Law and Order: CJC

Constant Readers,

I do not practice criminal law.  Most everything I know about criminal law, I learned by watching Law and Order and helping loved ones deal with DUI charges. So, I’ll admit that there’s a lot I don’t know about how the proposed Community Justice Center (CJC) is specifically supposed to work.

But I have been following this issue for about a year, because it relates to law and politics. (Obviously, it had me at hello....) And I was as surprised as anyone that on May 14 the Budget and Finance Committee refused to release $500k to fund the construction of 2 holding cells at the proposed CJC site at 575 Polk Street. And that the committee tabled the CJC’s request for authority to enter into a lease for office space at 555 Polk Street.

But nothing prepared me for Supervisor Dufty’s sudden burst of assertiveness! He was all: I’ll be pulling both these things out of committee and Ima make the full Board vote on ‘em! How ya like me now Chris, Jake and Ross??

Actually, what he said was, "I'm not a happy camper."

Close enough.

What is the CJC?

According to the report from the Controller’s office, the CJC fills a gap in the judicial system whereby (basically) people with acute drug problems who commit felonies can be sent to Drug Court, people with severe mental illness who commit felonies can be sent to Behavioral Health Court, and people who commit piddly crimes that the DA otherwise wouldn’t prosecute (like shoplifting and open container law violations) go to a “Community Court.”

FUN FACT: Though the Community Courts have been around since 1998 and the Drug Court was started in 1995, neither has ever been evaluated for effectiveness. (Controller's Report, p. 4.)

Oh, and the CJC is limited to dealing with arrests in the ‘Loin, SOMA, Civic Center and Union Square. If you have to ask why, you prolly don’t live here. But you can read pages 11-17 of the CJC Needs Assessment Report to learn more.

But what about your run-of-the-mill misdemeanor-committing recidivist? Or the non-violent felon who ain’t crazy enough or addicted enough to get a ticket to one of those other courts? Well, that’s supposedly who the CJC is for. Its mission is to provide a panoply of services to folks caught breaking the law. The message: get your shit together or go to jail. And here are the proper shit-gathering services all in one place - health care, shelter, food stamps, etc.

The $500k:

According to the Budget Analyst Report, last June, the Board put $500k from the General Fund on reserve in the budget of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice. That money was supposed to go to the creation of the CJC once a plan was complete and the expenditures could be specified. Specifically, it was supposed to fund creation of holding cells, tenant improvements, a community survey and salary/benefits for 5 CJC staff.

So, I can see how some Supes didn’t want to blow all $500k just to pay for the holding cells. As the Budget Analyst Report points out, money for that other stuff is still gonna have to come from somewhere.

On the other hand, Sheriff Hennessey testified on May 14 that the holding cells are expensive! This is because state regulations are very particular about what the holding cell experience should entail. (Sec. 470A2.2.)(Incidentally, why two cells? Let’s just say one may be pink and the other baby blue.)

The Lease:

For 9000 square feet at 555 Polk Street, from the California Culinary Academy, the City proposes paying $16,110 per month. At the committee hearing, the City’s Real Estate Director, Amy Brown, stated that the market value for the property is really $20,970 per month. And the Academy promises to leave behind cubicles, furniture and wiring valued at approximately $500k. Operating expenses (utilities, insurance, etc.) are estimated at $2,725 per month with an annual $18k cost for janitorial services.

Just To Be Clear: The Superior Court has donated the use of one courtroom on the first floor of 575 Polk Street (where the holding cells need to be built) and the 9000 square feet of space at 555 Polk Street would house the administrative functions of the court and the support services offered to arrested persons and anyone else who is interested in getting help.

So, now that these two measures ($500k and the lease) are before the full Board tomorrow, will they pass? Hard to say. We know that Supervisors Daly, Mirkarimi and McGoldrick voted against the measure in committee. C.W. Nevius wrote that either Peskin or Sandoval will have to vote "yes" to get it through.

