Office or the Attorney General's Office, you need to have a description of what was in violation of the Brown Act.

These types of tactics are actually counterproductive--they tend to make public officials dig their heels in rather than listen to legitimate concerns--and I think there are some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. They need to be addressed through reasoned discourse not threats and unfounded charges.

If you do not believe that the site will work--make an argument as to why that is the case, not a threat. I have seen no evidence that the Board violated the Brown Act on this. I do see some issues that need to be resolved. I hope the Board works to revise and strengthen the MOU if they decide to go ahead with the project. And I hope the Madison community at the very least works with them to improve the arrangement.

I understand that the people of Madison do not want this facility and "do not want to be known as a prison town." That I can sympathize with, but they need more than just threats and charges to make that case to the Board.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Goes with Madison Site and Eliminates Davis and Esparto

Before all of this began it seemed the word I had gotten from several points was that the Madison site was the best of the three sites picked by the County Board of Supervisors. It is not that the Madison site is perfect, in fact there will have to be improvements made to that site as well particularly with regards to waste water, power, and gas line issues. However, Madison appeared to have the least problems of the three sites.

For all of the talk of NIMBYISM it is plain old land use policies that saved the residents of Plainfield from having a Prison Re-Entry Facility in their backyard. Their research efforts were exactly correct with regards to the issues of that site.

I figured this was a done deal around the time Supervisor Helen Thomson pressed the representative from CDCR about the infrastructure and how CDCR evaluates the process.

According to the representative CDCR does its own site assessment, it determines the costs of what needs to be done which includes the feasibility of the location given the budget that they have. Some sites could be ruled out because they are too costly to build on. And that is really what it came down to for the airport site. Sure they could deal with issues of flooding, roads, electricity, and water. Sure they could figure out how to deal with the issue of emergency service when the firefighter from West Plainfield indicated how taxing it would be to have a facility of this size on their property.

But at the end of the day, these issues all had to be resolved which meant more money would be needed. And the representative made it clear to all that if the CDCR chose the site and if they were going to be the only one building on that site, then they were going to have to pay the entire bill.

Right then I knew that the airport site was out. Of course it took hours of discussions and public comment for the decisions to be made.

Some very general comments that I think are important to make. First, I understand people's frustration about these issues and the way they arose seemingly at the last minute. But there were a number of people at this meeting that were downright rude and made unfounded accusations. Supervisor Rexroad posted a few of the more rude and threatening comments on his blog. A number of those people were from the actual city of Davis. That kind of conduct does not reflect well on this city. We all have strong views and strong concerns, but frankly that is counterproductive. I know when I get rude posts on the blog or rude comments in emails to me, it completely discounts the point that the individual is trying to make.

Second, I agree with many about concerns about the process. Richard Livingston made these comments well during public comment yesterday. I think Supervisor Mike McGowan handled it well. He initially interrupted Mr. Livingston, but then apologized for doing so. He acknowledged that there were concerns about the process and communication and I think handled it pretty well.

That leads me to my next point, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain. I respect this man on a number of fronts. He is one of the most passionate protectors of farmland and county open space there is. However, he did not serve his constituents well yesterday. First, he had to recuse himself because he farms land around the airport. He did this very reluctantly and unnecessarily, in my opinion, pushed this issue to the brink of legality with his refusal to step aside.

Several of his constituents complained that their representative was not involved in the process. They felt disenfranchised. I do not blame them. But frankly I think it is his own fault. He could have handled this situation much better and perhaps should have given up working on that land in order to be a more effective spokesperson for his constituents on such an important issue. The county is still apparently dealing with legality with regards to these matters, but he did eventually turn over the gavel to his colleague Mr. McGowan.

Supervisor Mike McGowan who represents West Sacramento had no real stake in this battle, which made him the perfect Supervisor to chair the meeting. I thought he did an outstanding job. He was a calming influence during a turbulent meeting. He was able to really diffuse tensions rather than ratchet them up. I thought he was outstanding.

In fact, I was impressed as a whole with the Board of Supervisors I thought they asked a number of very good questions. They really pressed CDCR on points about retaining control of this process. I think there is a legitimate concern that this could morph into something else.

There are still discussions to have in fact on these points. One of the key provisions is the future use of the re-entry facility. Can this be converted into a prison down the line and what recourse does the county have to prevent that from occurring? I already mentioned the development agreement mitigations that are needed included waste water management, power, and gas lines issues. Finally, the question of how many people might be served by this facility and which people.

From the CDCR's perspective this has to be 500 people. Five hundred (500) people means it serves people from outside of Yolo County.

Serious questions arose about the type of people who would be housed by such a facility. For instance, according to CDCR level four offenders could be housed there. Of course, they would have to meet specific criteria such as not being problematic inmates, eligibility for parole, and other criteria, but they could under those conditions wind up there. CDCR did however say that this was not meant to serve mentally ill prisoner populations.

Supervisor Helen Thomson was concerned that there not be sexual predators or pedophiles housed at this facility but CDCR could make no such promises.

A common refrain from the public was that the county sold out the public for $30 million. Many in the public questioned the usefulness of such a facility. Some called it basically an experiment.

I am supportive of the concept of the re-entry facility. I think that the current system has failed us. We have basically created a prisoner factory that turns inmates into career criminals. And I think we need to look for ways to avoid that.

Yet the more I think about it I have to agree with Davis City Councilmember Sue Greenwald's comments. First, having rehabilitation in the last year of a prison term probably does not make the most sense. If we want rehabilitation, why not work on it throughout the term?

Second, as others have suggested, this is basically a tool by which to relieve overcrowding. Instead of releasing prisoners directly to the population, they prop up those releases with a year of training. Do not get me wrong, training is important and the ideals here are good, but at the end of the day, this is indeed an experiment. We do not know that this will work. And yet somehow the state has been convinced to put billions into this project under the guise of rehabilitation--a guise that amounts to largely untested assumptions.

Third, many of the people who are supporting these re-entry facilities are opposed to Proposition 5 and efforts of that sort. This is where we can make a huge difference in the prison system. Not everyone who breaks the law needs to be thrown in prison. It is not clear that doing so helps make us safer as a society, nor is it clear that it helps those people thrown in prison become better people.

What is clear is that we are locking up a lot people who are not especially dangerous to the population in jail. It's clear that the system from the courts to the jail cells are clogged with these cases, and we would probably have plenty of room in the system if we just dealt with these kinds of cases differently.

In other words, during the course of listening to the testimony from the public, questions from the County Board of Supervisors, and answers from CDCR, I changed my mind on this issue. I think there is a real concern that once we sign this over, we lose control and an amorphous state agency gets its hands on a facility in our county. At the end of the day, I don't think $30 million is worth handing over control to the state. More to the point, I question using further resources to back up what I see as a broken corrections system.

Madison is indeed the least bad location of the three selected by the county here, but the people of Madison have in a way been sold out for expediency and for $30 million. I hope in a few years we do not look back on this and regret it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Re-Entry Facility Will Be Heard Today by County and Davis City Council

This morning, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors will take up the controversial issue of the re-entry facility.

