Sen. George Runner isn’t your typically crazy Republican. No, you have to give credit where credit is due, he goes way beyond that. His voter initiatives (some funded by an indicted meth and coke “wharehouser” Henry Nicholas) are really excellent examples of ToughOnCrimeTM run amok. Last year, he actually had one of his initiatives defeated, Prop 6. Usually that type of poor policy pandering is rewarded, but don’t cry for Runner as he was able to get an expensive parole measure passed, Prop 9.
But, Runner is always running some game. And back before he passed “Jessica’s Law” he was trying to block parolees from other parts of Los Angeles County from moving to his district in the Antelope Valley. Interestingly, he even got the CA Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation to play along:
In what state Sen. George Runner characterized as a “side agreement” with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the prison and parole agency said it would limit assignments of released offenders into the Antelope Valley to those who had “historical ties” to the area. The agreement created an added layer of anti-parolee protection for the fast-growing desert valley communities on the northern fringe of Los Angeles County.
State law mandates only that parolees be returned to the county of their last legal residence. In vast Los Angeles County, for instance, an inmate from South Central Los Angeles could be paroled to Lancaster. (SacBee 6/23/09)
The truly sketchy thing about this whole affair, as Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter) pointed out, is that this deal occured a few months before Jessica’s Law was approved. If you recall, many inland legislators, like Sen. Florez, were concerned that parolees would not be able to find suitable places under the new law to live except these spread out areas like, say, the Antelope Valley.
Apparently what is good for the goose wasn’t really good for Runner’s gander. So, while he was running the Jessica’s Law initiative, he was also agreeing to “side deals” with CDCR to make sure that parolees wouldn’t be shipped to his district. It is some of the most cynical NIMBYism that I’ve ever seen, and, frankly, that’s saying a lot.
If Runner wants to serve his constituents, fine, then do that. But perhaps when he’s writing initiatives for the state, he could consider what is the best policy for the state instead of what’s best for his political career.