10 Reasons to Oppose Plans for More Prisons

California officials on June 1 last year officially unveiled the controversial Delano II prison, stating that it would be the state's "last prison" and proudly declaring the end of an unprecedented 20-year prison building boom. That was then.

Only 14 months later, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who spoke of closing prisons during his first State of the State address -- will open a special session of the legislature with just one proposed "solution" to the debacle that is the California prison system: build and build some more.

California's $8-billion-a-year prison system has consistently failed to deliver on its promise of public safety. Schwarzenegger's unimaginative answer is to make this disaster even bigger by adding at least two new state prisons and 35 to 50 new, smaller prisons scattered around the state.

One could write a book on the reasons to oppose this plan, but here are just 10:

1. As State Senator Mike Machado and others have cautioned, "You can't build your way out of this problem." Increasing the number of cells will only increase the number of people in prison. History teaches us that if we build them, they will fill them.

Since 1882, when Folsom Prison was built to replace the already decrepit San Quentin, expansion after prison expansion has failed to address the rising number of inmates, poor prison conditions, public safety and the lack of programming.

2. The governor's own Commission, headed by former Gov. George Deukmejian, concluded that the "key to reforming the system lies in reducing the numbers."

There are hundreds of ways to reduce the number of inmates. For example, if California simply reduced to the national average the rate at which it jails people for parole violations, the number of inmates could be reduced by more than 20,000.

3. Californians don't want more prisons. Four recent statewide polls of likely voters all found the that Californians consistently point to prison spending as the budget item they most want cut. Also, a May 2006 poll of California voters found that 61 percent supported the notion that "we have built enough jails in California."

4. You as a taxpayer will lose your vote on whether California should build more prisons. State bond measures must go before the voters. In the past two times that voters were asked to approve prison construction bonds, they overwhelmingly rejected them.

After seeing his November initiatives go down in defeat, Schwarzenegger wants to use a loophole called lease revenue bonds, to bypass the need for voter approval of the more than $1 billion tab for just the two new state prisons he proposes. It's money that won't be available for our children's or grandchildren's schools, libraries, public transportation or health care.

5. California can't afford more prisons. Lease Revenue Bonds carry higher interest rates than General Obligation Bonds. The governor's two new prisons will cost $500 million each. By using lease revenue bonds taxpayers actually would have to pay back about $1 billion for each. Operating costs would be at least $100 million per year.

6. Prison reform can never mean building new jails. In response to wide anti-prison public sentiment, the governor is packaging his new plan as "prison reform" and part of "gender responsiveness."

Corrections officials have identified 4,500 women who, by their own criteria, do not need to be incarcerated. The governor has responded by proposing that 4,500 new prison beds be built throughout the state. Why not let these women go home to their families, rather than build dozens of mini-prisons?

New prison construction is not and never will be "prison reform." Private prisons are not "prison reform." Building new, smaller prisons in local communities is not "prison reform." Moving men into women's prisons is not "prison reform."