Transit districts: prohibition orders.
The passage of AB 1735 brings broader enforcement capabilities to additional transit districts, allowing them to manage problematic behavior effectively. By standardizing the prohibition order process, the bill aims to create a safer and more secure atmosphere for all transit users. Supporters argue that enabling transit authorities to act against repeat offenders will improve the riding experience, while critics voice concerns that these measures could disproportionately target vulnerable populations, particularly those experiencing homelessness or mental health issues. The bill also mandates that transit districts establish advisory committees to evaluate procedures and ensure training for enforcement personnel, emphasizing the need for sensitivity when dealing with offenders who may have disabilities.
Assembly Bill 1735, approved on July 13, 2023, amends Sections 99171 and 99172 of the Public Utilities Code to include the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority as a transit district authorized to issue prohibition orders. These orders are aimed at individuals repeatedly cited for infractions in transit facilities or arrested for certain offenses. Under the bill, individuals receiving three citations within 90 days or convicted of violent felonies may be barred from entering transit properties for specified durations. This legislation seeks to enhance safety and reduce disorderly conduct within transit systems, which is especially pertinent given the increasing concerns around public safety in shared transportation environments.
The sentiment surrounding AB 1735 is mixed. Proponents, including various transit authorities and public safety advocates, tout its potential to enhance public safety and provide transit personnel with necessary tools to address disorderly conduct. Conversely, opponents argue that the bill may contribute to criminalizing homelessness and could foster an environment of exclusion for individuals in need of services. The debate reflects a broader societal discussion regarding how best to balance public safety with compassion and support for marginalized communities.
Notable points of contention include the effectiveness and implications of prohibition orders, which can last from 30 days up to a year based on the offense's severity. Critics worry that the process does not adequately consider the underlying issues of individuals facing prohibitive measures, such as homelessness or mental health challenges. The necessity for transit districts to provide reasonable notifications about disorderly conduct and the potential for individuals to contest prohibition orders are seen as vital safeguards by supporters, but may not fully address concerns about enforcement equity and accessibility of transit services for all community members.