This story is available for republication. Please see our policy here.
The Long Beach City Council will take no official position on Proposition 36, leaving voters to seek their own counsel on the consequential measure as they head to the polls in November.
In a 5-3 vote, with Councilmember Megan Kerr absent, the council voted to receive and file the recommendation. It came after a prior vote in favor failed in a 3-5 decision.
Also known as the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, Proposition 36 would strengthen penalties on repeat offenders, those with two or more convictions, of theft crimes or drug possession. It would also allow prosecutors to option drug and mental health treatment for those facing felony sentences.
The statewide measure comes as a response to Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot initiative that reclassified possession of heroin, methamphetamine and other illegal drugs as misdemeanors in California. Proposition 47 also raised the threshold to prosecute felony theft from $400 in stolen goods to $950.
Nearly twenty cities, trade associations and corporations, including Target, Walgreens and Walmart, have come out in support of the proposition, as well as the mayors of San Diego and San Francisco, and nearby City Councils such as Whittier, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. The Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, Visit Long Beach and the Long Beach Restaurant Association have also shared their support, according to Councilmember Kristina Duggan.
While it has no legislative authority on the item, the Long Beach City Council represents one of the largest political groups to consider its position on the proposition that has left city leaders and state lawmakers divided.
Those in support of Prop 36 argue the measure would restore accountability in the state’s justice system, saying the current model is too light-handed on those who repeatedly steal from storefronts and sell fentanyl.
Words like empathy were given conflicting definitions, as residents questioned whether it was more humane to lock people behind bars or leave them to their own devices on the street.
“To me, compassion isn’t letting a business owner get robbed over and over and over by the same person without consequences,” said Duggan. “Compassion isn’t letting someone continue their downward spiral of addiction hoping that they wake up and decide they want treatment.”
Opposition, meanwhile, has come from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, the League of Women Voters and ACLU of Northern California.
“They’re lying to you,” Newsom said of Prop 36’s proponents. “That initiative has nothing to do with retail theft. That initiative is about going back to the 1980s and the War on Drugs.”
Several members of local justice groups on Tuesday reiterated that characterization, framing it as a return to California’s once-hard line approach on crime.
“We know change is hard, change is not always going to be perfect, but we know we cannot go backwards and go back on our progress on the opportunities we’ve given people, our changes to the justice system,” said James Suazo, the executive director of Long Beach Forward.
But Duggan found it “dangerous” and “misleading” to liken Prop 36 to the 1990s era of mass incarceration. Giving the “three-strikes rule” Proposition 184 as an example, she said “it’s irresponsible” to make the comparison.
“I believe it minimizes the harm these past laws have had on our communities,” she added.
This comes as California continues to see a 28% increase in shoplifting since 2019, rates of commercial burglaries above pre-pandemic levels and skyrocketing rates of drug overdoses.
Duggan believes that many crimes go unreported.
“Retail theft and drug use isn’t going down. People are sick and tired of reporting these crimes and having nothing happen,” Duggan said.
Legislative analysts found the Proposition 36 could result in more people in prison and jail, more workload for courts and a cost to the state up to “hundreds of millions of dollars” annually.
In their own analysis, Los Angeles County said the new measure could reduce — not null —Prop 47 funding, of which the county has received $58 million since 2017, or about $8 million annually. Duggan compared the funding to “a garden hose in a wildfire.”
“This is less than a dollar per year per person in L.A. County,” Duggan said. “To put this into perspective, the city of Long Beach is spending one dollar and ten cents per person per year to hire security at two libraries and within our business improvement districts.”
The item came before the full council after the city’s three-member Intergovernmental Committee last month voted unanimously to bring it up a recommendation to support, along with support for the state Senate’s Safer California legislative package. Of the three, only Vice Mayor Cindy Allen voted in favor of the proposition.
“A vote was taken to support Prop 36 and that’s why we’re here now,” Councilmember Roberto Uranga said. “However, it is my belief that it is up to the voters to decide whether Prop 36 passes or not.”
This issue has come up for years in Long Beach, said Councilmember Al Austin, at countless venues, from clamoring town halls and business meetings to the inbox of his staff’s email. It’s the reason cited for why, in the past year, two pharmacies in his district recently left town.
While he admitted he leans in favor of the measure, Austin said it’s not up to the council to make that decision for people. That’s the hard question coming, one that each voter will need to decide in November.
“I think any reasonable-minded individual will ask the question of, ‘Are we better off today than we were ten years ago when it comes to crime?’” Austin said. “That’s an introspective question that voters in the city, and across the state, are going to have to deal with.”