The re-entry facility is something that has been in the works for a few months now, but I have not until written about it. I figured after reading the letter that I should do so. But I first, I had questions so I went to fellow County Supervisor Matt Rexroad. Some people wonder why I have an affinity for Mr. Rexroad, but I will tell you why–I spent one hour yesterday on the phone with him, grilling him over the issue. I disagree with Mr. Rexroad far more often than I agree with him. But it was he and not Thomson or Yamada that convinced me that the re-entry facility is the right thing to do.
It is actually a very interesting issue because it cuts across a number of other issues including law enforcement, rehabilitation, and yes even land use. The latter is probably the most controversial part.
I first heard about this issue in early March. At that time, I was told that Yolo County had absolutely zero chance of getting a re-entry facility. However, the Board of Supervisors were also told by checking the box, they were eligible for $30 million to help fund an expansion of the county jail. The expansion of the county jail was going to happen anyway at the cost of $42 million, by getting state funding, Yolo County has received nearly 60 percent of that funding.
As Thomson and Yamada wrote:
“The county jail has been at capacity for seven years with 3,200 inmates annually released early due to lack of space.”
So there is a clear need for the upgrade, but with the state and county hurting for money, getting state funding makes this project possible.
Again, at the time, there was zero chance that Yolo County would get a re-entry facility, so it was basically free money.
However things changed rather quickly and in May not only did Yolo County receive the $30 million, but they received notice that the state would be building a re-entry facility–built and operated by the state and funded by the state. Again–no cost to Yolo County.
What is a re-entry facility?
As it was described to me, instead of inmates being released back into the population immediately, the re-entry facility spends a year preparing them in their home county for re-entry into the public. They are given training and rehabilitation programs that enable them to transition back into their community.
As Thomson and Yamada write:
“Intensive treatment and rehabilitation programs in re-entry facilities are designed to allow a transition period to connect inmates to community services and support systems, provide evidence-based treatment, treatment of substance abuse and mental illness, and to develop a plan for a crime-free life upon release.”
This is not a half-way house.
The inmates are not released at night to go back into the community. They are housed on the location for the entire period. However, unlike the prisons, they are back close to their family. So the family can visit them more frequently and start getting back into their lives. All of this is aimed at trying to help them reestablish their social networks and prevent recidivism.
Remember these are people who were going to be released back into the population anyway. Would you prefer them go through programs such as these that might give them a chance at a normal life or would you prefer them to go back to the population.
As Thomson and Yamada write:
“Currently, inmates in state prison are required by law to be released back into the community in which they lived prior to their incarceration. They are given $200 cash, a bus ticket and a ‘good luck,’ with little prospect of success. Today they are being released without treatment or survival skills, and 70 percent of them ultimately return to state prison. Yolo County parolees return to Yolo County.
Research shows that offenders are more likely to be successful on parole, and less likely to return to prison, when they receive intensive programming focused on their needs. Re-entry facilities are a new paradigm in California corrections, with a strong program focus on rehabilitation.”
From my standpoint these are solid goals. The people who will be housed at this facility will be either from Yolo County or Solano County. It seems likely there will be some kind of partnership between the two counties.
So why the controversy?
It basically comes down to fears by communities that building such a facility would reduce property values and then land use issues.
The facility will be consistent with commercial zoned property. Now Rexroad believes that it would be best to be placed in an existing city, that means Davis, West Sacramento, or Woodland. However, Woodland has already said basically “hell no.” You can imagine the response in Davis. One suggestion was the Covell Village site–I can only imagine the response to that one. And they do not think West Sacramento is the best location. Regardless of what the Board of Supervisors think, under AB 900, which is the authorizing and funding law, cities have veto power. So do not worry, Davis will not have a re-entry facility. Even the council majority is not foolish enough to try to push that one through.
Right now then, the county is looking perhaps at Dunnigan and Zamora which is unincorporated and thus under county control. The residents there are up in arms.
In July, there was a meeting in Zamora on the Re-entry facility. The Zamora Community Hall was packed with over 200 people. Complaints range from water and transportation issues–valid issues that the county will have to address. On the other hand, there were accusations of secret meetings and Brown Act violations that are not accurate.
As Rexroad pointed out at the time, the same people making accusations that this is a done deal, completed in secret, are outraged because the Board of Supervisors did not have answers to all their questions about details that will have to be addressed and worked out later.
What is ironic is that they have no problem with proposals to turn the area into a 25,000 person city, but when the re-entry facility with 300 good and well-paying jobs is proposed, people fear their property values when there is little evidence that it will have any impact on them. In fact, it might help their property values because it brings jobs to the area. These are good paying correctional jobs.
The advantage of Zamora and Dunnigan is that it is accessible to both Yolo County and Solano County. It is right on the junction of I-505 and I-5. That makes it an easy drive from Vacaville and Fairfield and not bad for Woodland, West Sacramento or Davis.
Despite protests to the contrary, the County has not made the final decision on where to locate the facility just yet. If the meetings in Zamora were any indication, it is going to be difficult to please any community. That issue aside this seems like a solid and well-intentioned initiative.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
One thing I haven’t heard addressed is what guarantee is there that this thing won’t morph into a maximum security prison. I remember when Pelican Bay was first proposed it was supposed to be a minimum security facility, now it is the place they send the hardest cases in the system.
One guy got out of Pelican Bay with a bus ticket and made it as far as Santa Rosa before killing someone. This is where the push for re-entry facilities came from so inmates have some support before being turned loose.
Nobody ever wants a maximum security prison so these things are always sold as some other type of facility and then change over time.
One thing I haven’t heard addressed is what guarantee is there that this thing won’t morph into a maximum security prison. I remember when Pelican Bay was first proposed it was supposed to be a minimum security facility, now it is the place they send the hardest cases in the system.
One guy got out of Pelican Bay with a bus ticket and made it as far as Santa Rosa before killing someone. This is where the push for re-entry facilities came from so inmates have some support before being turned loose.
Nobody ever wants a maximum security prison so these things are always sold as some other type of facility and then change over time.
One thing I haven’t heard addressed is what guarantee is there that this thing won’t morph into a maximum security prison. I remember when Pelican Bay was first proposed it was supposed to be a minimum security facility, now it is the place they send the hardest cases in the system.
One guy got out of Pelican Bay with a bus ticket and made it as far as Santa Rosa before killing someone. This is where the push for re-entry facilities came from so inmates have some support before being turned loose.
Nobody ever wants a maximum security prison so these things are always sold as some other type of facility and then change over time.
One thing I haven’t heard addressed is what guarantee is there that this thing won’t morph into a maximum security prison. I remember when Pelican Bay was first proposed it was supposed to be a minimum security facility, now it is the place they send the hardest cases in the system.
One guy got out of Pelican Bay with a bus ticket and made it as far as Santa Rosa before killing someone. This is where the push for re-entry facilities came from so inmates have some support before being turned loose.
Nobody ever wants a maximum security prison so these things are always sold as some other type of facility and then change over time.
Good article- it explained a lot that I simply hadn’t understood before. The goal of the re-entry facility is a good one, though I agree with Black Bart’s concern that once they build it, there is no guarantee that its role mightn’t change. I don’t think that any community would actually want one built.
Perhaps the simplest solution is to build it in the middle of nowhere, but still in the county. The closed USAF facility SE of Davis or the site of the failed DQU come to mind.
Good article- it explained a lot that I simply hadn’t understood before. The goal of the re-entry facility is a good one, though I agree with Black Bart’s concern that once they build it, there is no guarantee that its role mightn’t change. I don’t think that any community would actually want one built.
Perhaps the simplest solution is to build it in the middle of nowhere, but still in the county. The closed USAF facility SE of Davis or the site of the failed DQU come to mind.
Good article- it explained a lot that I simply hadn’t understood before. The goal of the re-entry facility is a good one, though I agree with Black Bart’s concern that once they build it, there is no guarantee that its role mightn’t change. I don’t think that any community would actually want one built.
Perhaps the simplest solution is to build it in the middle of nowhere, but still in the county. The closed USAF facility SE of Davis or the site of the failed DQU come to mind.
Good article- it explained a lot that I simply hadn’t understood before. The goal of the re-entry facility is a good one, though I agree with Black Bart’s concern that once they build it, there is no guarantee that its role mightn’t change. I don’t think that any community would actually want one built.
Perhaps the simplest solution is to build it in the middle of nowhere, but still in the county. The closed USAF facility SE of Davis or the site of the failed DQU come to mind.
I support the re-entry facility because I am a long time advocate for rehabilitation and I do not really understand the objection to having the facility located in Davis. The proximity of the university would be an inspiration for inmates who might want to return to school, and the opportunity for social work interns, medical students, teachers, and others to work with a ‘captive’ population would enrich everyone’s perspective on our current prison system. People who are incarcerated are still human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity. What does it mean to be liberal if we are not willing to work with those whom the system has failed? How can Davis call itself liberal if the only liberal causes we are willing to stand behind are the strictly self serving ones?
I support the re-entry facility because I am a long time advocate for rehabilitation and I do not really understand the objection to having the facility located in Davis. The proximity of the university would be an inspiration for inmates who might want to return to school, and the opportunity for social work interns, medical students, teachers, and others to work with a ‘captive’ population would enrich everyone’s perspective on our current prison system. People who are incarcerated are still human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity. What does it mean to be liberal if we are not willing to work with those whom the system has failed? How can Davis call itself liberal if the only liberal causes we are willing to stand behind are the strictly self serving ones?
I support the re-entry facility because I am a long time advocate for rehabilitation and I do not really understand the objection to having the facility located in Davis. The proximity of the university would be an inspiration for inmates who might want to return to school, and the opportunity for social work interns, medical students, teachers, and others to work with a ‘captive’ population would enrich everyone’s perspective on our current prison system. People who are incarcerated are still human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity. What does it mean to be liberal if we are not willing to work with those whom the system has failed? How can Davis call itself liberal if the only liberal causes we are willing to stand behind are the strictly self serving ones?
I support the re-entry facility because I am a long time advocate for rehabilitation and I do not really understand the objection to having the facility located in Davis. The proximity of the university would be an inspiration for inmates who might want to return to school, and the opportunity for social work interns, medical students, teachers, and others to work with a ‘captive’ population would enrich everyone’s perspective on our current prison system. People who are incarcerated are still human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity. What does it mean to be liberal if we are not willing to work with those whom the system has failed? How can Davis call itself liberal if the only liberal causes we are willing to stand behind are the strictly self serving ones?
…As a State facility, would the inmates really be “local” with family close by? The concern that making a prison,whatever the euphemism you want to attach to it, the major industry and employer will fundamentally alter the local “culture” that drew people to live in these communities is not unfounded.
…As a State facility, would the inmates really be “local” with family close by? The concern that making a prison,whatever the euphemism you want to attach to it, the major industry and employer will fundamentally alter the local “culture” that drew people to live in these communities is not unfounded.
…As a State facility, would the inmates really be “local” with family close by? The concern that making a prison,whatever the euphemism you want to attach to it, the major industry and employer will fundamentally alter the local “culture” that drew people to live in these communities is not unfounded.
…As a State facility, would the inmates really be “local” with family close by? The concern that making a prison,whatever the euphemism you want to attach to it, the major industry and employer will fundamentally alter the local “culture” that drew people to live in these communities is not unfounded.
These would be exclusively people who were already from Yolo or Solano Counties.
These would be exclusively people who were already from Yolo or Solano Counties.
These would be exclusively people who were already from Yolo or Solano Counties.
These would be exclusively people who were already from Yolo or Solano Counties.
It is not like the old days where they give you $100 minus the cost of your bus ticket and kick you out the front door. You have to have a strong plan in place; with somewhere to live and work that can be verified by the parole officers. These will be people that would be returning to our county anyways. Why not give them the best possible chance of success. The staggering numbers of those returning to prison is crazy. It is time our system changes the status quo and we should help lead the way.
