Residents Say No to Parole Office
By Janet Dang

After several weeks of intense mobilization, a large group of residents in the southeastern part of the city succeeded in garnering the support from the city in their effort to oppose a state parole office from moving into their neighborhood. On Monday, the Board of Supervisors voted 10-to-1 to urge the State Department of Corrections not to find another location away from residential areas. Supervisor Sue Bierman was the only dissenter.

The department had first notified the city on Mar. 23 with its plan to move a parole office to a facility on 1970 Carroll Ave., in the Bayview neighborhood. The proposal outraged residents—who are largely Asian American and African American. Most say they were never consulted, and accused the state Department of Corrections of trying to circumvent public scrutiny.

Already10,000 residents have signed a petition in opposition, saying that the office could reduce property values and bring crime to the residential neighborhood. After several contentious neighborhood meetings, a consensus formed, and the board voted to approve a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Mabel Teng. The advisory measure, though, is symbolic and legally non-binding. The state correctional facility has full discretion to proceed with its plan to move to the proposed location.

The board’s decision was made after a Housing and Social Policy Committee hearing chaired by Supervisor Mabel Teng.

Over three hundred people—mostly of Asian descent—packed city hall’s board chamber Monday. Two Cantonese translators were present to help facilitate the meeting.

Marlene Tran, a member of the Visitacion Valley Task Force, called the proposed move to a residential area where children, elderly and families conduct their business, “totally inappropriate.” She also said that the increased likelihood of running into violators would jeopardize the non-English speaking residents, who are often afraid of seeking help from the police.

While most residents agree that parolees need a rehabilitative facility, many said that office should be located in nonresidential sections of the city.

One by one people came before Supervisors Teng, Bierman and Alicia Becerril, who are members of the committee, testifying that over the last decade, businesses, schools, day care and community centers have been erected to make the area more family-friendly. Moving a parole office to Bayview, they fear, will bring parolees, some of whom are sex offenders and violent convicts, to the area, threatening the neighborhood. Others are concerned about the future of businesses and real estate values.

“Everything that is negative is dumped on Hunters Point. I don’t blame these people,” said one resident. “They have a huge investment.”

Yvonne Dillan, whose son is incarcerated, said that when she found out that, “murderers, rapists, and things of that sort were coming into the neighborhood, I had a change of heart.”

Veronica Joe, another resident, said locating a parole office in her neighborhood, “exposes residents to the risk of being victimized.” She is afraid that more armed parole officers would increase the risk of having innocent victims harmed. “We don’t need anymore armed officers in our neighborhood. We have enough,” she said, referring to the Bayview police station.

During the hearing, Bierman, who voted to oppose the resolution, became irate and defended the parolees, saying they deserve proper rehabilitative programs. “These are human beings,” she said, referring to the parolees. “I don’t want to hear the word ‘dumped.’ These are people on parole.”

Bierman stressed that whenever there is a proposal to move a drug treatment facility, a prison or mental health facility into a neighborhood, public outcry is strong. “No neighborhoods want them,” she said. “But it is really up to those people who bring these programs to run successfully these programs … There are things this city has to have. “People have to be strong or we’ll never have a place to heal people.”

Becerril agreed with Bierman that the services are needed, but she stressed the need for a fair process in which “people have the right to be heard.”

Teng, too, emphasized that public input should be considered above all else. “This is how we do business in San Francisco. We also go to the community.”

To that end, many asked the board to consider whether they would want a parole office in their own back yard. But Jim Hansen, a representative from the parole office said that neighbors have a misconception of a parole office, contending “its going to be an office for staff.” There are currently some 600 parolees already living in the area, he said to the booing and hissing of other testifiers.

He added that there is no evidence of an increase in crime committed by parolees in areas where parole offices are located.

Furthermore, the only time a parolee would utilize the office would be for scheduled appointments for drug rehabilitation and other programs.

When asked by supervisor Becerril whether the department will consider the resolution and public comment, he said, “I can’t say personally, at this time, what our position would be.” He added that the parole office has until May 24—a 60-day public notification period—in which to decide.