While the staff recommendation for the county is to approve the three sites which would fulfill the requirements by the county to identify three sites before a deadline, there is some suggestion that the county may seek to try to rank-order the sites as well. This move may alleviate anxiety for some county residents who are overwhelmingly opposed to the placement of such a facility near their communities.

We have covered a number of different aspects of this in the last few days. Today we will tie up a few loose ends.

Tonight, the Davis City Council will get briefed on the issue. By then the Board of Supervisors may have already made some sort of decision at least in terms of a preference order. It seems unlikely that the issue will be resolved by tonight.

In Sunday's Vanguard, Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek expressed concerns both about the project and the process.

"The proposed project is located in the Davis planning area, it would have a Davis address. And the occupants of the facility would be released into our community. So yes, I have very strong concerns."

One of his big concerns was the lack of communication between the county and the city of Davis.

"I had actually heard from neighbors of the area, outside the city limits, before I had heard anything from city staff or the county. That leads me to believe that our city staff was not kept abreast of the plan to propose this site and it leads me to believe that our inclusion in the process was not considered from the beginning."

While Councilmember Heystek expressed concern about the possibility of city services being required for the county airport location, Supervisor Matt Rexroad downplayed that possibility.

In an email from Thursday night, Supervisor Rexroad acknowledged that the road situation might be a problem, but believed that other potential shortcomings could be resolved.

"I think the road issues is the biggest one in this area. The flooding issue, power issue, and a couple others that were mentioned tonight can be solved and improved for others with this project."

One of the big questions is who would be required to solve those problems. The city of Camarillo is going through a similar experience with a federally imposed prison hospital that might be built near their city. The city there has argued that they probably do not have the power to the prevent the federal or state government from placing the facility in Ventura County, but they are under no obligation to supply it with water.

The issue of fire staffing and emergency services seems to be more tricky. Currently the Plainfield area is served by a volunteer fire department with two volunteer firefighters. In an emergency at the prison, that would quickly overwhelm them. Who would be required to back them up?

All of these questions could have been resolved had the county been more forthcoming and communicated with the cities.

Councilmember Heystek:

"We want to maintain a positive relationship with our counterparts in the county. We have already learned from the lessons of the northwest quadrant that the city of Davis has a very strong interest in protecting interests not only within our boundaries but also within areas of our county where we have a clear say on, per agreement and per conventional planning principals.

It troubles me that we were not involved at an earlier stage in a meaningful way."

Meanwhile there was word yesterday that another group has an interest in the proceedings with the county today--the Sacramento Central Labor Council and the building trades. They will be looking to ensure that any contract has provisions to use union workers to design the facility. There is indication that these groups will show up in mass today to urge the county to place provisions within any authorization for the re-entry facility that it must have union labor.

However, much has to occur before that can even happen. The board of supervisors meeting will likely be packed today with residents urging that they not build in their backyard.

Stay tuned to Vanguard for the latest news and updates on this situation throughout the day.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Issue of Poor Communications Arises Again in Debate Over Re-Entry Facility Location

Councilmember Heystek: "It troubles me that we were not involved at an earlier stage in a meaningful way"

Some have suggested that land use issues are simply means to express fear of prisons in a more acceptable manner. They have dismissed complaints about procedural problems in the county's proposal for a location of the re-entry facility. However, from my perspective, those dismissals fail to understand the magnitude of the impact of this facility on a place like the city of Davis. There has been little to no discussion to this point as to who is expected to provide the vital services for a location such as the county airport.

These are not merely academic exercises, the county for example lacks its own fire department. There are questions about roadways, water, sewer, power, and the like that could have impacts on adjacent jurisdictions such as the city of Davis. These potential impacts should necessitate cooperation and at the very least the common courtesy of advanced notice. Yet, it is clear that this did not occur.

County Supervisor Matt Rexroad has suggested that while "the County certainly could have done a better job in communicating with the people of Yolo County regarding this issue" however, he does not believe he is personally taking a hit for poor communications.

I would tend to agree with Mr. Rexroad here, he personally is not the problem with regards to communications.

"When this issue came up I personally spoke to three members of the Woodland City Council within a few hours on learning more. Later I spoke to a fourth. I personally called the Police Chief and City Manager. Long discussions were involved with all of these people.

I communicated with the city leaders in Woodland and continue to do that on a regular basis. Lately I have not talked much with Martie Dote but I need to do that more. I talked Flory more when he was on the Council. In fact, several times I talked to Art and Dave more when they were both on the City Council in one day than my predecessor talked to me in the entire four years he was in office.

I am hesitant to communicate with the people outside of Woodland on county policy issues. On this blog I lay out my positions on issues and lots of people read them.

You can rip me for a whole host of things..... but lack of communications in not one of them."

However, as Mr. Rexroad points out, it is not his responsibility to communicate to the residents of other districts within the county--and whether it is Duane Chamberlain who represents the rural areas where the proposed facility would be placed, or the city of Davis' representatives Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada, there has been a fundamental lack of communication between the county and the city, and this is not the first time this has arisen.

I do disagree with Supervisor Rexroad on one point, during a phone conversation he suggested that this location was not within an area that Davis should have any say over. I firmly disagree on that point, I think that the impacts on Davis are rather direct and there needed to be earlier discussions on the possibility of locating the facility on this site.

During a phone conversation with Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek, the councilmember expressed strong concern over the proposed project location.

"The proposed project is located in the Davis planning area, it would have a Davis address. And the occupants of the facility would be released into our community. So yes, I have very strong concerns."

At the same time, the councilmember told me that he and the city received "little" or no communication from the county on this issue.

"I had actually heard from neighbors of the area, outside the city limits, before I had heard anything from city staff or the county. That leads me to believe that our city staff was not kept abreast of the plan to propose this site and it leads me to believe that our inclusion in the process was not considered from the beginning."

He continued:

"We want to maintain a positive relationship with our counterparts in the county. We have already learned from the lessons of the northwest quadrant that the city of Davis has a very strong interest in protecting interests not only within our boundaries but also within areas of our county where we have a clear say on, per agreement and per conventional planning principals.

It troubles me that we were not involved at an earlier stage in a meaningful way."

Furthermore, he made the case that the interests of the city extend beyond the geographical boundaries that separate city jurisdictions from the county. These interlocking and overlapping interests have necessitated the creation of bodies such as the city-county two-by-two, but also regional bodies like SACOG and LAFCO to bring together jurisdictions in an effort to forge cooperative relations.

"Much is made about the fact that the city of Davis has a sphere of influence and there's land within our planning area, we as decisionmakers who represent the people of this city have a very solemn responsibility not only to represent the interests of the people who lie within our city limits but also a responsibility to represent the interests of those people even as they lay outside of the city limits. That means that extrinsically our residents have interests that do not lie solely within the city's boundaries. Those interests also exceed those boundaries. So it's our interest and responsibility as councilmembers and as city officials to look very closely at this proposal to ask for and to frankly demand attention and involvement in any process that the county may be undertaking."