It is not like the old days where they give you $100 minus the cost of your bus ticket and kick you out the front door. You have to have a strong plan in place; with somewhere to live and work that can be verified by the parole officers. These will be people that would be returning to our county anyways. Why not give them the best possible chance of success. The staggering numbers of those returning to prison is crazy. It is time our system changes the status quo and we should help lead the way.
It is not like the old days where they give you $100 minus the cost of your bus ticket and kick you out the front door. You have to have a strong plan in place; with somewhere to live and work that can be verified by the parole officers. These will be people that would be returning to our county anyways. Why not give them the best possible chance of success. The staggering numbers of those returning to prison is crazy. It is time our system changes the status quo and we should help lead the way.
It is not like the old days where they give you $100 minus the cost of your bus ticket and kick you out the front door. You have to have a strong plan in place; with somewhere to live and work that can be verified by the parole officers. These will be people that would be returning to our county anyways. Why not give them the best possible chance of success. The staggering numbers of those returning to prison is crazy. It is time our system changes the status quo and we should help lead the way.
“These would be exclusively people who were already from Yolo or Solano Counties.”
As a State facility,unless Yolo and Solano Counties are unambiguously given control of inmate selection this “exclusivity” promise is just that and nothing more. It reminds me of the “promises” offered to Davis concerning what would go on in the Level 4 Biolab proposal but when pressed unambiguously, the government’s answer was we paid for it, we built it and we call the shots.
“These would be exclusively people who were already from Yolo or Solano Counties.”
As a State facility,unless Yolo and Solano Counties are unambiguously given control of inmate selection this “exclusivity” promise is just that and nothing more. It reminds me of the “promises” offered to Davis concerning what would go on in the Level 4 Biolab proposal but when pressed unambiguously, the government’s answer was we paid for it, we built it and we call the shots.
“These would be exclusively people who were already from Yolo or Solano Counties.”
As a State facility,unless Yolo and Solano Counties are unambiguously given control of inmate selection this “exclusivity” promise is just that and nothing more. It reminds me of the “promises” offered to Davis concerning what would go on in the Level 4 Biolab proposal but when pressed unambiguously, the government’s answer was we paid for it, we built it and we call the shots.
“These would be exclusively people who were already from Yolo or Solano Counties.”
As a State facility,unless Yolo and Solano Counties are unambiguously given control of inmate selection this “exclusivity” promise is just that and nothing more. It reminds me of the “promises” offered to Davis concerning what would go on in the Level 4 Biolab proposal but when pressed unambiguously, the government’s answer was we paid for it, we built it and we call the shots.
Part of the point of the program is the reconnection with their families which necessarily requires close proximity. So having people from outside the area would defeat the purpose of having the program to begin with.
Part of the point of the program is the reconnection with their families which necessarily requires close proximity. So having people from outside the area would defeat the purpose of having the program to begin with.
Part of the point of the program is the reconnection with their families which necessarily requires close proximity. So having people from outside the area would defeat the purpose of having the program to begin with.
Part of the point of the program is the reconnection with their families which necessarily requires close proximity. So having people from outside the area would defeat the purpose of having the program to begin with.
I think Davis should consider putting it at the Hunt Wesson site. This is a good opportunity to actually be liberal and progressive, rather than hiding other policy goals behind those labels.
I think Davis should consider putting it at the Hunt Wesson site. This is a good opportunity to actually be liberal and progressive, rather than hiding other policy goals behind those labels.
I think Davis should consider putting it at the Hunt Wesson site. This is a good opportunity to actually be liberal and progressive, rather than hiding other policy goals behind those labels.
I think Davis should consider putting it at the Hunt Wesson site. This is a good opportunity to actually be liberal and progressive, rather than hiding other policy goals behind those labels.
You can imagine the response in Davis.
I guess opponents of the facility believe that it is appropriate for Yolo County felons who are released as parolees should go elsewhere, like the counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sutter . . .
Sort of like how Davis reportedly, back in the 1980s, gave bus tickets to homeless people to go to Sacramento.
And, wow!, what a courageous stance, advocating for the facility to placed in the most politically powerless communities in the county, Dunnigan and Zamora. A profile in courage, to be sure. If this were the 1950s, we’d probably be talking about putting facility on tribal property as a “solution”.
Put them in one of the communities known for generating a substantial percentage of the felons?? Forget it.
Pushing your challenging social problems onto someone else unrelated to it, a proud Yolo County tradition.
–Richard Estes
You can imagine the response in Davis.
I guess opponents of the facility believe that it is appropriate for Yolo County felons who are released as parolees should go elsewhere, like the counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sutter . . .
Sort of like how Davis reportedly, back in the 1980s, gave bus tickets to homeless people to go to Sacramento.
And, wow!, what a courageous stance, advocating for the facility to placed in the most politically powerless communities in the county, Dunnigan and Zamora. A profile in courage, to be sure. If this were the 1950s, we’d probably be talking about putting facility on tribal property as a “solution”.
Put them in one of the communities known for generating a substantial percentage of the felons?? Forget it.
Pushing your challenging social problems onto someone else unrelated to it, a proud Yolo County tradition.
–Richard Estes
You can imagine the response in Davis.
I guess opponents of the facility believe that it is appropriate for Yolo County felons who are released as parolees should go elsewhere, like the counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sutter . . .
Sort of like how Davis reportedly, back in the 1980s, gave bus tickets to homeless people to go to Sacramento.
And, wow!, what a courageous stance, advocating for the facility to placed in the most politically powerless communities in the county, Dunnigan and Zamora. A profile in courage, to be sure. If this were the 1950s, we’d probably be talking about putting facility on tribal property as a “solution”.
Put them in one of the communities known for generating a substantial percentage of the felons?? Forget it.
Pushing your challenging social problems onto someone else unrelated to it, a proud Yolo County tradition.
–Richard Estes
You can imagine the response in Davis.
I guess opponents of the facility believe that it is appropriate for Yolo County felons who are released as parolees should go elsewhere, like the counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sutter . . .
Sort of like how Davis reportedly, back in the 1980s, gave bus tickets to homeless people to go to Sacramento.
And, wow!, what a courageous stance, advocating for the facility to placed in the most politically powerless communities in the county, Dunnigan and Zamora. A profile in courage, to be sure. If this were the 1950s, we’d probably be talking about putting facility on tribal property as a “solution”.
Put them in one of the communities known for generating a substantial percentage of the felons?? Forget it.
Pushing your challenging social problems onto someone else unrelated to it, a proud Yolo County tradition.
–Richard Estes
An equally strong argument can probably be made for having reentry facilities NOT located where the inmate has close proximity with the environment/people which brought him/her their current situation. Family ties that are strong enough to influence future criminal activity may not be significantly diminished by distance.
An equally strong argument can probably be made for having reentry facilities NOT located where the inmate has close proximity with the environment/people which brought him/her their current situation. Family ties that are strong enough to influence future criminal activity may not be significantly diminished by distance.
An equally strong argument can probably be made for having reentry facilities NOT located where the inmate has close proximity with the environment/people which brought him/her their current situation. Family ties that are strong enough to influence future criminal activity may not be significantly diminished by distance.
An equally strong argument can probably be made for having reentry facilities NOT located where the inmate has close proximity with the environment/people which brought him/her their current situation. Family ties that are strong enough to influence future criminal activity may not be significantly diminished by distance.
Let’s say that the facility was placed in Davis or Woodland. Wouldn’t a family from Vallejo try to relocate to Davis or Woodland to be closer to their husband/father in order to make visits easier? When released, wouldn’t they just then move in with their families who are now living in Yolo County?
Let’s say that the facility was placed in Davis or Woodland. Wouldn’t a family from Vallejo try to relocate to Davis or Woodland to be closer to their husband/father in order to make visits easier? When released, wouldn’t they just then move in with their families who are now living in Yolo County?
Let’s say that the facility was placed in Davis or Woodland. Wouldn’t a family from Vallejo try to relocate to Davis or Woodland to be closer to their husband/father in order to make visits easier? When released, wouldn’t they just then move in with their families who are now living in Yolo County?
Let’s say that the facility was placed in Davis or Woodland. Wouldn’t a family from Vallejo try to relocate to Davis or Woodland to be closer to their husband/father in order to make visits easier? When released, wouldn’t they just then move in with their families who are now living in Yolo County?
“Some people wonder why I have an affinity for Mr. Rexroad … I disagree with Mr. Rexroad far more often than I agree with him.”
I don’t see why you have to be so defensive, Doug, whenever you mention your love affair with Matt Rexroad. Who cares if one or two of your readers are jealous of Matt’s giant bald head? He’s your “friend” and you should be proud.
“Some people wonder why I have an affinity for Mr. Rexroad … I disagree with Mr. Rexroad far more often than I agree with him.”
I don’t see why you have to be so defensive, Doug, whenever you mention your love affair with Matt Rexroad. Who cares if one or two of your readers are jealous of Matt’s giant bald head? He’s your “friend” and you should be proud.
“Some people wonder why I have an affinity for Mr. Rexroad … I disagree with Mr. Rexroad far more often than I agree with him.”
I don’t see why you have to be so defensive, Doug, whenever you mention your love affair with Matt Rexroad. Who cares if one or two of your readers are jealous of Matt’s giant bald head? He’s your “friend” and you should be proud.
“Some people wonder why I have an affinity for Mr. Rexroad … I disagree with Mr. Rexroad far more often than I agree with him.”
I don’t see why you have to be so defensive, Doug, whenever you mention your love affair with Matt Rexroad. Who cares if one or two of your readers are jealous of Matt’s giant bald head? He’s your “friend” and you should be proud.
This reminds me of the needle exchange program, or building one too many schools in Davis because the facilities money was available. “The way to hell is paved with good intentions.”
A re-entry facility sounds wonderful, but the bottom line is this:
1) The state controls the facility, and can morph it into anything they want in the future;
2) No one wants this facility in their backyard;
3) Putting inmates back together with dysfunctional families/friends is not a good solution to recidivism;
4) Is such a facility really “free”, or are there ancillary costs associated with it that have not been fully vetted?
If Matt Rexroad is so in favor of such a facility, then why not build it in Woodland? Would he favor that? I’ll bet not. If not, then don’t tell Dunnigan or Zamora what to do. What is good for the goose is good for the gander…
Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates farming skills, how to grow their own food, and interact with livestock, as well as develop independence and self-sufficiency. Helping abused animals could be part of the program.
Obviously inmates would have to be screened, so that the facility only accepts appropriate inmates who are willing to work hard at learning agricultural and husbandry skills. This is an agricultural community, and farming is back-breaking work, that takes patience, discipline, and dedication. With free labor from inmates, it could pay for itself and perhaps make money. Produce could be sold locally.
And the facility would not be near any existing city that doesn’t want it in their backyard, but the animals themselves could provide emotional support to inmates – better than any dysfunctional family or friends. Programs like this have worked in other states.
This reminds me of the needle exchange program, or building one too many schools in Davis because the facilities money was available. “The way to hell is paved with good intentions.”
A re-entry facility sounds wonderful, but the bottom line is this:
1) The state controls the facility, and can morph it into anything they want in the future;
2) No one wants this facility in their backyard;
3) Putting inmates back together with dysfunctional families/friends is not a good solution to recidivism;
4) Is such a facility really “free”, or are there ancillary costs associated with it that have not been fully vetted?
If Matt Rexroad is so in favor of such a facility, then why not build it in Woodland? Would he favor that? I’ll bet not. If not, then don’t tell Dunnigan or Zamora what to do. What is good for the goose is good for the gander…
Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates farming skills, how to grow their own food, and interact with livestock, as well as develop independence and self-sufficiency. Helping abused animals could be part of the program.
Obviously inmates would have to be screened, so that the facility only accepts appropriate inmates who are willing to work hard at learning agricultural and husbandry skills. This is an agricultural community, and farming is back-breaking work, that takes patience, discipline, and dedication. With free labor from inmates, it could pay for itself and perhaps make money. Produce could be sold locally.
And the facility would not be near any existing city that doesn’t want it in their backyard, but the animals themselves could provide emotional support to inmates – better than any dysfunctional family or friends. Programs like this have worked in other states.
