San Diego supervisors direct fiscal analysis of Proposition 36 after heated public hearing

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to direct the county chief administrative officer (CAO) to analyze the fiscal and programmatic impacts of a possible passage of Proposition 36 and to return to the board with a multi‑scenario analysis for consideration before taking a formal position.

The action came after more than an hour of public comment and presentations from proponents and opponents. District Attorney Summer Steffen told the board Proposition 36, titled the Homeless Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, would create new tools to address organized retail theft and the fentanyl crisis and offers courts alternatives such as mandated treatment; she described the measure as “balanced” and said roughly 900,000 Californians had signed petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot. Opponents — including criminal‑justice reform advocates, community groups and people with lived experience of incarceration and homelessness — warned the measure would reverse Proposition 47’s reallocation of funds to mental‑health, housing and reentry services and could increase incarceration of people with behavioral health needs.

Why it matters: Proposition 36 would amend the state constitution. Supporters say it closes loopholes that enabled repeat theft, strengthens penalties for certain fentanyl sales that cause death or serious injury, and creates new pathways to treatment tied to criminal penalties. Opponents say it would redirect money away from community‑based behavioral health, housing and prevention programs that advocates argue reduce crime and homelessness.

What members said: Supervisor Jim Desmond said the county must provide safety and consequences alongside services and urged the board to support the measure; Vice Chair Tara Lawson Reimer said she was concerned about diverting existing mental‑health funding and moved that the CAO return with a detailed fiscal analysis and scenario planning. Chairwoman Nora Vargas said she would not support a position that risks cutting current treatment and prevention funding; several supervisors framed the item as a balance between public safety and investments in behavioral health and housing.

Public testimony: The clerk recorded 39 in‑person speakers and 14 callers registered for the Prop 36 item; county staff also reported 45 emailed comments (29 in favor, 16 opposed). Proponents included neighborhood merchants and the Neighborhood Market Association, who said organized retail theft and repeat offenders are harming small businesses; opponents included the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, Lived Experience Advisors and community organizers who said empirical data shows property crime and shoplifting in the county have fallen (speakers and staff cited a county figure of a 21% drop in shoplifting since 2019) and that returning to felony‑oriented approaches would disproportionally harm people of color and the unhoused.

Board action and next steps: The board voted on a motion to direct the CAO to prepare a multi‑scenario fiscal analysis focused on behavioral health, housing and homelessness programs and to return with findings for the board’s further consideration. The clerk recorded that Supervisors Joel Anderson and Jim Desmond voted no; the remaining supervisors voted aye and the motion passed. The CAO will prepare the requested analysis and return it to the board for further deliberation.

The item did not itself change county policy; instead the board asked staff to quantify potential tradeoffs so supervisors can decide whether the county should take a formal position before the statewide ballot.