Along with the lack of communication, are a variety of reasons why the county needed to involve the city in discussions from the start. It is unclear whether the facility will require access to the Davis system of sewer or water. Supervisor Matt Rexroad believes that wells can provide the cite with water, but what about sewer?

From the city's perspective, any need from the county would tax a system that is already in the process of requiring major capital improvements.

Councilmember Heystek said:

"Our infrastructure has already been so taxed that we barely can afford to serve our existing residents and our existing ratepayers. So adding new service to our water and sewer systems is very questionable. I'm not sure if this facility proposes to tap into the city's water and sewer systems. But, if that's the case, it would be unconscionable for any plan to move very much forward without any meaningful city involvement."

In addition to the issue of water and sewer, fire service is a concern. The airport has a volunteer fire department that houses two volunteer fire fighters. Such a facility could quickly move beyond the capabilities of that small department to provide emergency services. The county does not have its own fire department. So who would have responsibility to serve the new facility in the case of an emergency?

That answer is unclear to Councilmember Heystek:

"I would like to know whether we are indeed obligated to engage in a contract for services if it's not feasible or otherwise in the city's best interest to do so."

What is clear is that such a facility could tax the city already strapped for resources.

"We have talked about five minutes response time issues that the department has brought up and the city has studied. The issue of simultaneous calls has been studied by the department and the council as a whole. Adding more territory to serve clearly doesn't make sense at this time when we are considering how we serve our existing service areas."

The traffic issue was a big concern to local residents on Thursday night. Some have speculated that this is a huge potential problem, others have kind of discounted that problem. Councilmember Heystek pointed out that there has not been any kind of traffic study to date, so it would be difficult to assess potential problems.

"None of us can answer that question specifically since we don't have a traffic study before us. But an EIR for this project, I assume one will be carried out, an EIR with a traffic study would reveal an answer for that."

However, the potential problem of the taxing of existing infrastructure is a big concern to Mr. Heystek.

"You raise a very good point, to what extent will incorporated cities infrastructure be taxed in that respect. You already asked about water and sewer, you've asked about the fire department, and you've asked about the roads, clearly these accumulated infrastructure service impacts drastically effects the way we serve our residents. And so hopefully dialogue between the county and city will be meaningful, productive, full, and comprehensive. I hope that any discussion recognizes and honors the fact that the city has a legal right to participate in the discussion and the process as a whole."

For the Councilmember the problem comes back to communication and shared interests.

"We have two representatives on the city-county two-by-two--actually we have four Davis representatives. I hope that the four Davisites will not only insure that county interests are served but also city interests. And while those interests often overlap, they are not mutually inclusive, that is they don't always overlap perfectly. So it will be interesting to see how the dynamic at that level plays out. I assume that there will be other ways for the city council or board of supervisors to be involved. I will exercise my right to voice an opinion to cast as necessary."

The problem that I have is that this discussion is coming up again. Just last year, the city expressed concerns about lack of discussion prior to the general plan process by the county. The city was caught off-guard at that time about proposed developments on the periphery of Davis. Everyone had suggested that we would learn from those acrimonious discussions that exploded into full-blown controversy, but it seems like we have not.

On Tuesday, the county will formally take up the proposal and will recommend study at the three sites that have been proposed. This fulfills their obligation to recommend three sites for possible locations for the re-entry facility. It appears that the state would then study the sites and that sometime down the line, a decision would be made by the county as to where to place the facility.

The staff recommendation is as follows:

"RECOMMENDED ACTION:

A. Reaffirm the county’s support for the siting of a reentry facility in Yolo County;

B. Approve the list of potential sites for a state reentry facility in Yolo County;

a) County Road 90 and State Route 16 (east of Madison)

b) County Road 86a and State Route 16 (southeast of Esparto)

c) Yolo County Airport

C. Authorize the signing of the Reentry Program Facility Siting Agreement between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the county for potential reentry facility sites and to comply with Assembly Bill (AB 900);

D. Authorize the signing of Options to Purchase real estate agreements for County Road 90 at State Route 16 (KATHYANNA RANCH, LLC) and County Road 86a at State Route 16 (JOHN DETERDING CO.) for potential sites for a reentry facility."

So no final determination appears in the works for Tuesday. However, we are still left with burning questions about the process. For example, when should the county notify cities about plans that will impact the city and possibly involve city infrastructure or at the very least are adjacent to the cities? Moreover, we know that Brown Act requirements for public notification are extremely low, even placement in the newspaper is somewhat problematic. The city of Davis has community meetings well in advance of new housing projects--why not a similar approach from the county?

People have suggested that these changes would not change people's minds on the subject of prison construction. They are probably correct. But process is an end in and of itself, it is not merely a means to achieve consensus or agreement, although those are worthwhile goals. Proper procedures in this case would not diminish outcry. However, what they might do is allow other jurisdictions to address some of the concerns of residents in advance. They also might have allowed the county to determine early on potential problems at the proposed sites that would have eliminated them well before they panicked the public. All of these things need to change. We live in an information age, and Davis' two supervisors have not sufficiently communicated with their constituents on this issue.

All of these things are correctable in the future if there is an effort to proactively involve citizens in the process.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Packed House in Plainfield Airs Its Concerns About Re-Entry Facility

A large crowd that likely approached 200 people packed into Lillard Hall at the Yolo County Airport to ask questions about the new proposed Re-Entry facility. Last week, the Yolo County Airport was named as one of three possible sites for the facility.

The meeting was well-attended especially considering it was put together in just two days. Three members of the County Board of Supervisors were in attendance--subcommittee members Helen Thomson (Davis) and Matt Rexroad (Woodland) were there in official capacities. Supervisor Duane Chamberlain represents this location, he was also in attendance and briefly spoke to the large crowd. However, he is conflicted out from formal capacities.

This is a point of controversy. While he does not own the adjacent land, he farms it on a contract basis. There is considerable question as to whether he can discuss any aspects of the Re-Entry policy given his interest in this particular location. This is a point that he is going back and forth on with County Counsel.

He did briefly speak and state in no uncertain terms, he found the site completely inappropriate for this use.

Also in attendance were three members of the Davis City Council--Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor, and Councilmember Lamar Heystek. More on this in just a bit.

The presentation was not orderly as intended. People were very concerned about this project and proposed location and often spoke out of turn and gave speeches rather than asking questions. However, it was nothing compared with the situation in Esparto.

From my perspective, the organizers did considerable research on the zoning ordinance, the deed, and understanding the issues with the site itself. They made a very compelling case that this site is not appropriate. Some can be dismissed perhaps as NIMBYISM, but I think to do so is to miss a good deal of very compelling arguments.

This is certainly not an inclusive list, but I will talk about some of the ones I think are critical.

First and foremost, the road infrastructure. Flat out, I do not think the county roads are suitable for the increased volume of traffic that a prison with visitors would entail. There are already safety concerns about the roads, they are narrow, they have farm equipment, and there are frequent accidents with fatalities.

Along with that concern is the distance from major highways and arterials. The closest highway is 113 in Davis. So people would have to drive from 113 approximately 8 miles out to the airport through Covell. On the other hand, the location at Madison is directly off of I-505 making it a far better location from the standpoint of traffic.

Moreover, at present there is no public transportation. Prisoners who would be released would either have to have a family member pick them up at the facility or they would be driven by CDCR personnel to the Greyhound Station in Davis. In addition, non-driving family members would have difficulty getting to the facility--and that is a crucial aspect of the program to re-orient prisoners with their families.

There is concern about lack of emergency services. The Plainfield Fire Station is actually next door. It is composed of two volunteer firefighters. In an emergency situation, they would be severely taxed to respond. That means that the Davis Fire Department would be the logical next option for major emergencies as the county lacks a fire department. The public at this meeting suspect that this facility would make a fourth Davis fire station inevitable.

Along similar lines the ambulance service comes from Davis as well and contains two vehicles. Problems at the prison facility would tax the EMR system as well.

Flooding is a big problem in the rural locations. There is apparently a slough on the backside of the airport, near where the facility would be, that floods every winter. In addition, multiple times each winter, the roads out there become impassable due to flooding. They also mentioned this is on a 100 year flood plain which would have its own dangers.

Power is problematic. Currently there is not enough power from the Plainfield substation to supply all of the power needs. This would need to be upgraded. The residents suggested that five times a year or so they lose power for extended periods of time.

The organizers also suggested that the deed to the property and the zoning are incompatible with these uses. This is somewhat in question as Supervisor Matt Rexroad suggested that recently the county has in the new general plan re-zoned this land industrial. The organizers believe that it is zoned for aviation and therefore only aviation related uses are permitted. They also made an extensive case the prison use for a portion of this land would be incompatible with the airport functions of the site.

For his part, Supervisor Matt Rexroad agrees with the concern about roads. He told the Vanguard:

"I think the road issues is the biggest one in this area. The flooding issue, power issue, and a couple others that were mentioned tonight can be solved and improved for others with this project."

The public was also concerned that the water hook up and power upgrade would be growth inducing, making leapfrog development more likely. In addition, does bringing in 300 employees, many potentially from outside the area mean an increased housing demand.

Supervisor Rexroad disagrees however:

"It is not growth inducing."

He then suggested to the Vanguard that much of these issues would not have come up had the Board of Supervisors proposed an airport expansion project rather than a prison project.

The City of Davis is not happy apparently about the process or the proposal. Councilmember Lamar Heystek told me that the city received absolutely no notice from the county about this proposal. While the location is outside of the pass-through agreement (by a very small margin), it is inside the Davis planning area.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad however disagrees that Davis should have been notified, arguing that this is a location several miles outside of town and they should have no input or authority whatsoever about the project.

However, the project clearly impacts Davis in a number of ways including services and roads. Unfortunately this appears to be standard operating procedure from the county in terms of notification to the city. The city was similarly angry with the county for failure to communicate on the county's general plan proposal that included areas within Davis' planning area that were covered by the pass-through agreement.

The public was angry as well that they seemed to get no notification for this proposal. They found out last Thursday in the newspaper.

From my perspective this is not an acceptable way to do business by the county. I saw the same issues arise in this case that arose during the general plan. The reaction by the Supervisors was somewhat defensive last night. I strongly disagree with Supervisor Rexroad on this issue.

For all of my problems and complaints with the city of Davis on a variety of topics, one thing they do is have community meetings with neighbors of proposed development sites well in advance of the actual issue. Frankly having a press release and news articles a week and a half prior to a meeting is irresponsible.

The city of Davis once again finds itself at odds with the county on development issues.

While I remain supportive of the basic concept of the re-entry facility, the process of this is increasingly concerning me. The prison expansion project for the county has already been approved by the board of supervisors and will cost $42 million for a new pod on the current facility. By allowing a re-entry facility, the county can directly recoup $30 million of that. So a huge vested financial interest by the county is driving the re-entry facility project.

While I think it is a worth-while project, I am not certain I am pleased with how the county is choosing to do business. As the CDCR spokesperson pointed out last night, in order for a project to be approved, the local jurisdiction needs to consent to the project. In the case of cities, that jurisdiction is the city council. In the case of rural areas, the Board of Superivors is the authorizing body.

The problem with this arrangement is that in the case of a city, all five members of the council represent the city as a whole. Whereas in the county, there is only one representative that represents that particular area.

Nevertheless, the cues I am getting seem to be pointing away from this location as desirable place. There is a threat of a lawsuit. The lawsuit may or may not succeed, but it would certainly delay implementation of the facility. That is probably enough to make this location less than desirable to CDCR. Factor in the roads in this location compared to Madison, and I think Madison is much more likely to end up the eventual location than the Airport.

Much of this will be determined next week at the Board of Supervisor's meeting on Tuesday. It is clear that many of these people will pack into the chambers in order to make their voices heard.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Meeting Tonight in Rural West Davis on Re-Entry Facility

Yesterday I received an email message from a resident from rural west Davis asking me to inform Vanguard readers of a meeting tonight, September 4, out at the county airport approximately five miles from town.

Here is the email that was sent:

While we do not live in Davis proper, the residents of rural west Davis are a part of Davis 'life'.

We just discovered that the County wants to build a prison on top of us!

Our community is having a town hall meeting on the 4th at 7 pm at Lillard Hall [Yolo County Airport].

Since so many Davisites share our community with bicycling and outdoor activities, we believe that having 800 prisoners and 300 support staff roaming in our rural area would negatively affect them.

Could/would you all be so kind as to "get the word out" (mass email) about our meeting? Perhaps some Davis folks would want to weigh in.

We also have a website at: westplainfield.ning.com that we just started.

Keep up the good work with your community site and thanks in advance.

The individual also told me that while they support the program, they are concerned about traffic issues with 300 employees. 800 prisoners would completely impact the main agricultural use.

"The county for years has had a policy of growth in cities to keep the rural area open. This proposal is quite out of step with that. There would be greener locations for this facility that would not need its own sewage plant or transportation system. Out here would be isolation for inmates, isolated from the very society that they are to be re-entered into? It's ironic."

I will try to attend the meeting tonight. I will be curious to see if it follows the same format from Tuesday up in Esparto, where two of the proposals now are located. The county has decided that Dunnigan and Zamora are not the best locations. I am very curious as to why they believe that is the case, but think Esparto or Plainfield will work.

At the meeting in Esparto, Yolo County Supervisors Matt Rexroad and Helen Thomson were on a panel along with Sheriff Ed Prieto and three members of the CDCR. Also while not on the panel, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain was in attendance.

Yolo Cowboy, who runs a pretty good blog called the Roughstock Journal covered this yesterday. He did not mince words about his dislike for the proposal.

According to the Yolo Cowboy, there were about 200 residents who went the Esparto high school auditorium.