This reminds me of the needle exchange program, or building one too many schools in Davis because the facilities money was available. “The way to hell is paved with good intentions.”
A re-entry facility sounds wonderful, but the bottom line is this:
1) The state controls the facility, and can morph it into anything they want in the future;
2) No one wants this facility in their backyard;
3) Putting inmates back together with dysfunctional families/friends is not a good solution to recidivism;
4) Is such a facility really “free”, or are there ancillary costs associated with it that have not been fully vetted?
If Matt Rexroad is so in favor of such a facility, then why not build it in Woodland? Would he favor that? I’ll bet not. If not, then don’t tell Dunnigan or Zamora what to do. What is good for the goose is good for the gander…
Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates farming skills, how to grow their own food, and interact with livestock, as well as develop independence and self-sufficiency. Helping abused animals could be part of the program.
Obviously inmates would have to be screened, so that the facility only accepts appropriate inmates who are willing to work hard at learning agricultural and husbandry skills. This is an agricultural community, and farming is back-breaking work, that takes patience, discipline, and dedication. With free labor from inmates, it could pay for itself and perhaps make money. Produce could be sold locally.
And the facility would not be near any existing city that doesn’t want it in their backyard, but the animals themselves could provide emotional support to inmates – better than any dysfunctional family or friends. Programs like this have worked in other states.
This reminds me of the needle exchange program, or building one too many schools in Davis because the facilities money was available. “The way to hell is paved with good intentions.”
A re-entry facility sounds wonderful, but the bottom line is this:
1) The state controls the facility, and can morph it into anything they want in the future;
2) No one wants this facility in their backyard;
3) Putting inmates back together with dysfunctional families/friends is not a good solution to recidivism;
4) Is such a facility really “free”, or are there ancillary costs associated with it that have not been fully vetted?
If Matt Rexroad is so in favor of such a facility, then why not build it in Woodland? Would he favor that? I’ll bet not. If not, then don’t tell Dunnigan or Zamora what to do. What is good for the goose is good for the gander…
Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates farming skills, how to grow their own food, and interact with livestock, as well as develop independence and self-sufficiency. Helping abused animals could be part of the program.
Obviously inmates would have to be screened, so that the facility only accepts appropriate inmates who are willing to work hard at learning agricultural and husbandry skills. This is an agricultural community, and farming is back-breaking work, that takes patience, discipline, and dedication. With free labor from inmates, it could pay for itself and perhaps make money. Produce could be sold locally.
And the facility would not be near any existing city that doesn’t want it in their backyard, but the animals themselves could provide emotional support to inmates – better than any dysfunctional family or friends. Programs like this have worked in other states.
“Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates farming skills, how to grow their own food, and interact with livestock, as well as develop independence and self-sufficiency. Helping abused animals could be part of the program.”
I disagree.
Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry lake, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates scuba diving skills, how to spear their own food, and interact with fish, as well as develop independence and underwater breathing skills. Helping abused crustaceans could be part of the program.
“Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates farming skills, how to grow their own food, and interact with livestock, as well as develop independence and self-sufficiency. Helping abused animals could be part of the program.”
I disagree.
Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry lake, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates scuba diving skills, how to spear their own food, and interact with fish, as well as develop independence and underwater breathing skills. Helping abused crustaceans could be part of the program.
“Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates farming skills, how to grow their own food, and interact with livestock, as well as develop independence and self-sufficiency. Helping abused animals could be part of the program.”
I disagree.
Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry lake, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates scuba diving skills, how to spear their own food, and interact with fish, as well as develop independence and underwater breathing skills. Helping abused crustaceans could be part of the program.
“Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates farming skills, how to grow their own food, and interact with livestock, as well as develop independence and self-sufficiency. Helping abused animals could be part of the program.”
I disagree.
Frankly, I would be more in favor of a re-entry lake, out in the middle of nowhere. It would teach inmates scuba diving skills, how to spear their own food, and interact with fish, as well as develop independence and underwater breathing skills. Helping abused crustaceans could be part of the program.
“I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere.”
Those of us who live ‘out in the middle of nowhere’ are never thrilled when people suggest these things. We already get your stray animals and sex offenders. We have much slower police response time than urban areas. It seems to me this facility should be close to the sheriff’s department, either in Yolo or Solano county.
“I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere.”
Those of us who live ‘out in the middle of nowhere’ are never thrilled when people suggest these things. We already get your stray animals and sex offenders. We have much slower police response time than urban areas. It seems to me this facility should be close to the sheriff’s department, either in Yolo or Solano county.
“I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere.”
Those of us who live ‘out in the middle of nowhere’ are never thrilled when people suggest these things. We already get your stray animals and sex offenders. We have much slower police response time than urban areas. It seems to me this facility should be close to the sheriff’s department, either in Yolo or Solano county.
“I would be more in favor of a re-entry farm, out in the middle of nowhere.”
Those of us who live ‘out in the middle of nowhere’ are never thrilled when people suggest these things. We already get your stray animals and sex offenders. We have much slower police response time than urban areas. It seems to me this facility should be close to the sheriff’s department, either in Yolo or Solano county.
“No Silly Goose”: FWIW, Rexroad went before the Woodland City Council and advocated that they bring the facility to Woodland, argued that the 300 jobs would help Woodland, got no takers.
“No Silly Goose”: FWIW, Rexroad went before the Woodland City Council and advocated that they bring the facility to Woodland, argued that the 300 jobs would help Woodland, got no takers.
“No Silly Goose”: FWIW, Rexroad went before the Woodland City Council and advocated that they bring the facility to Woodland, argued that the 300 jobs would help Woodland, got no takers.
“No Silly Goose”: FWIW, Rexroad went before the Woodland City Council and advocated that they bring the facility to Woodland, argued that the 300 jobs would help Woodland, got no takers.
Anonymous said…
An equally strong argument can probably be made for having reentry facilities NOT located where the inmate has close proximity with the environment/people which brought him/her their current situation. Family ties that are strong enough to influence future criminal activity may not be significantly diminished by distance.
8/15/08 10:37 AM
Never underestimate the creativity of NIMBYs when explaining why social problems generated by their communities should be exported to others with no relationship to it.
Rexroad, Yamada, Thomson . . . profiles in courage for their bravery in advocating for this facility to be sited in either Zamora or Dunnigan.
–Richard Estes
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
An equally strong argument can probably be made for having reentry facilities NOT located where the inmate has close proximity with the environment/people which brought him/her their current situation. Family ties that are strong enough to influence future criminal activity may not be significantly diminished by distance.
8/15/08 10:37 AM
Never underestimate the creativity of NIMBYs when explaining why social problems generated by their communities should be exported to others with no relationship to it.
Rexroad, Yamada, Thomson . . . profiles in courage for their bravery in advocating for this facility to be sited in either Zamora or Dunnigan.
–Richard Estes
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
An equally strong argument can probably be made for having reentry facilities NOT located where the inmate has close proximity with the environment/people which brought him/her their current situation. Family ties that are strong enough to influence future criminal activity may not be significantly diminished by distance.
8/15/08 10:37 AM
Never underestimate the creativity of NIMBYs when explaining why social problems generated by their communities should be exported to others with no relationship to it.
Rexroad, Yamada, Thomson . . . profiles in courage for their bravery in advocating for this facility to be sited in either Zamora or Dunnigan.
–Richard Estes
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
An equally strong argument can probably be made for having reentry facilities NOT located where the inmate has close proximity with the environment/people which brought him/her their current situation. Family ties that are strong enough to influence future criminal activity may not be significantly diminished by distance.
8/15/08 10:37 AM
Never underestimate the creativity of NIMBYs when explaining why social problems generated by their communities should be exported to others with no relationship to it.
Rexroad, Yamada, Thomson . . . profiles in courage for their bravery in advocating for this facility to be sited in either Zamora or Dunnigan.
–Richard Estes
–Richard Estes
Richard:
As I explained in the article, cities have VETO power over any proposal, so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?
Richard:
As I explained in the article, cities have VETO power over any proposal, so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?
Richard:
As I explained in the article, cities have VETO power over any proposal, so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?
Richard:
As I explained in the article, cities have VETO power over any proposal, so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?
DPD, I understand, but the veto power is irrelevant, we are talking about what individuals and political figures *should* be advocating, and they should be advocating that one of the major cities of Yolo County, Woodland, West Sacramento or Davis, step up to the plate and accept this facility
you seem to be willing to accept their veto power and move right on to siting the facility in Dunnigan or Zamora, which is really unfair to the people of these communities, to have to accept a facility for parolees predominately generated by the major cities of the county, because they are misfortunate enough to be unincorporated and powerless
perhaps, people should also be advocating that law related to the siting of these facilites be changed by the Legislature, as it would appear that such outrageous outcomes are inevitable given the veto power granted to communities that actually generate the felons
after my last message, someone posted that Rexroad actually did publicly appear to support placing the facility in Woodland, good for him, in this instance, he has an instinct for fairness and good public policy that has evaded others that have addressed the issue
I mean, c’mon, Yamada and Thomson think its great to have the facility in Zamora or Dunnigan? how cowardly is that? They want the jobs, they think that its an essential social program, so much so that they are willing to have it located amongst a group of disempowered people?
Embarassing.
–Richard Estes
DPD, I understand, but the veto power is irrelevant, we are talking about what individuals and political figures *should* be advocating, and they should be advocating that one of the major cities of Yolo County, Woodland, West Sacramento or Davis, step up to the plate and accept this facility
you seem to be willing to accept their veto power and move right on to siting the facility in Dunnigan or Zamora, which is really unfair to the people of these communities, to have to accept a facility for parolees predominately generated by the major cities of the county, because they are misfortunate enough to be unincorporated and powerless
perhaps, people should also be advocating that law related to the siting of these facilites be changed by the Legislature, as it would appear that such outrageous outcomes are inevitable given the veto power granted to communities that actually generate the felons
after my last message, someone posted that Rexroad actually did publicly appear to support placing the facility in Woodland, good for him, in this instance, he has an instinct for fairness and good public policy that has evaded others that have addressed the issue
I mean, c’mon, Yamada and Thomson think its great to have the facility in Zamora or Dunnigan? how cowardly is that? They want the jobs, they think that its an essential social program, so much so that they are willing to have it located amongst a group of disempowered people?
Embarassing.
–Richard Estes
DPD, I understand, but the veto power is irrelevant, we are talking about what individuals and political figures *should* be advocating, and they should be advocating that one of the major cities of Yolo County, Woodland, West Sacramento or Davis, step up to the plate and accept this facility
you seem to be willing to accept their veto power and move right on to siting the facility in Dunnigan or Zamora, which is really unfair to the people of these communities, to have to accept a facility for parolees predominately generated by the major cities of the county, because they are misfortunate enough to be unincorporated and powerless
perhaps, people should also be advocating that law related to the siting of these facilites be changed by the Legislature, as it would appear that such outrageous outcomes are inevitable given the veto power granted to communities that actually generate the felons
after my last message, someone posted that Rexroad actually did publicly appear to support placing the facility in Woodland, good for him, in this instance, he has an instinct for fairness and good public policy that has evaded others that have addressed the issue
I mean, c’mon, Yamada and Thomson think its great to have the facility in Zamora or Dunnigan? how cowardly is that? They want the jobs, they think that its an essential social program, so much so that they are willing to have it located amongst a group of disempowered people?
Embarassing.
–Richard Estes
DPD, I understand, but the veto power is irrelevant, we are talking about what individuals and political figures *should* be advocating, and they should be advocating that one of the major cities of Yolo County, Woodland, West Sacramento or Davis, step up to the plate and accept this facility
you seem to be willing to accept their veto power and move right on to siting the facility in Dunnigan or Zamora, which is really unfair to the people of these communities, to have to accept a facility for parolees predominately generated by the major cities of the county, because they are misfortunate enough to be unincorporated and powerless
perhaps, people should also be advocating that law related to the siting of these facilites be changed by the Legislature, as it would appear that such outrageous outcomes are inevitable given the veto power granted to communities that actually generate the felons
after my last message, someone posted that Rexroad actually did publicly appear to support placing the facility in Woodland, good for him, in this instance, he has an instinct for fairness and good public policy that has evaded others that have addressed the issue
I mean, c’mon, Yamada and Thomson think its great to have the facility in Zamora or Dunnigan? how cowardly is that? They want the jobs, they think that its an essential social program, so much so that they are willing to have it located amongst a group of disempowered people?
