[ignostic]

If the state law and city law conflict, shouldn't state law take precedence?

I'm actually not too upset about what the sheriff did. How many people do you think would do differently if they had to take out a $150k loan to cover their predecessor's obligations and then had the chance to feed inmates for less?

My takeaway is the state law clearly needs further modernization. First, it doesn't matter if it costs more. A direct personal incentive to feed people as cheaply as possible directly incentivizes low food quality. There should be some standard of food quality in a developed country. Second, if up to $750k (maybe more) is up for grabs, the sheriff's position because too valuable, which entices corruption. Not that they can't and aren't already be crooked, but they don't need further incentives.

These incentives aren't theoretical. There was a sheriff arrested for essentially starving inmates while pocketing $220k. Of course he only spent a night there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/09sheriff.html

There are many allegations about the same thing, but generally judges aren't looking for a fight with the police or the sheriff.