Erin, Tobin, daughter Reagan, son Alex

Click here to read Tobin's Biography

Go slowly, get the parolee answer right

I was elected to the San Bernardino City Council in November. Crime was a big issue in the campaign. Measure Z was also on the ballot, and the debate centered on the rising murder rate, particularly the murder of Mynisha Crenshaw.

I met with the mayor and most of the council members as well as City Attorney Jim Penman before and during the campaign. At that time no one raised the issue that parolees were a problem, not Penman, not the mayor, not one council member, not the media - no one.

Yet the data and simple logic suggests that parolees were returning to our city at that time like they are now and have for many years. Given the desire to convince voters to support Measure Z, it would have been easy to raise the parolee issue as a factor to help justify our need to hire more cops.

Yet, not one elected official raised the issue. The newspaper did not run long articles about the scourge of parolees. There were no daily letters to the editor attacking the mayor or Penman for their actions or lack of action.

So, I was elected, and Measure Z passed by a large margin.

In January and February, the council debated what the Measure Z oversight committee would look like. Would it be an audit committee or would it have true oversight? Our first Measure Z budget did not have a line item to address how we would deal with the immediate parolee problem. No reporters called me to find out my position on the parolee issue.

There has been no explosive event like the murder of Mynisha Crenshaw to galvanize the community into demanding action on this issue.

Recently, however, in a small neighborhood on King Street in the 3rd Ward, a parolee home with 13-plus parolees did spring up.

The "sober living" facility skirts the intent of our laws by housing six parolees per bungalow on a rundown property that has been adapted to maximize the number of renters at a cheap rent.

Should they be allowed to live there? No. I believe we should not have large parolee group homes in single-family residential neighborhoods - especially when they skirt the law's intent to limit unlicensed group homes to six people by adding converted garage bungalows.

We must balance the rights of the families in that neighborhood against those of the parolees.

Unfortunately, the criminal mind looks for loopholes and ways to take advantage of law-abiding citizens. These unlicensed "sober living" facilities, however well-intentioned, fail the smell test.

The city should do something about it, and now we have.

We have enacted a moratorium on unlicensed group homes. Police, fire, code enforcement and the City Attorney's Office have begun to deal with the issues on King Street. The council has asked for a study session to look for other possible solutions to the parolee problem.

Now the debate has shifted to when that study session will be. Some argue for an immediate hearing so that council members can weigh-in on the issue. Others, myself included, have asked that we wait until after the upcoming election.

The community deserves to know my reasons for wanting to wait.

First, there is no urgency because parolees will never go away, and they will continue to come to our city. San Bernardino is home to the bus station where parolees are dropped off upon return from prison, and the parole department has its building, where parolees must report when they are released, in our city.

Second, our current approach to parolees is reactive and only says where they cannot live. We risk creating a growing homeless parolee population if we don't provide positive housing alternatives.

Third, the state parole department is the responsible agency, not the city. Any action that we take without coordinating with parole risks duplication of efforts at best and contradictory efforts at worst.

Fourth, our elected city officials are not parole experts. As policymakers, we have a responsibility to seek out experts and work to craft good policy. If we rush, we risk looking like we are acting out of political motives, and even worse, making bad policy based on feelings, not facts.

As a reason to move quickly, some will point to the three-judge panel that is currently examining the state prison system with an eye toward capping our prison population, which would result in thousands of new parolees in our communities. In reality, the serious threat of thousands of new parolees requires that we act smarter, not faster.

I am committed to dealing with this issue. Public safety must not be compromised. I have supported the moratorium and the actions to help the residents of King Street. I will support smart, thoughtful policy that is backed by expert research and testimony.

San Bernardino cannot allow the upcoming elections and the desire to do something to create a situation in which we either melt down in a political battle royal or make a hasty decision that results in more parolee crime.

I am arguing for a process focused on reducing parolee crime that fosters consensus and avoids political grandstanding in favor of rational debate outside of the pressure cooker of the upcoming elections.

We must do a better job than we have in the past. Our citizens are counting on us to get it right.

Tobin Brinker is a member of the San Bernardino City Council. He represents the 3rd Ward.

Click here to view Tobin's list of endorsements