Embarassing.
–Richard Estes
“so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?”
Land Park in Sacramento.
“so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?”
Land Park in Sacramento.
“so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?”
Land Park in Sacramento.
“so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?”
Land Park in Sacramento.
Richard:
First, I think that this facility is better to have in Yolo County than not to have it here.
Second, I did go to the City of Woodland. It was presented in the 2×2. They are completely against it.
Third, I agree that the best place to put this facility is in industrial zoned property. That is the best fit.
Nobody wants this facility next to them but it needs to come. We would all benefit.
Since the cities are opposed we are looking at areas in unincorporated Yolo County.
Matt
Richard:
First, I think that this facility is better to have in Yolo County than not to have it here.
Second, I did go to the City of Woodland. It was presented in the 2×2. They are completely against it.
Third, I agree that the best place to put this facility is in industrial zoned property. That is the best fit.
Nobody wants this facility next to them but it needs to come. We would all benefit.
Since the cities are opposed we are looking at areas in unincorporated Yolo County.
Matt
Richard:
First, I think that this facility is better to have in Yolo County than not to have it here.
Second, I did go to the City of Woodland. It was presented in the 2×2. They are completely against it.
Third, I agree that the best place to put this facility is in industrial zoned property. That is the best fit.
Nobody wants this facility next to them but it needs to come. We would all benefit.
Since the cities are opposed we are looking at areas in unincorporated Yolo County.
Matt
Richard:
First, I think that this facility is better to have in Yolo County than not to have it here.
Second, I did go to the City of Woodland. It was presented in the 2×2. They are completely against it.
Third, I agree that the best place to put this facility is in industrial zoned property. That is the best fit.
Nobody wants this facility next to them but it needs to come. We would all benefit.
Since the cities are opposed we are looking at areas in unincorporated Yolo County.
Matt
NSG said “If Matt Rexroad is so in favor of such a facility, then why not build it in Woodland? Would he favor that? I’ll bet not.”
I am willing to take that bet Silly Goose.
NSG said “If Matt Rexroad is so in favor of such a facility, then why not build it in Woodland? Would he favor that? I’ll bet not.”
I am willing to take that bet Silly Goose.
NSG said “If Matt Rexroad is so in favor of such a facility, then why not build it in Woodland? Would he favor that? I’ll bet not.”
I am willing to take that bet Silly Goose.
NSG said “If Matt Rexroad is so in favor of such a facility, then why not build it in Woodland? Would he favor that? I’ll bet not.”
I am willing to take that bet Silly Goose.
Ron said…
“so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?”
Land Park in Sacramento.
8/15/08 12:24 PM
I spent my teen years and early college years living in midtown and downtown Sacrameno, both known for being a “dumping ground” for various kinds of programs related to probationers, parolees and drug rehabilitation. And, then, on top of it, people from the communities that generated a lot of the people facing these social problems then had the gall to talk about how terrible downtown and midtown were.
I think that it would be unfortunate if Yolo County lost this facility, but the notion that the people who are pushing it upon either Dunnigan or Zamora are anything than politically expedient is laughable. If is it so important, then why aren’t the communities that generate these social problems stepping up to the plate?
Rexroad is entitled to say what he is saying, because he actually made an effort to persuade Woodland to take it, but, as for the others . . . well, politically expedient is being polite.
–Richard Estes
Ron said…
“so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?”
Land Park in Sacramento.
8/15/08 12:24 PM
I spent my teen years and early college years living in midtown and downtown Sacrameno, both known for being a “dumping ground” for various kinds of programs related to probationers, parolees and drug rehabilitation. And, then, on top of it, people from the communities that generated a lot of the people facing these social problems then had the gall to talk about how terrible downtown and midtown were.
I think that it would be unfortunate if Yolo County lost this facility, but the notion that the people who are pushing it upon either Dunnigan or Zamora are anything than politically expedient is laughable. If is it so important, then why aren’t the communities that generate these social problems stepping up to the plate?
Rexroad is entitled to say what he is saying, because he actually made an effort to persuade Woodland to take it, but, as for the others . . . well, politically expedient is being polite.
–Richard Estes
Ron said…
“so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?”
Land Park in Sacramento.
8/15/08 12:24 PM
I spent my teen years and early college years living in midtown and downtown Sacrameno, both known for being a “dumping ground” for various kinds of programs related to probationers, parolees and drug rehabilitation. And, then, on top of it, people from the communities that generated a lot of the people facing these social problems then had the gall to talk about how terrible downtown and midtown were.
I think that it would be unfortunate if Yolo County lost this facility, but the notion that the people who are pushing it upon either Dunnigan or Zamora are anything than politically expedient is laughable. If is it so important, then why aren’t the communities that generate these social problems stepping up to the plate?
Rexroad is entitled to say what he is saying, because he actually made an effort to persuade Woodland to take it, but, as for the others . . . well, politically expedient is being polite.
–Richard Estes
Ron said…
“so where would you have them put the facility given that FACT?”
Land Park in Sacramento.
8/15/08 12:24 PM
I spent my teen years and early college years living in midtown and downtown Sacrameno, both known for being a “dumping ground” for various kinds of programs related to probationers, parolees and drug rehabilitation. And, then, on top of it, people from the communities that generated a lot of the people facing these social problems then had the gall to talk about how terrible downtown and midtown were.
I think that it would be unfortunate if Yolo County lost this facility, but the notion that the people who are pushing it upon either Dunnigan or Zamora are anything than politically expedient is laughable. If is it so important, then why aren’t the communities that generate these social problems stepping up to the plate?
Rexroad is entitled to say what he is saying, because he actually made an effort to persuade Woodland to take it, but, as for the others . . . well, politically expedient is being polite.
–Richard Estes
“Rexroad actually did publicly appear to support placing the facility in Woodland, good for him…”
Anyone else notice that Rexroad appears to often take public political positions that are then neutalized and made moot by the opposing majority vote? I am waiting for him to be the DECIDING vote that implements his political posturing.
“Rexroad actually did publicly appear to support placing the facility in Woodland, good for him…”
Anyone else notice that Rexroad appears to often take public political positions that are then neutalized and made moot by the opposing majority vote? I am waiting for him to be the DECIDING vote that implements his political posturing.
“Rexroad actually did publicly appear to support placing the facility in Woodland, good for him…”
Anyone else notice that Rexroad appears to often take public political positions that are then neutalized and made moot by the opposing majority vote? I am waiting for him to be the DECIDING vote that implements his political posturing.
“Rexroad actually did publicly appear to support placing the facility in Woodland, good for him…”
Anyone else notice that Rexroad appears to often take public political positions that are then neutalized and made moot by the opposing majority vote? I am waiting for him to be the DECIDING vote that implements his political posturing.
Theoretically, this transitional program is excellent. California has one of the highest criminal recidivism rates in the country, so a new approach is overdue.
However, I do agree that the facility could, and probably will, turn into something very different than intended.
I also believe that the value of homes in the area will depreciate and that is a problem. That is why the proposal is to place the facility in Dunnigan where residents lack power.
I do, however, disagree that a parolee/probationer’s family is any more or less dysfunctional than most families, regardless of socioeconomic status.
There is child abuse; spousal abuse; teen pregnancy; divorce; absentee fathers; alcohol and drug use; teen suicide and many other social issues prevalent in all socioeconomic classes.
Resources, or the lack thereof, play pivotal roles in determining how someone gets in and out of the criminal justice system.
The difference is available resources ( access to money; letters behind names; social support networks; professional networks; funds to hire a private attorney; and funds to bail someone out of jail or houses as collateral).
Theoretically, this transitional program is excellent. California has one of the highest criminal recidivism rates in the country, so a new approach is overdue.
However, I do agree that the facility could, and probably will, turn into something very different than intended.
I also believe that the value of homes in the area will depreciate and that is a problem. That is why the proposal is to place the facility in Dunnigan where residents lack power.
I do, however, disagree that a parolee/probationer’s family is any more or less dysfunctional than most families, regardless of socioeconomic status.
There is child abuse; spousal abuse; teen pregnancy; divorce; absentee fathers; alcohol and drug use; teen suicide and many other social issues prevalent in all socioeconomic classes.
Resources, or the lack thereof, play pivotal roles in determining how someone gets in and out of the criminal justice system.
The difference is available resources ( access to money; letters behind names; social support networks; professional networks; funds to hire a private attorney; and funds to bail someone out of jail or houses as collateral).
Theoretically, this transitional program is excellent. California has one of the highest criminal recidivism rates in the country, so a new approach is overdue.
However, I do agree that the facility could, and probably will, turn into something very different than intended.
I also believe that the value of homes in the area will depreciate and that is a problem. That is why the proposal is to place the facility in Dunnigan where residents lack power.
I do, however, disagree that a parolee/probationer’s family is any more or less dysfunctional than most families, regardless of socioeconomic status.
There is child abuse; spousal abuse; teen pregnancy; divorce; absentee fathers; alcohol and drug use; teen suicide and many other social issues prevalent in all socioeconomic classes.
Resources, or the lack thereof, play pivotal roles in determining how someone gets in and out of the criminal justice system.
The difference is available resources ( access to money; letters behind names; social support networks; professional networks; funds to hire a private attorney; and funds to bail someone out of jail or houses as collateral).
Theoretically, this transitional program is excellent. California has one of the highest criminal recidivism rates in the country, so a new approach is overdue.
However, I do agree that the facility could, and probably will, turn into something very different than intended.
I also believe that the value of homes in the area will depreciate and that is a problem. That is why the proposal is to place the facility in Dunnigan where residents lack power.
I do, however, disagree that a parolee/probationer’s family is any more or less dysfunctional than most families, regardless of socioeconomic status.
There is child abuse; spousal abuse; teen pregnancy; divorce; absentee fathers; alcohol and drug use; teen suicide and many other social issues prevalent in all socioeconomic classes.
Resources, or the lack thereof, play pivotal roles in determining how someone gets in and out of the criminal justice system.
The difference is available resources ( access to money; letters behind names; social support networks; professional networks; funds to hire a private attorney; and funds to bail someone out of jail or houses as collateral).
Are Dunnigan and Zamora in AB8? Bet they are not.
Are Dunnigan and Zamora in AB8? Bet they are not.
Are Dunnigan and Zamora in AB8? Bet they are not.
Are Dunnigan and Zamora in AB8? Bet they are not.
Most of Yolo County, including Dunningan and Zamora, is in AB2.
Most of Yolo County, including Dunningan and Zamora, is in AB2.
Most of Yolo County, including Dunningan and Zamora, is in AB2.
Most of Yolo County, including Dunningan and Zamora, is in AB2.
The water use issues are not just something “to be worked out later”. It is a MAJOR sticking point. How does one defend placing a small town (the population of this facility) in a rural area with a limited aquafier (sp?)? It CAN’T work. There’s no way around that fact. It forces the residents and farmers in the area to dig their wells deeper. Do you know what that costs? Upwards of $40-50K.
Secondly, why does Zamora receive the pleasure of having these wonderful citizens in their midst? The vast majority of the prisoners are from Woodland, West Sac, and Davis. Yet Zamora is going to have to deal with them in many ways. That’s not right.
The water use issues are not just something “to be worked out later”. It is a MAJOR sticking point. How does one defend placing a small town (the population of this facility) in a rural area with a limited aquafier (sp?)? It CAN’T work. There’s no way around that fact. It forces the residents and farmers in the area to dig their wells deeper. Do you know what that costs? Upwards of $40-50K.
Secondly, why does Zamora receive the pleasure of having these wonderful citizens in their midst? The vast majority of the prisoners are from Woodland, West Sac, and Davis. Yet Zamora is going to have to deal with them in many ways. That’s not right.
