Palo Alto mayor: Prop 47 unleashed destruction on small business, consumers, and—yes—drug addicts
Image by Barbara Friedman
In 2014, California voters (perhaps bamboozled by its now-ironic title “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”) voted “yes” to prosecuting property crimes under $950 as misdemeanors rather than felonies via Prop 47. Almost a decade later, city leaders, police chiefs, and residents are condemning the law's consequences on widespread and largely unpunished crime. Palo Alto's mayor Lydia Kou joins the conversation, pointing out that everyone—“even the addicts it purported to help”—is hurting from Prop 47.
One of the key reasons for this rising [retail theft] burden is poorly drafted California laws, such as Proposition 47 — also known by the cynical name “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act” — which allows individuals to steal up to $950 per theft and essentially never face any consequences.
The reality is right now the penalty for speeding is dramatically higher than the penalty for stealing. If you speed, you will face a steep fine, frequently hundreds of dollars. If you do it again, you can lose your license.
But in California you can steal and steal and essentially pay nothing. We, the taxpayers and consumers, are picking up the tab. That’s right, any theft up to $950 is a misdemeanor — even if you do it every day of the year. There are rarely any consequences for getting caught. It’s no wonder police are reporting large retail theft gangs preying on California businesses — forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for a $241 million special investigation by law enforcement to investigate and prevent organized retail theft.
And that’s not the only problem with Proposition 47. It essentially decriminalized most drug possession, including dangerous opioids. While being addicted to drugs is not something that can be fixed with prison sentences, the reality is that before Proposition 47, the threat of prison sent addicts into treatment. Our laws once allowed most addicts a “get out of jail free card” if, and only if, they sought meaningful treatment for their addictions.
Now there is no such incentive. They can steal and steal to feed their addictions with no consequences. So what was sold by Sacramento politicians as a kind “reform” has been revealed to be a cruel abandonment of people who need to be incentivized into treatment — even if the incentive was the threat of jail time.
Proposition 47 might have been well-meaning, and we certainly don’t want to go back to the era of costly and failing mass incarceration or the war on drugs. But we need to hold everyone accountable for their actions. There should be consequences for theft, and we need to bring back the “tough love” incentives that sent people into treatment.
No law is ever going to be perfect, but Sacramento politicians need to face the facts that we see with our own eyes. We need to reform Proposition 47 in a thoughtful way.
Proposition 47 isn’t working for small businesses, consumers or even the addicts it purported to help. It is time to fix the flaws, to reform Proposition 47 by bringing back real consequences for theft and dangerous drug possession.
This article originally appeared in the Mercury News. Read the whole thing here.
Related:
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.