From his perspective:

"The residents of this community were upset and it showed as comments and questions were shouted from those inside the auditorium. For those on the panel, they must have been waiting for the people to break out the torches and pitchforks.

I would like to apologize for the lack of decorum at the meeting, but I will not.

To understand the frustration felt by the citizens of the Capay Valley, you must understand what we have experienced in our dealings with Yolo County. It seems whenever someone comes to the County and says they have a huge amount of money to give them, if they give a green light to a certain project in a rural area, the green light is given. When the citizens of the affected area object, the County tells them, ‘we need the money, shut up and take it’. The first expansion of the Cache Creek casino? We need the money, shut up and take it. The second huge expansion of the casino? We need the money, shut up and take it. Now the proposed re entry prison, you guessed it, shut up and take it.

The County Board of Supervisors has a job to do, provide services to the citizens of our county with a 326 million dollar budget. I also understand the fact that free money is a rare and welcome luxury. However, this ‘free’ money does have a cost attached to it. A cost that is not easily seen from the cities of Woodland, Davis, West Sacramento. As rural residents of the county, we are told to shut up and take it as our small-town quality of life deteriorates for the common good of the urban citizenry of the county."

I still think this is a pretty good proposal and a worthwhile endeavor. But the county has a clear problem at this point. The cities have veto power and the rural areas both do not want it and in most cases do not have the infrastructure or services to support it well.

Like many others, the Yolo Cowboy thinks we need the facility, but not at that location:

"Yes, Yolo County needs this type of facility; anything that could lead to a decrease in the recidivism rates of parolees is a benefit for us all. However, putting this facility out in a rural area, far away from urban centers with few employers, few volunteer organizations and where a tiny percentage of the prisoners families live, is setting up the program for failure before it starts."

Okay than where? The cities do not want it either and they have actual veto power by the statute. Someone needs to compromise here or someone is going to get angry when the Board of Supervisors finally says, we have the authority to do whatever we want and you do not have enough people to stop us. And then what?

Stay tuned. This issue is just getting started, the board meets next Tuesday to discuss it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Proposes Site Locations for Reentry Facility

In a release yesterday afternoon, Yolo County announced that at a September 9 meeting, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors will consider three potential ites for a secure community reentry facility.

The potential sites include an industrial/commercial park east of the community of Madison (County Road 90 and State Route 16), a proposed industrial/commercial park southeast of the Esparto community (County Road 86a and State Route 16) and a site at the Yolo County Airport in the West Plainfield area (County Road 95).

According to the release:

"On March 18, Yolo County submitted a proposal to the state for funding for expansion of the county’s existing jail which included agreeing to assist the state in siting a reentry facility. Included in the proposal was the offer of a site located next to the jail facility, however this location was rejected as it was deemed by the state to be too small. The county was notified by the Corrections Standards Authority on May 15 that it had received a conditional award of $30 million for jail expansion pending the siting of a reentry facility in Yolo County. Since then, the county has been working with the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation to identify additional potential sites by the state’s deadline of August 15 (which has now been extended to September 16). Using criteria set forth by the state, county staff identified more than 100 parcels throughout the county that could meet the criteria for the reentry facility.

Initially, a number of locations were identified in the northern portion of the county, primarily along County Roads 14 and 85, south of the Dunnigan community. After additional on-site reviews, the state reconsidered the feasibility of these locations and indicated their preference for other sites better suited for the state’s needs. The sites being considered on September 9 appear to meet the state’s criteria and have already been identified for industrial/commercial development. These sites require considerable additional analysis and review before the state makes its final preferred selection.

Inmates in state prison are sent back into the community in which they lived prior to incarceration with $200 and a bus ticket. They are released with little to no job training, substance abuse treatment or any other skills or tools that might prevent new crimes and a quick return to prison. Reentry facilities can provide the critical tools to stop that revolving door. These tools include: job training, life and job-seeking skills, and medical, mental health and addiction treatment prior to release. Secure reentry facilities are key to breaking the cycle of crime and repeating criminal activity in California. Once fully integrated into the corrections system, these programs are expected to increase success on parole, increase public safety by reducing the incidence of new crimes by these individuals, and reduce overcrowding in state prisons. Reentry facilities throughout the state will be built and operated by the state."

While the issue has barely been a blip on the radar for people in Davis, it has created a firestorm up in the Dunnigan and Zamora area where the county has focused its energy.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad at one point recommended to the city of Woodland that they take on the project, however, they did not follow through on his recommendations.

Under the provisions of AB 900, cities like Woodland, Davis, Winters, or West Sacramento have veto power over proposed locations for reentry facilities. That has made rural and unincorporated locations like Dunnigan and Zamora, on the crossroad of I-5 and I-580 inviting and vulnerable targets.

Last week, Supervisor Rexroad suggested that the residents of Davis should step up on some of these projects.

"Most of you folks that read this are from Davis. Some of you are questioning why this project should not be located in Woodland. That is a fair question.

Another fair question is when the people of Davis are going to step up to the plate to provide land use that facilitates social services?"

He continued:

"I hear many of you claiming that you desire social services to be provided -- just not in Davis. That part is left out. Somewhere else in Yolo County would be fine.

The largest piece of industrial zoned property in the unincorporated part of Yolo County is Covell Village. How about that location?

The re-entry facility is something that we are going to work through over the coming weeks and even years.

My question for you is -- what land is Davis going to set aside for some of these things?

...

It seems funny to me that for all the social programs that the people that read this blog are likely to advocate for -- the use of land in your precious city never seems to be part of the message."

However, the issue has also been one of controversy in his own family. Supervisor Rexroad's father, himself a resident of the Dunnigan and Zamora area, has been outspoken in his opposition to the project.

On August 19, 2008 Jack Rexroad, the father of the Supervisor, wrote a letter to the Davis Enterprise.

In it, he argues that the reentry facility should be placed in an urban area

"because this is where the infrastructure is and where the parolees originated from and where they presumably will have families, lodging and other connections and gravitate to on release. In Yolo County they come primarily from Woodland, Davis and West Sacramento."

He continues:

"If none of these sites of origin will accept responsibility for their citizens, the whole concept of "re-entry" should be dropped. Transferring this unwanted "child" to a rural setting is tantamount to shirking responsibility and abandoning a pet animal in the country. We in the rural areas do not want what you produced and now don't want to deal with."

He concludes suggesting:

"Make no mistake; siting this prison in a rural area will not insulate Woodland, Davis or West Sacramento from the undesirable effects of a future penal colony. After all, where will the prisoner's families and friends live — in a tent city around the prison? My guess is in the cities where almost everyone else lives.

Do you think it's worth the risk? Tell your county supervisors."

From my perspective however, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the unincorporated areas simply do not have the municipal protections that are afforded cities. However, from the standpoint of fiscal need and receiving $30 million of $42 million it will require to expand the Yolo County Jail--an expansion that will occur regardless. And from the standpoint of the project being a worthwhile endeavor even without the fiscal strings attached, this is a project that we must undertake as a county.