The water use issues are not just something “to be worked out later”. It is a MAJOR sticking point. How does one defend placing a small town (the population of this facility) in a rural area with a limited aquafier (sp?)? It CAN’T work. There’s no way around that fact. It forces the residents and farmers in the area to dig their wells deeper. Do you know what that costs? Upwards of $40-50K.
Secondly, why does Zamora receive the pleasure of having these wonderful citizens in their midst? The vast majority of the prisoners are from Woodland, West Sac, and Davis. Yet Zamora is going to have to deal with them in many ways. That’s not right.
The water use issues are not just something “to be worked out later”. It is a MAJOR sticking point. How does one defend placing a small town (the population of this facility) in a rural area with a limited aquafier (sp?)? It CAN’T work. There’s no way around that fact. It forces the residents and farmers in the area to dig their wells deeper. Do you know what that costs? Upwards of $40-50K.
Secondly, why does Zamora receive the pleasure of having these wonderful citizens in their midst? The vast majority of the prisoners are from Woodland, West Sac, and Davis. Yet Zamora is going to have to deal with them in many ways. That’s not right.
Where are most parolees/probationers released to?
I would think they return to the family home. That means these ” wonderful citizens” (as referred to in preceding comment) reside in our communities anyways. They are oftentimes unemployed because of their record, unproductive and repeat offend.
Therefore, the transitional programs may be a beneficial mean to prevent recidivism.
However, I agree with you on one significant point. Why not place the transitional housing in Davis instead of Zamora? You are right, its not fair.
Where are most parolees/probationers released to?
I would think they return to the family home. That means these ” wonderful citizens” (as referred to in preceding comment) reside in our communities anyways. They are oftentimes unemployed because of their record, unproductive and repeat offend.
Therefore, the transitional programs may be a beneficial mean to prevent recidivism.
However, I agree with you on one significant point. Why not place the transitional housing in Davis instead of Zamora? You are right, its not fair.
Where are most parolees/probationers released to?
I would think they return to the family home. That means these ” wonderful citizens” (as referred to in preceding comment) reside in our communities anyways. They are oftentimes unemployed because of their record, unproductive and repeat offend.
Therefore, the transitional programs may be a beneficial mean to prevent recidivism.
However, I agree with you on one significant point. Why not place the transitional housing in Davis instead of Zamora? You are right, its not fair.
Where are most parolees/probationers released to?
I would think they return to the family home. That means these ” wonderful citizens” (as referred to in preceding comment) reside in our communities anyways. They are oftentimes unemployed because of their record, unproductive and repeat offend.
Therefore, the transitional programs may be a beneficial mean to prevent recidivism.
However, I agree with you on one significant point. Why not place the transitional housing in Davis instead of Zamora? You are right, its not fair.
Ya know, I am all for a re-entry facility in Yolo County BUT, the re-entry facility needs to have structure
Are they going to make it a prerequisite for every inmate to graduate from some sort of trade school before they are released.
What is the mission for this facility? If the whole mission statement to this facility is just to allow an inmates to be closer to their families how will that reduce recidivism ? Conjugal visits may make for a happy inmates but is it going to keep home-boy from committing another crime after he gets out of prison?
If we truly want to reduce recidivism two thing must happen
1. All inmates must have a certain level of education BEFORE they are released back into society.
2. Above all teach each and every inmate a trade
If this is best the CDCR and the BOS can come up with for a inmate re-entry program we are in deep shit!!!
Ya know, I am all for a re-entry facility in Yolo County BUT, the re-entry facility needs to have structure
Are they going to make it a prerequisite for every inmate to graduate from some sort of trade school before they are released.
What is the mission for this facility? If the whole mission statement to this facility is just to allow an inmates to be closer to their families how will that reduce recidivism ? Conjugal visits may make for a happy inmates but is it going to keep home-boy from committing another crime after he gets out of prison?
If we truly want to reduce recidivism two thing must happen
1. All inmates must have a certain level of education BEFORE they are released back into society.
2. Above all teach each and every inmate a trade
If this is best the CDCR and the BOS can come up with for a inmate re-entry program we are in deep shit!!!
Ya know, I am all for a re-entry facility in Yolo County BUT, the re-entry facility needs to have structure
Are they going to make it a prerequisite for every inmate to graduate from some sort of trade school before they are released.
What is the mission for this facility? If the whole mission statement to this facility is just to allow an inmates to be closer to their families how will that reduce recidivism ? Conjugal visits may make for a happy inmates but is it going to keep home-boy from committing another crime after he gets out of prison?
If we truly want to reduce recidivism two thing must happen
1. All inmates must have a certain level of education BEFORE they are released back into society.
2. Above all teach each and every inmate a trade
If this is best the CDCR and the BOS can come up with for a inmate re-entry program we are in deep shit!!!
Ya know, I am all for a re-entry facility in Yolo County BUT, the re-entry facility needs to have structure
Are they going to make it a prerequisite for every inmate to graduate from some sort of trade school before they are released.
What is the mission for this facility? If the whole mission statement to this facility is just to allow an inmates to be closer to their families how will that reduce recidivism ? Conjugal visits may make for a happy inmates but is it going to keep home-boy from committing another crime after he gets out of prison?
If we truly want to reduce recidivism two thing must happen
1. All inmates must have a certain level of education BEFORE they are released back into society.
2. Above all teach each and every inmate a trade
If this is best the CDCR and the BOS can come up with for a inmate re-entry program we are in deep shit!!!
“Are they going to make it a prerequisite for every inmate to graduate from some sort of trade school before they are released.”
That would not be legal, they are released when their term is up, this is a program that prevents them from just being released straight to the streets.
“Are they going to make it a prerequisite for every inmate to graduate from some sort of trade school before they are released.”
That would not be legal, they are released when their term is up, this is a program that prevents them from just being released straight to the streets.
“Are they going to make it a prerequisite for every inmate to graduate from some sort of trade school before they are released.”
That would not be legal, they are released when their term is up, this is a program that prevents them from just being released straight to the streets.
“Are they going to make it a prerequisite for every inmate to graduate from some sort of trade school before they are released.”
That would not be legal, they are released when their term is up, this is a program that prevents them from just being released straight to the streets.
What ? Where do you think these inmates will go besides the streets after they are released from the re-entry facility. Are you saying this re-entry facility is not a prison?
“that would be illegal”
Can’t the law be changed?
If a man has been locked up for five or more years and he gets out with no education, no skills and no trade, he’s probably going to commit more crimes.
It would make a lot more sense when sentencing these felons to so many years behind bars to require them to at least learn a viable trade in prison as a condition of their release. If they choose not to pursue a trade education, they can stay locked up indefinitely.
The money we save on re-entry facilities and on recidivism can pay for the trade schools.
What ? Where do you think these inmates will go besides the streets after they are released from the re-entry facility. Are you saying this re-entry facility is not a prison?
“that would be illegal”
Can’t the law be changed?
If a man has been locked up for five or more years and he gets out with no education, no skills and no trade, he’s probably going to commit more crimes.
It would make a lot more sense when sentencing these felons to so many years behind bars to require them to at least learn a viable trade in prison as a condition of their release. If they choose not to pursue a trade education, they can stay locked up indefinitely.
The money we save on re-entry facilities and on recidivism can pay for the trade schools.
What ? Where do you think these inmates will go besides the streets after they are released from the re-entry facility. Are you saying this re-entry facility is not a prison?
“that would be illegal”
Can’t the law be changed?
If a man has been locked up for five or more years and he gets out with no education, no skills and no trade, he’s probably going to commit more crimes.
It would make a lot more sense when sentencing these felons to so many years behind bars to require them to at least learn a viable trade in prison as a condition of their release. If they choose not to pursue a trade education, they can stay locked up indefinitely.
The money we save on re-entry facilities and on recidivism can pay for the trade schools.
What ? Where do you think these inmates will go besides the streets after they are released from the re-entry facility. Are you saying this re-entry facility is not a prison?
“that would be illegal”
Can’t the law be changed?
If a man has been locked up for five or more years and he gets out with no education, no skills and no trade, he’s probably going to commit more crimes.
It would make a lot more sense when sentencing these felons to so many years behind bars to require them to at least learn a viable trade in prison as a condition of their release. If they choose not to pursue a trade education, they can stay locked up indefinitely.
The money we save on re-entry facilities and on recidivism can pay for the trade schools.
The re-entry facility is a specific prison with specific programs offered. I think the real question people are asking here is whether a year is enough time, and the answer is that it probably is not but it is better than what existed before.
The re-entry facility is a specific prison with specific programs offered. I think the real question people are asking here is whether a year is enough time, and the answer is that it probably is not but it is better than what existed before.
The re-entry facility is a specific prison with specific programs offered. I think the real question people are asking here is whether a year is enough time, and the answer is that it probably is not but it is better than what existed before.
The re-entry facility is a specific prison with specific programs offered. I think the real question people are asking here is whether a year is enough time, and the answer is that it probably is not but it is better than what existed before.
Could you give us a list of specific programs that would be offered or required at this re-entry facility that is not currently offered at each and every prison in California already.
Could you give us a list of specific programs that would be offered or required at this re-entry facility that is not currently offered at each and every prison in California already.
Could you give us a list of specific programs that would be offered or required at this re-entry facility that is not currently offered at each and every prison in California already.
Could you give us a list of specific programs that would be offered or required at this re-entry facility that is not currently offered at each and every prison in California already.
Having worked with inmates,probationers and parolee’s I have another view. California has the highest rate of receividism in the U.S. because of no primary parental guidance.
The people that go to these types of programs are almost always con-artists and will victimize those around them.
Having more years of experience than DPD,Matt,Richard etc, I don’t want them in my backyard. Why? Because I know who and what they are, the criminal element that has a high rate of repetition of their specialty.
Move them to Imperial Valley right next to the prison in Calipatria, yes the original electrified fence prison. Let them live in a facility outside the walls, a reminder of what can be.
The population there is nothing but a hot desert and the animals that survive in it. A perfect place for a re-entry facility paid for by the hard working public that is continually victimized by these persons.
Having worked with inmates,probationers and parolee’s I have another view. California has the highest rate of receividism in the U.S. because of no primary parental guidance.
The people that go to these types of programs are almost always con-artists and will victimize those around them.
Having more years of experience than DPD,Matt,Richard etc, I don’t want them in my backyard. Why? Because I know who and what they are, the criminal element that has a high rate of repetition of their specialty.
Move them to Imperial Valley right next to the prison in Calipatria, yes the original electrified fence prison. Let them live in a facility outside the walls, a reminder of what can be.
The population there is nothing but a hot desert and the animals that survive in it. A perfect place for a re-entry facility paid for by the hard working public that is continually victimized by these persons.
Having worked with inmates,probationers and parolee’s I have another view. California has the highest rate of receividism in the U.S. because of no primary parental guidance.
The people that go to these types of programs are almost always con-artists and will victimize those around them.
Having more years of experience than DPD,Matt,Richard etc, I don’t want them in my backyard. Why? Because I know who and what they are, the criminal element that has a high rate of repetition of their specialty.
Move them to Imperial Valley right next to the prison in Calipatria, yes the original electrified fence prison. Let them live in a facility outside the walls, a reminder of what can be.
The population there is nothing but a hot desert and the animals that survive in it. A perfect place for a re-entry facility paid for by the hard working public that is continually victimized by these persons.
Having worked with inmates,probationers and parolee’s I have another view. California has the highest rate of receividism in the U.S. because of no primary parental guidance.
The people that go to these types of programs are almost always con-artists and will victimize those around them.
Having more years of experience than DPD,Matt,Richard etc, I don’t want them in my backyard. Why? Because I know who and what they are, the criminal element that has a high rate of repetition of their specialty.
Move them to Imperial Valley right next to the prison in Calipatria, yes the original electrified fence prison. Let them live in a facility outside the walls, a reminder of what can be.
