Lots of groups! Lots of ideas! Lots of action! ONE great website!
Sheriff Bosenko, during Feb. 11 2013 "Free Fire Radio" broadcast might not have told the truth in his statement concerning the proposed non-custodial facility. He claimed, contrary to statement he gave in Board of Supervisors' chamber during Feb. 5 2013 meeting, that the facility was not only custodial, but that there were "medium security elements" to it.
Но что есть истина? (But what is the truth?)
At the Feb. 5 2013 BOS meeting, different members of the Board questioned Sheriff Bosenko concerning the nature of the facility proposed. And when asked what was meant by "minimum security," Sheriff Bosenko responded that inmates would be able to walk away at any time.
'Tis too bad the BOS meetings are not podcast (after the manner in which Redding City Council meetings be podcast)! If Feb. 5 2013 BOS meeting had been so podcast, the truth about what was said would be there for any & all!!!
What we need is additional CUSTODY beds, NOT any kind of in-town NON-CUSTODIAL facility that even Sheriff Bosenko (at Feb. 5 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting) admitted to be insecure enough for an inmate to simply walk away at will! For all practical purposes, the facility might just as well have sign on door saying, "Please don't leave! Pretty please! With sugar on top!" If all the proposed facility has to offer, in the way of security, is "pretty please," then the proposed facility is categorically unacceptable! What we need is more custody beds, NOT more "pretty please!" And the proposed facility has nothing to offer, in the way of security, beyond "pretty please." Unacceptable!
It would be far too easy for "inmate" (of any given in-town non-custodial "custody" facility) to make quick round trip between facility & any (drug) connection(s) he/she may have nearby. Small-scale piece-meal smuggling of contraband be far too easy in the case of facility that is only NOMINALLY custodial, only NOMINALLY secure, one that is, in fact, not secure at all! There are already problems enough without the proposed INSECURE FACILITY being substituted for any kind of custodial facility that might have been sited in its place (such as, re-openned Detention Annex (as secure custody facility)).
Given the location* of said facility, given the proximity of it to single-family residences, apartment complexes, a mobilehome park, & an elementary school, & given the level of "security" that was spoken of, by Bosenko (at Feb. 5 2013 BOS meeting), the proposed facility is, for all practical purposes, NON-CUSTODIAL. Despite all of Bosenko's protestations to the contrary, the proposed facility is, for all practical purposes, NON-CUSTODIAL!!
*Keep in mind that, unlike the location proposed for the facility in question, fire camps are in remote locations, sufficiently remote for persons stationed there to be unable, without assistance, to not only escape (to "safe houses"), but to also obtain contraband (for small-scale smuggling back into camp), or to commit some other new law violation. Likewise, the former Chrystal Creek camp facility location is also similarly remote. Breslaur Ln. area, being situated as it is, is not fit at all for facility that is insecure against escape, such as what was described at Feb. 5 2013 BOS meeting. Remoteness of location can often be barrier to escape attempt, smuggling, & the like. Breslaur Ln. area, being situated as it is, has not at all the benefit of remoteness.
Подождите. Там больше. (Wait. There's more.)
During Feb. 11 2013 "Free Fire Radio" broadcast, Bosenko claimed facility to have "medium security elements" to it. But what was his characterisation of the proposed facility when he spoke of it to the Board of Supervisors at Feb. 5 2013 meeting?
Bosenko, at Feb. 5 2013 BOS meeting, stated that the level of security would be by no means "Medium security," that "medium security" was simply too expensive to attempt. Incidentally, during Feb. 11 2013 "Free Fire Radio" broadcast, he claimed that reopenning of "Detention Annex" as secure custody facility to be too expensive. Secure custody facility too expensive, but insecure, non-custodial "custody" facility is not, so stated Bosenko.
If cost difference between secure facility & insecure facility somehow justifies institution of insecure facility, then why even have any kind of secure facility, at all, for Main Jail facility? After all, there are cost savings to be realised. Why not simply have parking garage with pop-tents that residents thereof can leave & re-enter at immediate pleasure? Considering the persons held in Main Jail, the very idea that such persons should be housed, instead, at such insecure facility is categorically INSANE!! The want of custody beds, pre-July 2012, incentivised the FTA situation with which we were all confronted.
We ALREADY have a Day Report Center, sited Downtown, openning expected for April 2013!!
What manner of persons are to be housed at proposed insecure, non-custodial facility?
Under AB_109 schema, a.k.a. "Re-Alignment," persons to be housed will be the so-called "non-non-nons." Non-non-nons, incidentally, include such drug traffickers as the one caught with several pounds of contraband. And what about that person who was caught with many stolen firearms in his possession? He was another "non-non-non," as was a recent infamous serial car thief. Persons convicted merely of "bad check writing" will likely not even serve time in any kind of facility, custodial or non-custodial. So, to leave people with impression that only the most minor of offenders will be housed at proposed non-custodial facility is to mislead, indeed!
For what purpose is the misleading taking place (concerning proposed non-custodial facility)?
Could part of it be shame (not mere embarassment, but outright shame) concerning what the proposed facility would be & who will ultimately be housed there?
Вопрос (Question): Did Sheriff Bosenko mislead when he spoke (during Feb. 11 2013 "Free Fire Radio" broadcast) of proposed Breslaur Ln. area INSECURE facility?
Conversely, if he misled Shasta BOS, at Feb. 5 2013 meeting, WHY?
The explanation offered by Bosenko (during Feb. 11 2013 "Free Fire Radio" broadcast) gives rise to more questions than any for which he provided satisfactory answer.
Дополнительный Вопрос (Additional Question): Would the failure, in late-2007 / early-2008 to site Re-Entry facility at Breslaur have anything at all to do with the drive to site proposed INSECURE facility in Breslaur Ln. area?
Дополнительный Вопрос: Would failures, both in 2008 & in 2012, to site Day Report Center in Breslaur Ln. area have anything at all to do with the drive to site proposed INSECURE facility in Breslaur area?
We who oppose now what we opposed 5 ½ years ago must remember now, as we did then: