Connect with us

Community

Supervisors delay decision on women’s jail for three weeks

WAVE NEWSPAPERS — The county’s plan to retrofit an immigration detention center in Lancaster as a women’s jail,seems likely to be abandoned in its current form.

Published

on

LOS ANGELES — The county’s plan to retrofit an immigration detention center in Lancaster as a women’s jail, long opposed by criminal justice advocates, seems likely to be abandoned in its current form based on the lack of support from the Board of Supervisors Jan. 8.

A vote to approve a $215 million budget for Mira Loma Detention Center and award a design-build construction contract to San Fernando Valley-based Bernards Bros. Inc. was postponed at the request of Supervisor Sheila Kuehl.

The matter is set to come back before the board in three weeks, but Kuehl said she would not vote to build on the site — which is roughly 70 miles north of downtown Los Angeles — and Supervisor Hilda Solis said changes would need to be made to the plan before she would support it.

Funding for the project requires four votes from the five-member Board of Supervisors.

“The location of the proposed women’s jail at Mira Loma poses significant, and in my opinion, insurmountable obstacles to our goal of creating a women’s jail that is the centerpiece of a gender-responsive corrections system,” Kuehl said Jan. 7. “Mira Loma is too far away from the home communities of the women who would be housed there, and too far away from family members who would need to visit.”

Solis said she is committed to finding strategies that encourage family reunification and lower recidivism rates, but stopped short of saying she would never support a plan to build in Lancaster.

“L.A. County should be on the forefront of diversion and rehabilitation, rather than punishment than incarceration,” Solis said.

The board approved the project in concept in 2015, though Solis abstained from the vote and both she and Kuehl called then for strategies to overcome the challenges posed by the facility’s location.

The JusticeLA Coalition declared victory as members stood outside the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration in orange T-shirts with the slogan “can’t get well in a cell” emblazoned on the back.

“We can finally claim this victory after seven years,” Eunisses Hernandez of JusticeLA said, drawing cheers.

Coalition speakers urged the board to invest in community resources that could reduce the numbers of arrests and jail time by treating mental illness, providing jobs and educating young people.

Supervisor Janice Hahn, who chairs the board, said the decision to delay a vote and rethink the jail plan was made by the board as a whole.

“It was a collective will to put the brakes on, to take a step back and to pause,” Hahn said. “There is a new sheriff in town who also has some ideas. … He also would like to weigh in.”

Sheriff Alex Villanueva has talked about reducing the jail population and finding alternatives to incarceration and many advocates of reform see him as a potential ally.

“We have a sheriff who does not want to build and that is unprecedented,” Mark-Anthony Johnson of Dignity & Power Now told the board, after thanking them for “challenging the conventional wisdom that this was just a done deal.”

Villanueva is working on alternatives to discuss with the board, Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Nicole Nishida told City News Service.

But it’s not clear whether the board and the sheriff are willing to go as far as criminal justice advocates would like. For activists, it isn’t simply a question of where the jail is built.

“The ask is not for a better women’s jail, it’s for meaningful and real alternatives to incarceration,” said community activist Kristina Lear. “I’m not asking for a relocation, I’m asking for a halt to it.”

Esther Lim of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California said the county didn’t do enough front-end analysis on who needs to be jailed versus who needs diversion and treatment, pointing out that one of the most detailed studies behind the jails plan was provided by a construction management firm.

It’s time to “reexamine what criminal justice looks like here in Los Angeles,” Lim told City News Service.

Before the board, Lim pointed out that Mira Loma is not the only jail slated for construction.

The proposed Consolidated Correctional Treatment Facility “is a mistake that will cost us billions of dollars,” Lim said.

A $2.2 billion Consolidated Correctional Treatment Facility is planned to replace the crowded, decrepit Men’s Central Jail and provide better treatment and more humane conditions for the roughly one-third of inmates who have mental health issues.

The county Department of Public Works had recommended increasing the Consolidated Correctional Treatment Facility budget by roughly $30 million and awarding a contract to McCarthy Building Companies Inc. A vote on that item was also postponed for three weeks at the department’s request.

“If you’re going to take Mira Loma off the table, we need to look at the entire jail plan,” Supervisor Kathryn Barger told her colleagues.

Lancaster is in the district she represents, but Barger said she had no issue with choosing another location for a women’s jail in downtown Los Angeles or elsewhere.

As for the existing Lancaster detention center, “I’d love to flatten it and put in affordable housing tomorrow,” Barger said.

But she also warned the board that $100 million in state funding for the project was at stake.

The county has also spent roughly $8 million on planning for the Mira Loma project, according to a Department of Public Works spokesman.

While everyone on the board agreed with the need to rethink the plan, at least with regard to Mira Loma, no one offered a specific alternative.

Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas reminded his colleagues that one of the reasons for updating the county jail system is to comply with Department of Justice concerns about the treatment of suicidal and mentally ill inmates.

“This discussion is at least 15 years old. Four governors later, 10 members of the Board of Supervisors later … we have yet to land,” Ridley-Thomas said. “What then are we prepared to construct?”

Even Kuehl, who was willing to take the strongest stance against Mira Loma, maintained her support for the men’s jail project, saying it would improve the treatment and rehabilitation of mentally ill jail inmates.

But Lim and other advocates argued that most of those inmates are behind bars for non-violent offenses and could be diverted into community-based programs where they would have a better chance of leading productive lives.

Johnson estimated that the county could divert about 10,000 individuals annually into community programs rather than jailing them and said the vast majority of the county’s diversion programs had not yet been implemented.

To date, the county has diverted roughly 2,500 offenders through its Office of Diversion and Reentry.

This article originally appeared in the Wave Newspapers

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Activism

Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

Published

on

Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.
Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.

The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.

In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”

Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.

Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.

“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.