The population there is nothing but a hot desert and the animals that survive in it. A perfect place for a re-entry facility paid for by the hard working public that is continually victimized by these persons.
Anonymous 8:11:
No, but here is where you can find that information:
AB 900 Info
Anonymous 8:13:
I am not exactly sure why California would be unique in that regard. I do think this program takes a pro-active step toward actually addressing the problem, I’m surprised if you have years of experience why you would summarily reject it. I know other people in the field who do not, so apparently opinions based on that level of expertise vary.
Nevertheless addressing this point:
“I don’t want them in my backyard. Why? Because I know who and what they are, the criminal element that has a high rate of repetition of their specialty.”
I think you miss the point that we are already putting them in your backyard in the sense that they are being released back to their county of origin anyway. I don’t see why having the facility in a specific location really changes where they end up.
Anonymous 8:11:
No, but here is where you can find that information:
AB 900 Info
Anonymous 8:13:
I am not exactly sure why California would be unique in that regard. I do think this program takes a pro-active step toward actually addressing the problem, I’m surprised if you have years of experience why you would summarily reject it. I know other people in the field who do not, so apparently opinions based on that level of expertise vary.
Nevertheless addressing this point:
“I don’t want them in my backyard. Why? Because I know who and what they are, the criminal element that has a high rate of repetition of their specialty.”
I think you miss the point that we are already putting them in your backyard in the sense that they are being released back to their county of origin anyway. I don’t see why having the facility in a specific location really changes where they end up.
Anonymous 8:11:
No, but here is where you can find that information:
AB 900 Info
Anonymous 8:13:
I am not exactly sure why California would be unique in that regard. I do think this program takes a pro-active step toward actually addressing the problem, I’m surprised if you have years of experience why you would summarily reject it. I know other people in the field who do not, so apparently opinions based on that level of expertise vary.
Nevertheless addressing this point:
“I don’t want them in my backyard. Why? Because I know who and what they are, the criminal element that has a high rate of repetition of their specialty.”
I think you miss the point that we are already putting them in your backyard in the sense that they are being released back to their county of origin anyway. I don’t see why having the facility in a specific location really changes where they end up.
Anonymous 8:11:
No, but here is where you can find that information:
AB 900 Info
Anonymous 8:13:
I am not exactly sure why California would be unique in that regard. I do think this program takes a pro-active step toward actually addressing the problem, I’m surprised if you have years of experience why you would summarily reject it. I know other people in the field who do not, so apparently opinions based on that level of expertise vary.
Nevertheless addressing this point:
“I don’t want them in my backyard. Why? Because I know who and what they are, the criminal element that has a high rate of repetition of their specialty.”
I think you miss the point that we are already putting them in your backyard in the sense that they are being released back to their county of origin anyway. I don’t see why having the facility in a specific location really changes where they end up.
DPD-Your sentiments about Matt Rexroad are right on. He’s got to be one of the most fair minded political thinkers we’ve ever had in this county. Now in the essence of fairplay… And since there seems to be the proximity concerns for transitioning inmates and their families. It’s a no brainer, it’s like a competition of default. The municipality that data suggests produces the most felons wins the re-entry facility. And the winner is….WOODLAND!!!
DPD-Your sentiments about Matt Rexroad are right on. He’s got to be one of the most fair minded political thinkers we’ve ever had in this county. Now in the essence of fairplay… And since there seems to be the proximity concerns for transitioning inmates and their families. It’s a no brainer, it’s like a competition of default. The municipality that data suggests produces the most felons wins the re-entry facility. And the winner is….WOODLAND!!!
DPD-Your sentiments about Matt Rexroad are right on. He’s got to be one of the most fair minded political thinkers we’ve ever had in this county. Now in the essence of fairplay… And since there seems to be the proximity concerns for transitioning inmates and their families. It’s a no brainer, it’s like a competition of default. The municipality that data suggests produces the most felons wins the re-entry facility. And the winner is….WOODLAND!!!
DPD-Your sentiments about Matt Rexroad are right on. He’s got to be one of the most fair minded political thinkers we’ve ever had in this county. Now in the essence of fairplay… And since there seems to be the proximity concerns for transitioning inmates and their families. It’s a no brainer, it’s like a competition of default. The municipality that data suggests produces the most felons wins the re-entry facility. And the winner is….WOODLAND!!!
Bring it to Zamora/Dunnigan .. we farmers have our 2nd Amendment rights and additionally hunt game in the immediate area.
300 jobs would put around 200 employees working per day .. means 3 million driving miles per year. Green Davis should want the facility just to save the fuel, and to not contribute (their understanding) to Global Warming, right?
Water and Sewage/Wastewater treatment for the facility will be an issue.
Bring it to Zamora/Dunnigan .. we farmers have our 2nd Amendment rights and additionally hunt game in the immediate area.
300 jobs would put around 200 employees working per day .. means 3 million driving miles per year. Green Davis should want the facility just to save the fuel, and to not contribute (their understanding) to Global Warming, right?
Water and Sewage/Wastewater treatment for the facility will be an issue.
Bring it to Zamora/Dunnigan .. we farmers have our 2nd Amendment rights and additionally hunt game in the immediate area.
300 jobs would put around 200 employees working per day .. means 3 million driving miles per year. Green Davis should want the facility just to save the fuel, and to not contribute (their understanding) to Global Warming, right?
Water and Sewage/Wastewater treatment for the facility will be an issue.
Bring it to Zamora/Dunnigan .. we farmers have our 2nd Amendment rights and additionally hunt game in the immediate area.
300 jobs would put around 200 employees working per day .. means 3 million driving miles per year. Green Davis should want the facility just to save the fuel, and to not contribute (their understanding) to Global Warming, right?
Water and Sewage/Wastewater treatment for the facility will be an issue.
I just took some time to read over these comments and am struck by one thing.
Most of you folks that read this are from Davis. Some of you are questioning why this project should not be located in Woodland. That is a fair question.
Another fair question is when the people of Davis are going to step up to the plate to provide land use that facilitates social services?
Woodland actually has a mission that provides food and housing for hundreds. Does Davis have a similar permanent facility? No. It moves around from place to place so as not to upset any one neighborhood.
Woodland is the location of a large facility for the Yolo County Housing Authority. Davis has a few locations that are a fraction of the size of the one in Woodland or West Sacramento.
The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?
I don’t want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.
I hear many of you claiming that you desire social services to be provided — just not in Davis. That part is left out. Somewhere else in Yolo County would be fine.
The largest piece of industrial zoned property in the unincorporated part of Yolo County is Covell Village. How about that location?
The re-entry facility is something that we are going to work through over the coming weeks and even years.
My question for you is — what land is Davis going to set aside for some of these things?
When some of you question my desire to do these things I simply point to the leadership Woodland took to place the Wayfarer Center over the objections of a few neighbors. My vote was the deciding one and my involvement was great. Woodland did that. Davis?
It seems funny to me that for all the social programs that the people that read this blog are likely to advocate for — the use of land in your precious city never seems to be part of the message.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
I just took some time to read over these comments and am struck by one thing.
Most of you folks that read this are from Davis. Some of you are questioning why this project should not be located in Woodland. That is a fair question.
Another fair question is when the people of Davis are going to step up to the plate to provide land use that facilitates social services?
Woodland actually has a mission that provides food and housing for hundreds. Does Davis have a similar permanent facility? No. It moves around from place to place so as not to upset any one neighborhood.
Woodland is the location of a large facility for the Yolo County Housing Authority. Davis has a few locations that are a fraction of the size of the one in Woodland or West Sacramento.
The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?
I don’t want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.
I hear many of you claiming that you desire social services to be provided — just not in Davis. That part is left out. Somewhere else in Yolo County would be fine.
The largest piece of industrial zoned property in the unincorporated part of Yolo County is Covell Village. How about that location?
The re-entry facility is something that we are going to work through over the coming weeks and even years.
My question for you is — what land is Davis going to set aside for some of these things?
When some of you question my desire to do these things I simply point to the leadership Woodland took to place the Wayfarer Center over the objections of a few neighbors. My vote was the deciding one and my involvement was great. Woodland did that. Davis?
It seems funny to me that for all the social programs that the people that read this blog are likely to advocate for — the use of land in your precious city never seems to be part of the message.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
I just took some time to read over these comments and am struck by one thing.
Most of you folks that read this are from Davis. Some of you are questioning why this project should not be located in Woodland. That is a fair question.
Another fair question is when the people of Davis are going to step up to the plate to provide land use that facilitates social services?
Woodland actually has a mission that provides food and housing for hundreds. Does Davis have a similar permanent facility? No. It moves around from place to place so as not to upset any one neighborhood.
Woodland is the location of a large facility for the Yolo County Housing Authority. Davis has a few locations that are a fraction of the size of the one in Woodland or West Sacramento.
The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?
I don’t want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.
I hear many of you claiming that you desire social services to be provided — just not in Davis. That part is left out. Somewhere else in Yolo County would be fine.
The largest piece of industrial zoned property in the unincorporated part of Yolo County is Covell Village. How about that location?
The re-entry facility is something that we are going to work through over the coming weeks and even years.
My question for you is — what land is Davis going to set aside for some of these things?
When some of you question my desire to do these things I simply point to the leadership Woodland took to place the Wayfarer Center over the objections of a few neighbors. My vote was the deciding one and my involvement was great. Woodland did that. Davis?
It seems funny to me that for all the social programs that the people that read this blog are likely to advocate for — the use of land in your precious city never seems to be part of the message.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
I just took some time to read over these comments and am struck by one thing.
Most of you folks that read this are from Davis. Some of you are questioning why this project should not be located in Woodland. That is a fair question.
Another fair question is when the people of Davis are going to step up to the plate to provide land use that facilitates social services?
Woodland actually has a mission that provides food and housing for hundreds. Does Davis have a similar permanent facility? No. It moves around from place to place so as not to upset any one neighborhood.
Woodland is the location of a large facility for the Yolo County Housing Authority. Davis has a few locations that are a fraction of the size of the one in Woodland or West Sacramento.
The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?
I don’t want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.
I hear many of you claiming that you desire social services to be provided — just not in Davis. That part is left out. Somewhere else in Yolo County would be fine.
The largest piece of industrial zoned property in the unincorporated part of Yolo County is Covell Village. How about that location?
The re-entry facility is something that we are going to work through over the coming weeks and even years.
My question for you is — what land is Davis going to set aside for some of these things?
When some of you question my desire to do these things I simply point to the leadership Woodland took to place the Wayfarer Center over the objections of a few neighbors. My vote was the deciding one and my involvement was great. Woodland did that. Davis?
It seems funny to me that for all the social programs that the people that read this blog are likely to advocate for — the use of land in your precious city never seems to be part of the message.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
never thought i’d say this, but rexroad is dead to rights here. living in a society, an economy and a criminal justice system that create the need for these social services, being perfectly OK with those services existing in some other city, but pitching a fit when they’re proposed to be in one’s own town is the height of hypocrisy.
we do it with affordable housing as well.
never thought i’d say this, but rexroad is dead to rights here. living in a society, an economy and a criminal justice system that create the need for these social services, being perfectly OK with those services existing in some other city, but pitching a fit when they’re proposed to be in one’s own town is the height of hypocrisy.
we do it with affordable housing as well.
never thought i’d say this, but rexroad is dead to rights here. living in a society, an economy and a criminal justice system that create the need for these social services, being perfectly OK with those services existing in some other city, but pitching a fit when they’re proposed to be in one’s own town is the height of hypocrisy.
we do it with affordable housing as well.
never thought i’d say this, but rexroad is dead to rights here. living in a society, an economy and a criminal justice system that create the need for these social services, being perfectly OK with those services existing in some other city, but pitching a fit when they’re proposed to be in one’s own town is the height of hypocrisy.
we do it with affordable housing as well.
“The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?
I don’t want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.”
What, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle in Davis, which has 1/3 disabled, including the mentally ill, doesn’t count? How about the new Caesar Chavez facility in Davis, which is not a facility for seniors, but houses those who are disabled physically or mentally, including those w drug problems, etc. YCCC has been in existence for years. Davis is stepping up to the plate, thank you very much Mr. Rexroad. Furthermore, Woodland is the county seat, so is the reason a lot of county services orginate there!
