Madison picked for 're-entry' prison

By ROBIN HINDERY, http://www.dailydemocrat.com

Public rails as supes. vote 3-1-1 to accept rural site

In a move that provoked anger, disbelief and even a few tears, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to approve a site in rural Madison as a potential location for a state re-entry facility housing hundreds of prison inmates.

The "yes" vote was contingent on a slight change to the language in the current draft agreement between the county and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or CDCR. If that change - concerning how inmates would be transported away from the facility upon their release - is approved by the state, plans to develop the site at County Road 90 and Highway 16 will move forward.

The board voted 3-1 in favor of the plan, with one abstention: that of Supervisor Mariko Yamada - a first for her since she joined the board in 2003.

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."

After proposed facility sites in Dunnigan, Zamora, Esparto, and at the Yolo County Airport were rejected in recent weeks - largely due to widespread and extremely

vocal opposition by area residents - the Madison property remained the only site still under consideration coming into Tuesday's meeting.

The 500-bed facility would be part of a statewide prison reform plan that includes funding for 16,000 beds in secure community re-entry facilities throughout California. The facilities would provide services such as GED coursework, substance-abuse treatment, and job placement and training, in an effort to reduce the number of parolees who return to prison.

Corrections officials say studies show that re-entry programs reduce recidivism by 40 percent.

Under Assembly Bill 900, signed into law last spring, counties that provide siting for state-run re-entry facilities are also entitled to grant funding for improvements to their own existing corrections facilities. Yolo County would receive $30 million to expand the county jail, which prematurely releases about 10 inmates every day due to overcrowding, according to Assistant County Administrator Pat Leary.

"That $30 million is incredibly important, and it will extend the life of our local jail," said Supervisor Helen Thomson, who voted "yes" Tuesday but compared the decision to "Sophie's Choice."

The supervisors' decision came at the end of a day marked by public outcry against the re-entry facility, both within the supervisors' chambers and outside the county administration building at 625 Court St.

Starting at 8:30 a.m., a group of about 20 individuals patrolled the sidewalk, carrying signs that ranged from mild - "No Prison" - to fiery: "Don't Take the Devil's Deal."

Many of the protesters were part of the newly formed "No State Prison in Yolo County" group, a grassroots movement to prevent a re-entry facility from being built in Madison or any of the county's other rural communities. In recent weeks, the group has written letters to the Board of Supervisors, posted protest signs along State Route 16, and organized meetings to inform citizens about the re-entry facility proposal.

At the board meeting itself, 35 individuals offered public comment, some practically vibrating with anger.

"All of our dreams ... could be wiped out by your decision today," Carla Phillips, a member of the Madison Advisory Committee, tearfully told the board. "Please don't sell the soul of Yolo County to the CDCR."

Opponents say rural areas don't have the resources or the infrastructure necessary to accommodate a re-entry facility's staff, inmates or visiting friends and relatives. In addition, they say, such a facility would lead to increased risk of flooding.

The Madison site, for example, currently holds water during heavy rains, said Marilyn Gordon, who heads the Madison Advisory Committee and strongly opposes a re-entry facility there. Building on that site would displace water, leading to flooding in Madison, she said.

"More than an annoyance, this flooding presents serious public health and safety risks," Gordon wrote in a Sept. 4 letter to the Board of Supervisors.

Many of those who oppose the Madison plan said they don't oppose the basic idea of a re-entry facility.

In a Sept. 10 e-mail to the county supervisors, Melissa Jordan - chairwoman of the Esparto Citizen's Advisory Committee and a leader within the "No State Prison in Yolo County" effort - said she was prepared to support the board if it sought "to locate this facility where it will have a better chance for the inmates' success."

That means, she said, putting it "near jobs, near services and closer to the homes (the inmates) will be returning to. In short, in an urban area of Yolo County."

That sentiment was echoed by Board of Supervisors Chairman Duane Chamberlain, the only member of the board to vote "no" on the plan. Chamberlain said he thought the board should start over and consider only urban areas as possible re-entry facility sites.

Before they voted, the board insisted on including a motion to modify the language of the "Memorandum of Understanding" between the county and the CDCR, a document that laid out the various roles each entity would play in the design, construction and operation of a re-entry facility.

Specifically, the board asked that a section concerning the transportation of paroled inmates be revised. According to the draft document presented at Tuesday's meeting, once inmates were eligible for release, the county and CDCR would coordinate and develop plans for their transportation away from the facility "to a designated location, including public transportation."

The board asked the state to remove the words "including public transportation." If the states refuses, the board's approval of the Madison re-entry facility will be null and void, according to county Counsel Robyn Drivon.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad, the board's most vocal - and vilified - supporter of the re-entry facility plan, said that if "public transportation" includes "dropping (inmates) off at a bus stop," even he would vote against the proposal.

"A trip to the end of the block is not going to cut it," he said.

"We don't have an agreement with the state unless we have an agreement on the release policy," Supervisor Mike McGowan added.

Upon hearing the board's final vote Tuesday, a few people cried out in dismay - "How do you spell 'recall?'" - but most simply sighed, packed up their belongings and headed home.

Tuesday marked the deadline for the county to present its final decision to the CDCR. On Thursday, the department will consider submissions by Yolo and several other qualifying counties from around the state.

Carla Phillips' husband Lewis said he foresaw only disaster for Madison if the CDCR moves forward with its plan.

"We've got no future," he said. "No developer is going to want to put anything in our community ... Property value will go down."

"Once you put a prison in, there ain't no turning back," he said. "It's going to be there for decades."