Where that project goes, I think is a secondary point. On that point, I can sympathize with the rural citizens who will have very little say over where such a project goes. On the other hand, from a practical standpoint, there is very little evidence that such a project would harm housing values. In fact, it might even augment them by putting good paying jobs in the area. Moreover, there hardly seems to be a safety issue either.

So while I can sympathize with the rural residents, I hardly think the issue is worth the alarm it is causing. From details of the project, it seems that the plan is for the design to be consistent with an urban industrial land use setting.

Here is the thing that gets me about Zamora and Dunnigan, they have pushed the Board of Supervisors to allow for the expansion of their "city" to within 20 years becoming around a city of a population of 25,000. They have no problem with such expansion of housing. But they do not want to bring in 300 jobs? They do not want to bring in something that would be an anchor for their community as it grows?

To me, these objections, the empowerment issue notwithstanding, really amount to NIMBYISM. They have no problem with development, with growth, with wholesale changes to their community, but they do not want a prison reentry facility in their backyard.

This does not dismiss legitimate issues that may arise here, but at the end of the day, it looks like they are probably going to be stuck with it. Hopefully at some point Jack Rexroad will forgive his son and the people of Dunnigan realize that the real impact will be the construction of 12,000 new housing units.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Special to Vanguard: Supervisor Rexroad Responds to Comments on Re-Entry Facility

On Friday, the Vanguard covered a proposed Re-entry facility that was approved by the County Board of Supervisors and funded by state money from Assembly Bill 900. Part of the discussion that emerged on Friday had to do with the location. Some of the comments suggested that Woodland would be a good location for the facility and suggested that if people such as Supervisor Matt Rexroad support such a facility, they ought to put it in Woodland. Supervisor Rexroad actually went to the Woodland City Council to ask them to put the facility in Woodland, but there was no interest in doing so. Then again, Supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada also support the bill, but to the best of anyone's understand have not requested that the city of Davis house the facility.

Here is Supervisor Rexroad's response where he calls out Davis residents for supporting social programs but not being willing to house them in Davis.

I just took some time to read over these comments [on the re-entry facility] and am struck by one thing.

Most of you folks that read this are from Davis. Some of you are questioning why this project should not be located in Woodland. That is a fair question.

Another fair question is when the people of Davis are going to step up to the plate to provide land use that facilitates social services?

Woodland actually has a mission that provides food and housing for hundreds. Does Davis have a similar permanent facility? No. It moves around from place to place so as not to upset any one neighborhood.

Woodland is the location of a large facility for the Yolo County Housing Authority. Davis has a few locations that are a fraction of the size of the one in Woodland or West Sacramento.

The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?

I don't want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.

I hear many of you claiming that you desire social services to be provided -- just not in Davis. That part is left out. Somewhere else in Yolo County would be fine.

The largest piece of industrial zoned property in the unincorporated part of Yolo County is Covell Village. How about that location?

The re-entry facility is something that we are going to work through over the coming weeks and even years.

My question for you is -- what land is Davis going to set aside for some of these things?

When some of you question my desire to do these things I simply point to the leadership Woodland took to place the Wayfarer Center over the objections of a few neighbors. My vote was the deciding one and my involvement was great. Woodland did that. Davis?

It seems funny to me that for all the social programs that the people that read this blog are likely to advocate for -- the use of land in your precious city never seems to be part of the message.

Matt Rexroad

Re-entry facility: What is it and Why the Controversy

Those who read the Davis Enterprise might have noticed a joint letter to the editor by Davis' County Supervisors Helen Thomson (District 2-Davis) and Mariko Yamada (District 4-Davis). They were writing in support of the re-entry facility.

The re-entry facility is something that has been in the works for a few months now, but I have not until written about it. I figured after reading the letter that I should do so. But I first, I had questions so I went to fellow County Supervisor Matt Rexroad. Some people wonder why I have an affinity for Mr. Rexroad, but I will tell you why--I spent one hour yesterday on the phone with him, grilling him over the issue. I disagree with Mr. Rexroad far more often than I agree with him. But it was he and not Thomson or Yamada that convinced me that the re-entry facility is the right thing to do.

It is actually a very interesting issue because it cuts across a number of other issues including law enforcement, rehabilitation, and yes even land use. The latter is probably the most controversial part.

I first heard about this issue in early March. At that time, I was told that Yolo County had absolutely zero chance of getting a re-entry facility. However, the Board of Supervisors were also told by checking the box, they were eligible for $30 million to help fund an expansion of the county jail. The expansion of the county jail was going to happen anyway at the cost of $42 million, by getting state funding, Yolo County has received nearly 60 percent of that funding.

As Thomson and Yamada wrote:

"The county jail has been at capacity for seven years with 3,200 inmates annually released early due to lack of space."

So there is a clear need for the upgrade, but with the state and county hurting for money, getting state funding makes this project possible.

Again, at the time, there was zero chance that Yolo County would get a re-entry facility, so it was basically free money.

However things changed rather quickly and in May not only did Yolo County receive the $30 million, but they received notice that the state would be building a re-entry facility--built and operated by the state and funded by the state. Again--no cost to Yolo County.

What is a re-entry facility?

As it was described to me, instead of inmates being released back into the population immediately, the re-entry facility spends a year preparing them in their home county for re-entry into the public. They are given training and rehabilitation programs that enable them to transition back into their community.

As Thomson and Yamada write:

"Intensive treatment and rehabilitation programs in re-entry facilities are designed to allow a transition period to connect inmates to community services and support systems, provide evidence-based treatment, treatment of substance abuse and mental illness, and to develop a plan for a crime-free life upon release."

This is not a half-way house.

The inmates are not released at night to go back into the community. They are housed on the location for the entire period. However, unlike the prisons, they are back close to their family. So the family can visit them more frequently and start getting back into their lives. All of this is aimed at trying to help them reestablish their social networks and prevent recidivism.

Remember these are people who were going to be released back into the population anyway. Would you prefer them go through programs such as these that might give them a chance at a normal life or would you prefer them to go back to the population.

As Thomson and Yamada write:

"Currently, inmates in state prison are required by law to be released back into the community in which they lived prior to their incarceration. They are given $200 cash, a bus ticket and a 'good luck,' with little prospect of success. Today they are being released without treatment or survival skills, and 70 percent of them ultimately return to state prison. Yolo County parolees return to Yolo County.

Research shows that offenders are more likely to be successful on parole, and less likely to return to prison, when they receive intensive programming focused on their needs. Re-entry facilities are a new paradigm in California corrections, with a strong program focus on rehabilitation."

From my standpoint these are solid goals. The people who will be housed at this facility will be either from Yolo County or Solano County. It seems likely there will be some kind of partnership between the two counties.

So why the controversy?

It basically comes down to fears by communities that building such a facility would reduce property values and then land use issues.

The facility will be consistent with commercial zoned property. Now Rexroad believes that it would be best to be placed in an existing city, that means Davis, West Sacramento, or Woodland. However, Woodland has already said basically "hell no." You can imagine the response in Davis. One suggestion was the Covell Village site--I can only imagine the response to that one. And they do not think West Sacramento is the best location. Regardless of what the Board of Supervisors think, under AB 900, which is the authorizing and funding law, cities have veto power. So do not worry, Davis will not have a re-entry facility. Even the council majority is not foolish enough to try to push that one through.

Right now then, the county is looking perhaps at Dunnigan and Zamora which is unincorporated and thus under county control. The residents there are up in arms.

In July, there was a meeting in Zamora on the Re-entry facility. The Zamora Community Hall was packed with over 200 people. Complaints range from water and transportation issues--valid issues that the county will have to address. On the other hand, there were accusations of secret meetings and Brown Act violations that are not accurate.

As Rexroad pointed out at the time, the same people making accusations that this is a done deal, completed in secret, are outraged because the Board of Supervisors did not have answers to all their questions about details that will have to be addressed and worked out later.

What is ironic is that they have no problem with proposals to turn the area into a 25,000 person city, but when the re-entry facility with 300 good and well-paying jobs is proposed, people fear their property values when there is little evidence that it will have any impact on them. In fact, it might help their property values because it brings jobs to the area. These are good paying correctional jobs.

The advantage of Zamora and Dunnigan is that it is accessible to both Yolo County and Solano County. It is right on the junction of I-505 and I-5. That makes it an easy drive from Vacaville and Fairfield and not bad for Woodland, West Sacramento or Davis.

Despite protests to the contrary, the County has not made the final decision on where to locate the facility just yet. If the meetings in Zamora were any indication, it is going to be difficult to please any community. That issue aside this seems like a solid and well-intentioned initiative.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Needle-Exchange Program--Needed to Be Mended But Not Ended

This past week, the County Board of Supervisors on a somewhat rare party-line vote, decided to continue the needle exchange program that will cost the Yolo County taxpayers $100,000 per year.

This despite tangible evidence of problems with the program.

One of the biggest problems with the program at this point has to do with the number of unaccounted for needles.

There were 61,752 needles that were passed out but only 50,499 needles that were turned back in. That leaves 11,253 unaccounted for needles. Needles that are reportedly showing up in parks and other areas where children frequent.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad, a strong opponent of the program found it unacceptable that that many needles are unaccounted for.

"That seems like a ridiculously high number."

Supervisor Rexroad also said as he has previously that he thinks the money could better be spent elsewhere.

Back on July 2, 2008 the Vanguard interviewed Matt Rexroad but also program administrator Rachel Anderson from SANE (Safer Alternatives Through Networking and Education).

• Click here to listen to that show

Rachel Anderson did a good job of laying out why it needle exchange is a very important and helpful program. One thing that it does is help people who would otherwise have little contact with social services get into contact with people who can help them in a setting where they can get help rather than face punishment for their drug problem. Studies have shown that not only do needle exchange programs help to reduce the spread of blood-borne diseases like HIV and hepatitis, but it also helps to reduce the drug use.

There is always a fear that somehow a needle exchange program might encourage people to use drugs, but that seems rather farfetched. People are not likely to suddenly start using IV drugs because clean needles are available.

Given the cost of health care and the cost to the county services to care for people with these kinds of chronic diseases, if the $100,000 program even reduces the number of infections by one, it almost pays for itself.

So while I am sympathetic to Matt Rexroad's argument that he poses on the radio show that it could be better used for children's health care, I think this is still a worthwhile program to explore.

My concern however is that it is obviously listening to the testimony and reading articles that the program has administration problems. The number of unaccounted for needles is in my opinion completely unacceptable.

So what does the 3-2 majority do to tighten up the administration of this program? Not a darn thing! It does nothing.

I am a liberal who supports these kinds of programs but they darn well better work. And if they are not working right, make them work. To often the problem with government is that those who support these programs are afraid to admit when there are problems and those who understand that there are problems with the program just want to kill the program. There is thus no one invested in making the program work.

Part of the problem that some have told with this program is that everyone knew it would be a hot buttoned issue and so there was a protection mechanism from the administration of the program who tried to keep any problems at the lowest possible level in order to prevent what has now happened. The problem is that that approach clearly did not fix the problem and the program ended up in the spotlight.

Instead of trying to fix the program, everyone either tried to cover up the problems or use the problems to destroy the program.

That still does not explain or justify why the Board of Supervisors now apparently fully briefed on some of the problems with the program, made no effort whatsoever to fix the problem.

Again, I fully support the program in concept, but I remain baffled that those in charge have not made efforts to make it work better.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Coroner's Report on Taser Victim Answers Few Questions

The official report by Deputy Coroner James Andrade characterized the death of Ricardo Abrahams as accidental. He found no evidence of homicidal intent by the police.

Of course, that was not really a point in question. No one believed that the police deliberately killed a man by taser.

To make matters less clear, the man did not die directly from the taser, but rather suffocated while being restrained by the police. One witness said that Woodland police officers, "dog-piled" the man.

The cause of Abrahams' death was "positional asphyxia." According to a report in the Sacramento Bee this is a condition often that is associated with deaths that occur during restraint by law-enforcement officers.

"There are certain positions that cause you to expire." [Woodland Police Lt. Charlie] Wilts said. "The coroner's report doesn't say that police compressed Mr. Abrahams to death." Wilts said it is easy for those who weren't there to second-guess the officers, but it would be wrong to do so.

"Who am I to say Mr. Abrahams was not acting aggressively toward the officers?" he asked.

A key finding is that he had no drugs or alcohol found in his system that would lead him to be non-responsive. It was simply a matter that he was mentally disturbed.

Abrahams suffered from bouts of mental disturbance and acting on advice from his psychologist he checked himself into the Safe Harbor Crisis House in Woodland after suffering anxiety. He then walked away the next morning. The staff first called his psychologist. His psychologist described him as not dangerous and then the police were called but he became combative.

Police then hit him with batons and fired Taser guns three times in an attempt to subdue him.

Reaction to this report has been mixed. The Bee quotes, Johnny Griffin, a civil rights attorney.

Johnny Griffin III, a well-known civil rights lawyer, is representing Abrahams' parents, Rosemary and Cecil Abrahams of Davis.

He said that while police may have had no homicidal intent, their actions were deliberate.

"They intentionally Taser- ed him multiple times," Griffin said. "They intentionally dog-piled him. It was this intentional conduct that resulted in his death.

"All those facts support our position that the officers' use of force was unwarranted," he said.

Griffin has filed a claim with the city as a precursor to a lawsuit.

"I'm hopeful that city of Woodland will take full responsibility for the officers' conduct and resolve this case without causing the Abrahams family to go through the pain of protracted litigation," he said.

Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad had a very different response on his blog.

"Life is messy. From my point of view it is unlikely that the Abraham family lost anything that can truly be replaced. Will $1 million of taxpayer money bring back their son? No Is it reasonable to assume that their son would have been a huge economic success considering that facts we have from the newspapers? No. The Abrahams have lost something that can't possibly be replaced. The life of their son.

