Proposition 5 on the California ballot seeks $1 billion a year to expand alternatives to incarceration in California for those convicted of drug-related offenses.

It would create a new authority within the state Department of Corrections, with a new 19-member board directing parole and rehabilitation policies.

The state Legislative Analyst suggests the measure would cost upwards of $1 billion a year, but might save the same amount on reduced prison and parole costs. In addition, the analyst predicts it could save more than $2 billion on projected prison building expenses.

In our view, California has little choice but to invest in alternatives to incarceration, given the overcrowding crisis in state prisons. Napa County is taking some promising steps in this direction.

But Proposition 5 offers a flawed approach.

Among the flaws are the creation of a new governing body with 19 new appointees. Last we checked, the main problem with the criminal justice system was not a lack of people charged with meeting and drafting policy on aspects of the sprawling system.

The eligibility requirements under Proposition 5 have raised concerns of prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. They say that if an offender can show that drug abuse drove him or her to commit crimes such as burglary or domestic violence, that offender might qualify for a treatment program or parole. This creates too much risk that people prone to violent and dangerous acts can take advantage of the program.

As with other propositions over the years, we find ourselves singing an old song: Why can’t elected state legislators find flexible, negotiated solutions to a manageable problem such as this, rather than place before voters complex, detailed, take-it-or-leave-it new laws?

A thoughtful rewrite of certain drug and sentencing laws or expansion of local programs proven to reduce recidivism and provide community safety would be more cautious and appropriate ways to make these policy changes.

Vote no on Proposition 5.