I’ve never known Cheryl Cox to shinny up a tree so it caught my attention Tuesday when I heard her go out on a limb and propose discussion that wasn’t specific and exclusive to Chula Vista.
The outgoing mayor isn’t a wallflower but it seemed that, throughout most of her tenure, she shied away from weighing in on issues that didn’t have to do with cutting costs, celebrating Chula Vista’s centennial or trying to make her city a nicer place for people to live, shop and play.
But there she was near the end of the council meeting Tuesday asking her colleagues to consider discussion of Prop. 47 at the Oct. 14 City Council meeting.
The November ballot measure known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act would, to hear Cox explain it, allow up to 10,000 felons to be released from prison. She characterized the horde of wrong-doers as perpetrators of serious or violent crimes such as armed robbery, arson or kidnapping.
But what she didn’t mention — perhaps because she’s running out of time on the council dais — is that the legislation would “require misdemeanors instead of felonies for non-serious, nonviolent crimes like petty theft and drug possession, unless the defendant has prior convictions for specified violent or serious crimes.” It also would allow people already convicted of such non-violent crimes to apply to have their felonies reduced to misdemeanors.
Proponents — which include former San Diego Police Chief Lansdowne and the California ACLU!? — say the idea is to reserve prison for the violent predators among us while small time thieves and drug abusers are sent back to county facilities or paroled. What’s more, part of the savings associated with streamlining the criteria for what gets you a bed at the iron bar hotel would be directed to truancy reduction, mental health and drug treatment programs. As for the violent criminals that would be free to roam the streets again, the first stated purpose of the law is: “Ensure that people convicted of murder, rape and child molestation will not benefit from this act.”
The City Council can take no substantiative action other than to, as a governing body, vote to support or oppose the proposition. A third option, of course, is to not weigh in at all.
The provincial minded might argue why bother taking a stand on something that doesn’t directly affect Chula Vista? Fair enough question. But consider that politically most actions intertwine.
Also, in the same way you can tell a great deal about a city’s character by the causes and laws it champions, you likewise can discern a great deal about the people who represent you by the rhetoric and arguments they use when pushing an agenda.
The Prop. 47 issue should be an out of the ordinary and interesting topic of discussion. I’m looking at it as a small going away gift from an outgoing mayor who hasn’t spent enough time enjoying the view from the trees.