People like the Abraham's attorney will fuel the public debate by pointing to the fact that the officers used their tasers and than officers used force. That seems like a pretty good way to take down a 300 pound man to me.

The Woodland Police Department did act purposefully. They acted in a manner that law enforcement officers do under those circumstances. It is difficult to come to any firm conclusions about their actions if you weren't there to judge the situation. I for one don't think that the taxpayers of Woodland owe the family any large amount of money at all. They may have some costs associated with this incident but it is not a major amount of money and it is not going to un-ring the bell."

While I agree that the Abrahams family lost something far more precious and something that they cannot replace, I respectful disagree with Mr. Rexroad here in terms of the manner in which law enforcement acted here.

First of all, no has suggested that the police intentionally tried to kill Mr. Abrahams. The question is whether they responded to this situation appropriately. That does not change if he had died directly from the taser shots or indirectly after being immobilized from the taser shots and then "dog-piled."

In fact, one might argue that the secondary cause of death being asphyxiation is even more on them because they bear responsibility for his health and well being after immobilizing him with a taser shot.

But even before we get to that point, we still need to ask whether they operated appropriately by firing the taser in the first place. He was not on drugs or alcohol. He was mentally disturbed. They received the call from the treatment center and should have known this. Hence is non-responsiveness should have been apparent. Should they have gone for the taser? Should they have attempted to talk him down for longer. He had a pencil. He was described by his psychologist as not dangerous. He had no criminal record. Why shoot the taser at that point? Why not call in his psychologist or at least place a call there?

I have talked to various law enforcement people on this issue. All of them stressed that they were not there, but they are increasingly concerned with how quickly officers go to solutions like the taser rather than use other tools and resources at their disposal.

Clearly the issue of the use of the taser is one that must be resolved first by the legal process.

Law enforcement officers in my view are responsible for his welfare the second they have him under their control. To what extent did the tasering contribute to this man dying of asphyxiation? To what extent did the act of "dog-piling" contribute? The cause of death may be accidental, that does not mean that officers do not bear responsibility. If subjects in their custody die from asphyxiation at times, why are police officers not trained to avoid those type of positions?

This is a tragic situation made all the worse because it seems it could have been avoided at multiple points in time. The courts will have to determine whether the use of a taser was appropriate. And the courts will have to also determine whether it was reasonable for the police to have foreseen that the position that they put the individual could have caused death.

I think a lot of people remain concerned about the use of the taser in a situation where you have a non-compliant individual who is mentally incapacitated. We will see what the legal system holds in this tragic death.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Radio Show Tonight

Tune into tonight on KDRT 101.5 FM for the Davis Vanguard Radio Show

Tonight's guests will be Rachel Anderson from SANE (Safer Alternatives Through Networking and Education)--they are one of the groups that run the needle exchange programs in the area, including the one in this county. We'll be talking about the needle exchange program. She will be on from 6:10 pm to 6:30 pm.

Then at 6:35 pm will be Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad, an opponent of the needle exchange program and we'll likely delve into other topics as well.

As with last week, because both will be call in guest, any questions should be sent via text message: 530.400-2512

UPDATE: Listen to the Podcast by clicking here

County Needle Exchange Program Makes Mess of Parks

Something a little different for everyone on a Sunday morning. Earlier this week there was a story in the Woodland Daily Democrat that a flood of hypodermic needles was showing up in Woodland City Parks.

A year ago, the County Board of Supervisors approved a needle-exchange program in an effort to cut down on diseases spread through the use of intravenous drug users.

However, now the Woodland City council is shocked and frustrated to find out that a county health contractor has been distributing these needles in one of the parks, without consulting the city.

This prompted strongly worded complaints from city officials to the county.

The Board of Supervisors voted by a 4-1 margin to support this program a year ago. The one dissenting voice was Matt Rexroad.

Mr. Rexroad is quoted in the Daily Democrat article:

One county official who does not support the program, however, is Matt Rexroad, the only supervisor to vote against the program when it came up before the board last August.

"I wish I could kill this program so badly, but I can't," Rexroad said.

Rexroad said beyond the health risk of having used needles in public places lies the greater question of the program's effectiveness.

"I keep hearing, if we do this it prevents disease and it will save us money," Rexroad said. "I don't know if I believe that in this case."

The program cost the county around $100,000 to implement - money, Rexroad said, that would be more effectively spent providing the county's impoverished children with health insurance.

"We're talking about $100,000 for a program, when the county is in an economic free-fall right now," Rexroad said. "In terms of bang for your buck, I would rather put $100,000 in the hands of children than the hands of IV drug users."

I find myself in an interesting position on this issue. I support the program in concept. I think these diseases are a severe public health threat in some areas and such exchange programs have been shown to be effective.

However, at the same time, I am appalled at the response of Cheryl Boney, who is the deputy director of public health programs for Yolo County.

When she was made aware of the problem, she pulled the plug on the park exchange:

Boney noted that when the city notified her of the problem, she immediately pulled the plug on the park exchange.

"We were made aware of the concern of doing it in the park," Boney said. "Once we were aware of it, we took care of it.

This is where I start having a problem, who told her to do a needle exchange in a Woodland City Park without informing the Woodland City Council? Could you imagine what would happen in Davis if they did that here without consulting the Davis City Council?

She continues:

The new program is a work-in-progress, Boney said, and Freeman Park was a learning example for the county.

"It's a new program and we're working out the details," Boney said.

Working out a few details? Details like informing the city and the police as to what you are doing? Like handing out needles in a park to begin with, which concentrates drug usage in an area where children and families are likely to frequent?

The article continues:

"[Woodland City Manager Mark] Deven reported in a City Council weekly newsletter Friday that the county agreed to cease distribution in the park and considered labeling their needles to better track where they end up."

That is a good start. Here is the thing, this may be a new program to Yolo County, but this is not a new concept. So when the Ms. Boney is saying we're still working out the details it does not really make sense. Details can be gleaned from other programs. Very basic things should apply, namely interjurisdictional cooperation.

It is commonsense that if you are going to hand out needles in a City's park you inform the city and their police department about it. It also seems commonsense that maybe a city park is not the place to hand out needles.

Ms. Boney continues:

"We're kind of going through that initial education period... We hope there will be support for the program."

It is hard to support such a program when you do not have confidence in those who are administrating it. It could be a good program, but there were such basic failings at the onset, that even those of us who are strongly in support of such efforts have no choice but to question it.

Where is the accountability here? I respect that Matt Rexroad opposes this, but what I really want to see is someone step up and make it work. Where do the rest of the county board of supervisors stand on this?

Ms. Boney believes that if the program prevents one case of HIV in the county, it will be a net savings to the county. I hope that is correct and it is one of the reasons I continue to support the program. However, I continue to have to question the competence of those administering this and the oversight. Who oversees administration of these type of programs? What is the board of supervisors going to do about it? We have so far only heard from Supervisor Rexroad--where do the four Supervisors who supported the program stand on this issue now that it has shown to be a problem in its current form?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting