Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prop 36 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Marcos council backs Prop 36 resolution after hours of public comment, 4–1
Summary
After extended public testimony for and against, the San Marcos City Council voted 4–1 to approve Resolution 20 24 93 60 endorsing Prop 36, a statewide ballot measure that would amend Prop 47 to add tougher penalties for repeat retail theft and mandate treatment options for certain drug offenses.
The San Marcos City Council voted 4–1 Sept. 24 to approve Resolution 20 24 93 60 expressing support for Prop 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, after nearly two hours of public comment and more than an hour of council debate.
“Prop 36 incentivizes drug and mental health treatment,” Mayor Jones said in presenting the measure, describing it as a bipartisan approach that would restore tools for judges and prosecutors while offering mandated treatment and potential expungement for those who complete treatment. The resolution cited concerns about repeat retail theft and fentanyl-related harms and urged voters to consider the ballot measure.
Public speakers were sharply divided. Alan Garchi, a longtime local prosecutor, urged the council to oppose the measure, warning it would strip judicial discretion, increase incarceration and cost taxpayers billions. “Please do not pass this resolution,” he told the council. By contrast, Sandy Niso of the Neighborhood Market Association said Prop 36 would help small businesses and give law enforcement needed tools to stop organized retail theft.
Several community organizations and individuals also addressed the council. Speakers opposed to the resolution warned it would expand incarceration, divert funds from existing treatment programs and worsen homelessness; supporters said it would strengthen penalties for serial theft and create treatment-mandated options for people with repeated drug convictions. The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce sent a letter read into the record expressing its support.
Council members weighed competing policy goals: public safety, treatment capacity and racial and economic equity. Council Member Musgrove, citing experience in law enforcement and the county’s post‑Prop 47 context, said the measure would restore some tools for courts to direct people into treatment rather than rely solely on release, and said he supported the resolution. Council Member Nunez said she could not support it because she doubted the availability of treatment beds and feared a return to ‘tough-on-crime’ approaches; she cast the lone no vote.
The motion to approve the resolution was made by Mayor Jones and seconded from the dais; the council recorded a 4–1 vote in favor. The resolution number, as read on the agenda, is 20 24 93 60.
What happens next: the action is a council expression of support; it does not change local law. The council did not adopt any local ordinance tied to Prop 36. The measure will appear on the statewide ballot and any implementation would be governed by state statute and the courts.