I can perfectly understand why no community wants a penal re-entry facility in its backyard. If you don’t mind it in your backyard Mr. Rexroad, then bully for you – but obviously your fellow city members don’t agree. A re-entry facility is a prison facility that can morph from a benign to a more sinister facility if the state so chooses. I watched this happen in the state I come from on the East Coast.
Furthermore, as an intellectual excercise, your point may be well taken when it comes to fairness. But as a practical matter, I do not blame any city for not wanting such a facility in their backyard. So why not situate such a facility out in the middle of nowhere, or if that is not feasible for whatever reason, then next to an already existing prison facility?
And frankly, I really don’t understand the resistance to having inmates do farm work. It is honest labor, they can grow their own food, which is self sustaining and gives a sense of independence. Programs where inmates care for animals has been shown to turn around the lives of career criminals. This is not just a pie in the sky idea. It has been tried in other states, and had great success.
I’ll go one step further. Give a person a fish, feed them for a day; teach them how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. Farming is an honest vocation that does not require book learning, but practical common sense.
“The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?
I don’t want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.”
What, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle in Davis, which has 1/3 disabled, including the mentally ill, doesn’t count? How about the new Caesar Chavez facility in Davis, which is not a facility for seniors, but houses those who are disabled physically or mentally, including those w drug problems, etc. YCCC has been in existence for years. Davis is stepping up to the plate, thank you very much Mr. Rexroad. Furthermore, Woodland is the county seat, so is the reason a lot of county services orginate there!
I can perfectly understand why no community wants a penal re-entry facility in its backyard. If you don’t mind it in your backyard Mr. Rexroad, then bully for you – but obviously your fellow city members don’t agree. A re-entry facility is a prison facility that can morph from a benign to a more sinister facility if the state so chooses. I watched this happen in the state I come from on the East Coast.
Furthermore, as an intellectual excercise, your point may be well taken when it comes to fairness. But as a practical matter, I do not blame any city for not wanting such a facility in their backyard. So why not situate such a facility out in the middle of nowhere, or if that is not feasible for whatever reason, then next to an already existing prison facility?
And frankly, I really don’t understand the resistance to having inmates do farm work. It is honest labor, they can grow their own food, which is self sustaining and gives a sense of independence. Programs where inmates care for animals has been shown to turn around the lives of career criminals. This is not just a pie in the sky idea. It has been tried in other states, and had great success.
I’ll go one step further. Give a person a fish, feed them for a day; teach them how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. Farming is an honest vocation that does not require book learning, but practical common sense.
“The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?
I don’t want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.”
What, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle in Davis, which has 1/3 disabled, including the mentally ill, doesn’t count? How about the new Caesar Chavez facility in Davis, which is not a facility for seniors, but houses those who are disabled physically or mentally, including those w drug problems, etc. YCCC has been in existence for years. Davis is stepping up to the plate, thank you very much Mr. Rexroad. Furthermore, Woodland is the county seat, so is the reason a lot of county services orginate there!
I can perfectly understand why no community wants a penal re-entry facility in its backyard. If you don’t mind it in your backyard Mr. Rexroad, then bully for you – but obviously your fellow city members don’t agree. A re-entry facility is a prison facility that can morph from a benign to a more sinister facility if the state so chooses. I watched this happen in the state I come from on the East Coast.
Furthermore, as an intellectual excercise, your point may be well taken when it comes to fairness. But as a practical matter, I do not blame any city for not wanting such a facility in their backyard. So why not situate such a facility out in the middle of nowhere, or if that is not feasible for whatever reason, then next to an already existing prison facility?
And frankly, I really don’t understand the resistance to having inmates do farm work. It is honest labor, they can grow their own food, which is self sustaining and gives a sense of independence. Programs where inmates care for animals has been shown to turn around the lives of career criminals. This is not just a pie in the sky idea. It has been tried in other states, and had great success.
I’ll go one step further. Give a person a fish, feed them for a day; teach them how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. Farming is an honest vocation that does not require book learning, but practical common sense.
“The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?
I don’t want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.”
What, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle in Davis, which has 1/3 disabled, including the mentally ill, doesn’t count? How about the new Caesar Chavez facility in Davis, which is not a facility for seniors, but houses those who are disabled physically or mentally, including those w drug problems, etc. YCCC has been in existence for years. Davis is stepping up to the plate, thank you very much Mr. Rexroad. Furthermore, Woodland is the county seat, so is the reason a lot of county services orginate there!
I can perfectly understand why no community wants a penal re-entry facility in its backyard. If you don’t mind it in your backyard Mr. Rexroad, then bully for you – but obviously your fellow city members don’t agree. A re-entry facility is a prison facility that can morph from a benign to a more sinister facility if the state so chooses. I watched this happen in the state I come from on the East Coast.
Furthermore, as an intellectual excercise, your point may be well taken when it comes to fairness. But as a practical matter, I do not blame any city for not wanting such a facility in their backyard. So why not situate such a facility out in the middle of nowhere, or if that is not feasible for whatever reason, then next to an already existing prison facility?
And frankly, I really don’t understand the resistance to having inmates do farm work. It is honest labor, they can grow their own food, which is self sustaining and gives a sense of independence. Programs where inmates care for animals has been shown to turn around the lives of career criminals. This is not just a pie in the sky idea. It has been tried in other states, and had great success.
I’ll go one step further. Give a person a fish, feed them for a day; teach them how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. Farming is an honest vocation that does not require book learning, but practical common sense.
There are a number of issues that keep getting left out of these discussions. One has to do with whether or not these types of facilities will actually be effective in achieving their goals. Is there any evidence that making new “friendlier” facilities will do anything that couldn’t be done in the existing prison facilites given an equal amount of funding and trained personnel. My guess is that it could be done in existing facilities if there were room and funding to do so. There probably isn’t any need to create specially designed facilities. The reason that it isn’t done that way is that there is not enough room, the current prisons are over populated. If my suspicion is true, then the issue really isn’t with whether or not additional care is needed, or if we should be doing something to integrate prisoners back into society. There is clearly a need to do something more than we are doing at the present time. The real issue is that there are not enough beds in the prison system. The effect of the new facilities is to increase the number of prison beds (not necessarily give more effective training). Because these beds will undoubtedly be very expensive compared to standard prisons (to make them more “comfortable”), it will take more money to fix the problem of overcrowding this way than if we just addressed the real problems head on.
Also, it should be pointed out that whoever designed the bill authorizing these facilities made it very clear that they are to be sited in urban areas, and NOT in rural areas. It is clear that the reason is that they had information indicating that they would work one way, but not the other. Do the Supervisors have some sort of special knowledge that allows them to override this point of view? Are they enough of experts in the field to be qualified to say that placing them in rural areas is equivalent to placing them into rural areas? I think not.
It looks to me that these facilities are the State’s attempt to put a band aid on the prison overcrowding problem. The reason that the County is interested is that they can get “free” money from the State. Rexroad was very clear that the reason that he wants this facility is to get the money being offered by the State (which the taxpayers pay for by the way), and the reason for picking on the rural areas is that the people who live there are powerless to stop the political steamroller.
I agree that something needs to be done to help the prisoners re-enter society as productive citizens. However, it is not clear that the approach of using new, re-entry facilities is the best or most cost effective answer, particularly since they apparently can’t be implemented as required by the law (in urban areas). It seems like putting them into rural areas negates almost all of the reasons why they might provide an advantage if located properly.
There are a number of issues that keep getting left out of these discussions. One has to do with whether or not these types of facilities will actually be effective in achieving their goals. Is there any evidence that making new “friendlier” facilities will do anything that couldn’t be done in the existing prison facilites given an equal amount of funding and trained personnel. My guess is that it could be done in existing facilities if there were room and funding to do so. There probably isn’t any need to create specially designed facilities. The reason that it isn’t done that way is that there is not enough room, the current prisons are over populated. If my suspicion is true, then the issue really isn’t with whether or not additional care is needed, or if we should be doing something to integrate prisoners back into society. There is clearly a need to do something more than we are doing at the present time. The real issue is that there are not enough beds in the prison system. The effect of the new facilities is to increase the number of prison beds (not necessarily give more effective training). Because these beds will undoubtedly be very expensive compared to standard prisons (to make them more “comfortable”), it will take more money to fix the problem of overcrowding this way than if we just addressed the real problems head on.
Also, it should be pointed out that whoever designed the bill authorizing these facilities made it very clear that they are to be sited in urban areas, and NOT in rural areas. It is clear that the reason is that they had information indicating that they would work one way, but not the other. Do the Supervisors have some sort of special knowledge that allows them to override this point of view? Are they enough of experts in the field to be qualified to say that placing them in rural areas is equivalent to placing them into rural areas? I think not.
It looks to me that these facilities are the State’s attempt to put a band aid on the prison overcrowding problem. The reason that the County is interested is that they can get “free” money from the State. Rexroad was very clear that the reason that he wants this facility is to get the money being offered by the State (which the taxpayers pay for by the way), and the reason for picking on the rural areas is that the people who live there are powerless to stop the political steamroller.
I agree that something needs to be done to help the prisoners re-enter society as productive citizens. However, it is not clear that the approach of using new, re-entry facilities is the best or most cost effective answer, particularly since they apparently can’t be implemented as required by the law (in urban areas). It seems like putting them into rural areas negates almost all of the reasons why they might provide an advantage if located properly.
There are a number of issues that keep getting left out of these discussions. One has to do with whether or not these types of facilities will actually be effective in achieving their goals. Is there any evidence that making new “friendlier” facilities will do anything that couldn’t be done in the existing prison facilites given an equal amount of funding and trained personnel. My guess is that it could be done in existing facilities if there were room and funding to do so. There probably isn’t any need to create specially designed facilities. The reason that it isn’t done that way is that there is not enough room, the current prisons are over populated. If my suspicion is true, then the issue really isn’t with whether or not additional care is needed, or if we should be doing something to integrate prisoners back into society. There is clearly a need to do something more than we are doing at the present time. The real issue is that there are not enough beds in the prison system. The effect of the new facilities is to increase the number of prison beds (not necessarily give more effective training). Because these beds will undoubtedly be very expensive compared to standard prisons (to make them more “comfortable”), it will take more money to fix the problem of overcrowding this way than if we just addressed the real problems head on.
Also, it should be pointed out that whoever designed the bill authorizing these facilities made it very clear that they are to be sited in urban areas, and NOT in rural areas. It is clear that the reason is that they had information indicating that they would work one way, but not the other. Do the Supervisors have some sort of special knowledge that allows them to override this point of view? Are they enough of experts in the field to be qualified to say that placing them in rural areas is equivalent to placing them into rural areas? I think not.
It looks to me that these facilities are the State’s attempt to put a band aid on the prison overcrowding problem. The reason that the County is interested is that they can get “free” money from the State. Rexroad was very clear that the reason that he wants this facility is to get the money being offered by the State (which the taxpayers pay for by the way), and the reason for picking on the rural areas is that the people who live there are powerless to stop the political steamroller.
I agree that something needs to be done to help the prisoners re-enter society as productive citizens. However, it is not clear that the approach of using new, re-entry facilities is the best or most cost effective answer, particularly since they apparently can’t be implemented as required by the law (in urban areas). It seems like putting them into rural areas negates almost all of the reasons why they might provide an advantage if located properly.
There are a number of issues that keep getting left out of these discussions. One has to do with whether or not these types of facilities will actually be effective in achieving their goals. Is there any evidence that making new “friendlier” facilities will do anything that couldn’t be done in the existing prison facilites given an equal amount of funding and trained personnel. My guess is that it could be done in existing facilities if there were room and funding to do so. There probably isn’t any need to create specially designed facilities. The reason that it isn’t done that way is that there is not enough room, the current prisons are over populated. If my suspicion is true, then the issue really isn’t with whether or not additional care is needed, or if we should be doing something to integrate prisoners back into society. There is clearly a need to do something more than we are doing at the present time. The real issue is that there are not enough beds in the prison system. The effect of the new facilities is to increase the number of prison beds (not necessarily give more effective training). Because these beds will undoubtedly be very expensive compared to standard prisons (to make them more “comfortable”), it will take more money to fix the problem of overcrowding this way than if we just addressed the real problems head on.
Also, it should be pointed out that whoever designed the bill authorizing these facilities made it very clear that they are to be sited in urban areas, and NOT in rural areas. It is clear that the reason is that they had information indicating that they would work one way, but not the other. Do the Supervisors have some sort of special knowledge that allows them to override this point of view? Are they enough of experts in the field to be qualified to say that placing them in rural areas is equivalent to placing them into rural areas? I think not.
It looks to me that these facilities are the State’s attempt to put a band aid on the prison overcrowding problem. The reason that the County is interested is that they can get “free” money from the State. Rexroad was very clear that the reason that he wants this facility is to get the money being offered by the State (which the taxpayers pay for by the way), and the reason for picking on the rural areas is that the people who live there are powerless to stop the political steamroller.
I agree that something needs to be done to help the prisoners re-enter society as productive citizens. However, it is not clear that the approach of using new, re-entry facilities is the best or most cost effective answer, particularly since they apparently can’t be implemented as required by the law (in urban areas). It seems like putting them into rural areas negates almost all of the reasons why they might provide an advantage if located properly.
Dunnigan Resident…..
A prison placed in an area that is trying hard to develop for the people of the community is not the answer. People in general do not want to live by prisons. The idea that this facility will generate jobs for the locals goes without merit. What percentage of these jobs do you think the unincorporated communities will receive, let alone the local city of Woodland. If the total county gets 20% of these jobs it will be a amazing. In general the prison personel are brought in from other areas, and generally this personel does not want to live in the local area. There are of course exceptions and that is when prison’s are located in isolated areas where other local towns are to far away to commute.
Dunnigan is trying to develop so it can get services that are badly needed in this area. We want to become a viable town just like Davis, Winters, West Sac or even Woodland. If the necesary infrastructure was in place and Dunnigan had homes,business,jobs and services perhaps this would be looked at alot differently. However that is not the case, and placing a prison here would definetly hurt any development that was to take place.
AB 900 speaks of the necessary requirements needed for this idea to succeed. Dunnigan/Zamora are not against the idea of the re-entry facility, it may have some merit. What we are against is putting this facility in the rural communities where there are no services to offer. The bigger cities have all the necessary services, but they don’t want this facility in their back yard, they figure our small communities are a place to dumb their disgards. Well guys, its time to step up to the plate and do the right thing. If you strongly believe this is a good idea, then lets place it where it belongs, right on the edge of Woodland, Davis, West Sac or even Winters.
The rehabilitation idea is perhaps a good one, however placing this facility so far away from the necessary services and infrastructure needed is not. The county needs to make the right decision if they so badly want the $30 million because in essence this is what it is all about. The money for the Monroe Facility has already been placed in the budget, so what is the $30M for?
With regards to the person who indicated within time this could turn into a full blown prison, I totaly agree with you, because of the current problem with our prison system. Nothing is to stop the state from making these facilities into full blown prisons. You can call them anything you like they are still prison’s and will always remain that way in the public’s eye.
So before this county bites off their nose to spite their face they better take a long hard look at what they are getting into. This county does not have a track record for doing this.
No Prison’s in Rural Unincorporated Communities.
Prison’s belong in Urban areas.
A concerned Dunnigan resident.
Dunnigan Resident…..
A prison placed in an area that is trying hard to develop for the people of the community is not the answer. People in general do not want to live by prisons. The idea that this facility will generate jobs for the locals goes without merit. What percentage of these jobs do you think the unincorporated communities will receive, let alone the local city of Woodland. If the total county gets 20% of these jobs it will be a amazing. In general the prison personel are brought in from other areas, and generally this personel does not want to live in the local area. There are of course exceptions and that is when prison’s are located in isolated areas where other local towns are to far away to commute.
Dunnigan is trying to develop so it can get services that are badly needed in this area. We want to become a viable town just like Davis, Winters, West Sac or even Woodland. If the necesary infrastructure was in place and Dunnigan had homes,business,jobs and services perhaps this would be looked at alot differently. However that is not the case, and placing a prison here would definetly hurt any development that was to take place.
AB 900 speaks of the necessary requirements needed for this idea to succeed. Dunnigan/Zamora are not against the idea of the re-entry facility, it may have some merit. What we are against is putting this facility in the rural communities where there are no services to offer. The bigger cities have all the necessary services, but they don’t want this facility in their back yard, they figure our small communities are a place to dumb their disgards. Well guys, its time to step up to the plate and do the right thing. If you strongly believe this is a good idea, then lets place it where it belongs, right on the edge of Woodland, Davis, West Sac or even Winters.
The rehabilitation idea is perhaps a good one, however placing this facility so far away from the necessary services and infrastructure needed is not. The county needs to make the right decision if they so badly want the $30 million because in essence this is what it is all about. The money for the Monroe Facility has already been placed in the budget, so what is the $30M for?
With regards to the person who indicated within time this could turn into a full blown prison, I totaly agree with you, because of the current problem with our prison system. Nothing is to stop the state from making these facilities into full blown prisons. You can call them anything you like they are still prison’s and will always remain that way in the public’s eye.
So before this county bites off their nose to spite their face they better take a long hard look at what they are getting into. This county does not have a track record for doing this.
No Prison’s in Rural Unincorporated Communities.
Prison’s belong in Urban areas.
A concerned Dunnigan resident.
Dunnigan Resident…..
A prison placed in an area that is trying hard to develop for the people of the community is not the answer. People in general do not want to live by prisons. The idea that this facility will generate jobs for the locals goes without merit. What percentage of these jobs do you think the unincorporated communities will receive, let alone the local city of Woodland. If the total county gets 20% of these jobs it will be a amazing. In general the prison personel are brought in from other areas, and generally this personel does not want to live in the local area. There are of course exceptions and that is when prison’s are located in isolated areas where other local towns are to far away to commute.
Dunnigan is trying to develop so it can get services that are badly needed in this area. We want to become a viable town just like Davis, Winters, West Sac or even Woodland. If the necesary infrastructure was in place and Dunnigan had homes,business,jobs and services perhaps this would be looked at alot differently. However that is not the case, and placing a prison here would definetly hurt any development that was to take place.
AB 900 speaks of the necessary requirements needed for this idea to succeed. Dunnigan/Zamora are not against the idea of the re-entry facility, it may have some merit. What we are against is putting this facility in the rural communities where there are no services to offer. The bigger cities have all the necessary services, but they don’t want this facility in their back yard, they figure our small communities are a place to dumb their disgards. Well guys, its time to step up to the plate and do the right thing. If you strongly believe this is a good idea, then lets place it where it belongs, right on the edge of Woodland, Davis, West Sac or even Winters.
The rehabilitation idea is perhaps a good one, however placing this facility so far away from the necessary services and infrastructure needed is not. The county needs to make the right decision if they so badly want the $30 million because in essence this is what it is all about. The money for the Monroe Facility has already been placed in the budget, so what is the $30M for?
With regards to the person who indicated within time this could turn into a full blown prison, I totaly agree with you, because of the current problem with our prison system. Nothing is to stop the state from making these facilities into full blown prisons. You can call them anything you like they are still prison’s and will always remain that way in the public’s eye.
So before this county bites off their nose to spite their face they better take a long hard look at what they are getting into. This county does not have a track record for doing this.
No Prison’s in Rural Unincorporated Communities.
Prison’s belong in Urban areas.
A concerned Dunnigan resident.
Dunnigan Resident…..
A prison placed in an area that is trying hard to develop for the people of the community is not the answer. People in general do not want to live by prisons. The idea that this facility will generate jobs for the locals goes without merit. What percentage of these jobs do you think the unincorporated communities will receive, let alone the local city of Woodland. If the total county gets 20% of these jobs it will be a amazing. In general the prison personel are brought in from other areas, and generally this personel does not want to live in the local area. There are of course exceptions and that is when prison’s are located in isolated areas where other local towns are to far away to commute.
Dunnigan is trying to develop so it can get services that are badly needed in this area. We want to become a viable town just like Davis, Winters, West Sac or even Woodland. If the necesary infrastructure was in place and Dunnigan had homes,business,jobs and services perhaps this would be looked at alot differently. However that is not the case, and placing a prison here would definetly hurt any development that was to take place.
AB 900 speaks of the necessary requirements needed for this idea to succeed. Dunnigan/Zamora are not against the idea of the re-entry facility, it may have some merit. What we are against is putting this facility in the rural communities where there are no services to offer. The bigger cities have all the necessary services, but they don’t want this facility in their back yard, they figure our small communities are a place to dumb their disgards. Well guys, its time to step up to the plate and do the right thing. If you strongly believe this is a good idea, then lets place it where it belongs, right on the edge of Woodland, Davis, West Sac or even Winters.
The rehabilitation idea is perhaps a good one, however placing this facility so far away from the necessary services and infrastructure needed is not. The county needs to make the right decision if they so badly want the $30 million because in essence this is what it is all about. The money for the Monroe Facility has already been placed in the budget, so what is the $30M for?
With regards to the person who indicated within time this could turn into a full blown prison, I totaly agree with you, because of the current problem with our prison system. Nothing is to stop the state from making these facilities into full blown prisons. You can call them anything you like they are still prison’s and will always remain that way in the public’s eye.
So before this county bites off their nose to spite their face they better take a long hard look at what they are getting into. This county does not have a track record for doing this.
No Prison’s in Rural Unincorporated Communities.
Prison’s belong in Urban areas.
A concerned Dunnigan resident.
Lets face it. The only reason the Supervisors are shoving it down the throats of the residents in Zamora/Dunnigan is because we can’t fight back and say HELL NO! We don’t have the same rights as a “City” does. That and it’s better for them politically to piss off hundreds of voters vs. thousands in Davis or Woodland. If they are stupid enough to put this facility in a rural area with no infrastructure to support it, why don’t they put it where NO ONE lives? Better yet, use the abandoned DQU facility instead of ripping more resources out of the ground! Oh wait, you’d have to have a minuscule amount of common sense to figure that out and that factor doesn’t apply to Government!
Lets face it. The only reason the Supervisors are shoving it down the throats of the residents in Zamora/Dunnigan is because we can’t fight back and say HELL NO! We don’t have the same rights as a “City” does. That and it’s better for them politically to piss off hundreds of voters vs. thousands in Davis or Woodland. If they are stupid enough to put this facility in a rural area with no infrastructure to support it, why don’t they put it where NO ONE lives? Better yet, use the abandoned DQU facility instead of ripping more resources out of the ground! Oh wait, you’d have to have a minuscule amount of common sense to figure that out and that factor doesn’t apply to Government!
Lets face it. The only reason the Supervisors are shoving it down the throats of the residents in Zamora/Dunnigan is because we can’t fight back and say HELL NO! We don’t have the same rights as a “City” does. That and it’s better for them politically to piss off hundreds of voters vs. thousands in Davis or Woodland. If they are stupid enough to put this facility in a rural area with no infrastructure to support it, why don’t they put it where NO ONE lives? Better yet, use the abandoned DQU facility instead of ripping more resources out of the ground! Oh wait, you’d have to have a minuscule amount of common sense to figure that out and that factor doesn’t apply to Government!
Lets face it. The only reason the Supervisors are shoving it down the throats of the residents in Zamora/Dunnigan is because we can’t fight back and say HELL NO! We don’t have the same rights as a “City” does. That and it’s better for them politically to piss off hundreds of voters vs. thousands in Davis or Woodland. If they are stupid enough to put this facility in a rural area with no infrastructure to support it, why don’t they put it where NO ONE lives? Better yet, use the abandoned DQU facility instead of ripping more resources out of the ground! Oh wait, you’d have to have a minuscule amount of common sense to figure that out and that factor doesn’t apply to Government!