Laserfiche WebLink
into the community after incarceration.' These services are critical to reducing recidivism and <br />supporting public safety. <br />By supporting Proposition 36, the City would be endorsing policies that take us back to the failed <br />"tough on crime" era. Proposition 36 will reinstate harsh penalties, increase the prison <br />population, and worsen racial disparities without addressing the root causes of crime like <br />poverty, mental health, and substance use.' In the City, we've seen firsthand the benefits of <br />reform -focused policies, and we should be moving forward, not backward. <br />Moreover, Proposition 36's provisions will be costly and ineffective. It will drain resources that <br />could be better spent on education, housing, job training, and other community -based services <br />that prevent crime and uplift vulnerable individuals.' At a time when California faces budget <br />challenges, this proposition diverts funds from essential services, risking an increase in <br />homelessness, recidivism, and economic instability. <br />As a Sanctuary City, the City should continue its tradition of protecting immigrant and refugee <br />residents by rejecting Proposition 36. The proposition would make more immigrants vulnerable <br />to deportation and feed more of our community members into the detention and deportation <br />pipeline. Proposition 47 reclassified six felony offenses to misdemeanors, including shoplifting <br />and simple drug possession, funneling cost savings into public safety measures like drug and <br />mental health treatment and victim services centers. Proposition 36 would not only undo these <br />reforms but also impose new criminal penalties and sentencing enhancements, increasing the risk <br />of deportation for immigrants and further destabilizing families.6 <br />The City must reject Proposition 36 and focus on solutions that promote justice and <br />rehabilitation. We urge you to vote NO on this resolution and continue to support evidence -based <br />policies that foster safer, healthier communities. <br />Sincerely, <br />3 Courtney, Leigh., Reimal, Emily., Peterson, Brynce, Urban Institute: Evaluation of Orange County's Proposition 47 <br />Grant -Related Services. Orange County Health Care Agency Report, Board of State and Community Corrections <br />(2019), https://www.bscc.ca.�,yov/wp-content/uploads/Orange-County-Health-Care-Agency <br />4 Prop 36: California's Ballot Proposition to Recall Prop 47 Explained. Vera Institute of Justice (2024), <br />h=s://www.vera.or�,Y/explainers/prop-3 6-califomias-ballot-proposition-to-recall-prop-47-explained <br />s Title and Summary: Initiative 23 -0017A 1. California Attorney General (2023), <br />https://�oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/Vdfs/Title%20and%2OSummarv%20%2823-0017A 1 %29.adf <br />6 Vera Institute of Justice, Prop 36 Explained (2024). <br />1914 W. Orangewood Ave Suite 101, Orange, CA 92$68 <br />(714) 345- 2299 i nfo a@u ndergrou ndgrit. org www.undergroundgrit.org <br />GROWING DAILY REGAINING INDEPENDENCE. INVESTING IN FUTURE GENERATIONS. TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY <br />