Supervisor Peskin doesn’t have a lot of love for any initiative spearheaded by Mistermayor and voted against Dufty's motion to bring these matters before the full Board, so I don't see that happening. Sandoval, on the other hand, will be in a runoff for Superior Court Judge in November and it wouldn’t be smart for him to give the finger to the CJC – which enjoys the overwhelming support of the judicial community.

I’ll be watching tomorrow. So you don’t have to.

--Melissa

BONUS: I gotta give it to Mistermayor's spokesman, Nate Ballard for making me chuckle with this snarky quote: "Apparently, Daly thinks the status quo is working just fine, but anyone who walks down the street in Daly's district can see that the status quo is failing miserably."

Comments

[sangfroid826]

Hey, Sandoval! I voted marked the box next to your name a few days back. Don't make me change my mind by voting against the CJC.

[mschool]

From what I have learned this year, the planned CJC in San Francisco is a modified version of the one in Manhattan. The NYC CJC is credited with cleaning up Times Square. If anyone remembers the pre-Disney days in NYC when crime ran amok, Giuliani initiated a CJC which solved many of the city's ills in Times Square. Crimes specifically addressed is/were aggressive panhandling, crack dealing, purse snatching, and prostitution. One key factor with the NYC version is that the judge lives in the same neighborhood as the CJC. He/she is the sole judge of the program and sees all of the cases. Thus, when a repeat offender shows up, the judge has an ongoing experience with that individual and can sentence with care and attention.

From presentations I have heard from the SF DA and SFPD at neighborhood meetings, California law requires some modifications in the SF version that adhere to Cal. laws. Sorry, I don't remember those exactly, but they seemed reasonable when I heard them; and the judges, police beat officers and DA in the room at the time all agreed.

IMHO, it might be interesteing for city editors who are covering this story to make a comparison between NYC and what is planned for SF, so that the public can get a better understanding of the program itself. Seems the focus is on the money for the program and building and not on quality of life improvements as a result.

[Sweet Melissa]

@mschool - The SF CJC will be staffed by one judge (but not necessarily one who lives in the district) so that a relationship can be formed - like was done in NYC.

CA law requires most misdemeanors to be dealt with by issuance of citations with a follow-up hearing. In NYC, with no such restriction, cops could just arrest people for "quality of life" crimes and bring 'em on down to court where they would be ordered to get help or go or face jail/probation. Since we can't do that, what I think (it ain't spelled out in the materials I looked at) is that cops here would take the person into custody and bring them down to the CJC where they would be offered services. If they turn down services, they'd get a citation. Or something like that. (Also, since there are exceptions to the "citation only" rule, I think we will see police more aggressively construing those exceptions to cover more incidents, allowing an immediate hearing to take place.)

Because of the above legal differences between NY and CA, I think people have been reluctant to make comparisons, but I agree such information would be useful. Thanks so much for your comment!

[tony]

re the ballard quote:
is chris daly supposed to be on foot patrol in district 6?
nope.
he's a supervisor, not Matlock.

who actually controls the budget and the employees to keep the streets clean and safe?
that's right ... ... the mayor.
somehow he manages to do that just fine in district 2, but can NEVER get the job done in district 6, CJC or no CJC.

hmm.
makes you wonder, don't it?
it should.

[Sweet Melissa]

@tony - I don't disagree with you that it is not up to Daly to patrol the streets in his district. the problems in the tenderloin cannot be solved by one person or program. You imply that the Loin does not get adequate resources and attention (which may very well be true) but here we have an attempt to expend specific resources to that district and daly is opposed. Can't blame the mayor for that. (Maybe blame the Mayor for not working with Daly on this initiative, though. I think that's a fair criticism.)

Thank you for your comment!

[DJTennessee]

>>I’ll be watching tomorrow. So you don’t have to.

No stress, Melissa... I can't fathom anyone would complain if you blew it off to watch Game Three.