Anti-Phase III Motion Passes, but New Resolution Raises Doubts
The New Orleans City Council’s Criminal Justice Committee convened July 27th to discuss the motion, M-21-276, which was deferred during their July 17thgeneral meeting. At that previous meeting, the council unanimously voted for R-21-274, which signaled that the Council would “strongly support a retrofit of the current jail, specifically the Option 3 retrofit plans in the July 23, 2020 JFA Institute report, over a new Phase III building.”
The motion would pass 5-0 and a new resolution would be deferred for vote until a later date. The issue at-hand is the planned construction of a new jail facility for detainees with acute and sub-acute mental health issues. In line with the federal consent decree placed on New Orleans seven years ago, U.S. District Judge Lance Africk has maintained the necessity of this facility, despite massive positive shifts in the New Orleans criminal justice system and unified public opposition to the new facility. The Mayor’s office has consistently opposed the facility and has appealed it in court. Community groups, such as the Orleans Parish Prison Reform Coalition (OPPRC), have also consistently opposed any new jail development and stand behind the retrofit option. Now the city watches the council.
M-21-276, authored by councilmembers Palmer and Banks, was intended to direct the City Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing to consider amendments to existing ordinances that established a conditional use permit for the Phase III facility, such that the retrofit option could be considered on equal footing as Phase III by the CPC. That was the intent, at least, but the opening presentation and read letter from Bob Rivers, Executive Director of the CPC, added nuance to the ongoing discourse.
The Committee meeting opened with a presentation by James Austin, corrections consultant and president of the JFA Institute, Pres Kabacoff, developer and criminal justice reform advocate, and William Snowden, director of the Vera Institute of Justice’s New Orleans office. James Austin and his JFA Institute did the original research to suggest that a retrofit option would be sufficient to reach constitutional compliance. Judge Africk has repeatedly denied the possibility of a retrofit alternative, but Judge Africk has also never seen the data and images shown by Austin during his presentation to the council.
Read the full article here: https://www.bigeasymagazine.com/2021/07/28/anti-phase-iii-motion-passes-but-new-resolution-raises-doubts/