Oh yeah, he's a real peach. Even without considering his proven-in-court civil rights violations, his inhumane treatment of those placed in his care, and his shady - sometimes downright illegal - political tactics, he has cost the citizens of his county millions of dollars. Of note is that the tent-city, chain-gang tactics he has employed, which have resulted in countless injuries and in at least one case the death of inmates, have not reduced recidivism in his county by any measurable percentage. He spent about $10,000 of taxpayer funds to underwrite a study on recedivism by uva and when it didn't back up his false claims, he just shrugged and said they were wrong. By the way, his initial justification for the tent city was jail overcrowding, which didn't exist until he shut down a good portion of one of the county jail facilities.
In terms of his treatment of other human beings, he has denied inmates adequate medical care and refused to properly quarantine contageous inmates, those exposing other inmates to infectuous desease, ultimately resulting in drastically increased expenditures by the county for medical care of affected inmates which would have otherwise been unnecessary. He has required inmates to remain in the 117 degree Arizona heat in his tent city without adequate food and water, also resulting in the need for medical care. Guards working under him have been found guilty of assaults on inmates, carried out either at his instruction or with his approval.
So even if you're one of those that think treating those who have been accused of committing criminal acts (and in county jails almost all are accused but not yet found guilty, as once proven guilty the vast majority of inmates are moved to state prisons) in such a sub-human manner is permissible, seems you'd want to object to the fiscal impacts, especially with nothing to show for it in terms of a safer community.
And just because the majority votes for it doesn't make it right.
I can never remember which is better . . . safe? . . . or sorry?