Hello and thank you for coming.
The drug abuse epidemic is a humanitarian crisis
that deserves just as much urgency
as we gave to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Instead, every day, people on our streets are dying
of overdose and drug-related harm.
It's time to face the facts.
What we've been doing these past years isn't working.
Year over year, overdose deaths
rose by 72%, and no neighborhood has been
untouched by the scourge of the drug abuse epidemic.
Recently, I signed an opioid settlement
against producers and sellers
and sellers of opioids to help remedy some of the harm caused.
But in Seattle, right before our eyes,
public drug use has sadly become normal.
Our busses are unhealthy to use.
Our transit centers feel unsafe to wait in,
and people walking down the street feel afraid.
Children see it and look to adults for explanation.
But usually they learn silence and ignoring.
Not because they don't care, but because everyday people need
government leaders to help.
Open air drug markets now freely
exist and overdose calls have skyrocketed.
Enough is enough.
We need to reclaim our public spaces, all of them.
We need to intervene in the lives of people
who are suffering.
And to do that, we must see them
and say that what they're doing in
public is not okay for them or for us collectively.
Together with Councilmember Nelson and Councilmember
Pedersen, we are proposing legislation
this week to discourage public use
by, of drugs, by making it a prosecutable crime.
This legislation is modeled after the recent Bellingham
ordinance to reaffirm
that public consumption of drugs is not acceptable.
We need this tool to keep public spaces safe
and reestablish what is accepted behavior.
And frankly,
we need investment from the state to open more beds
and treatment facilities and invest in in-custody treatment.
I turn it over now to Councilmember Nelson,
and then Councilmember Pedersen will take questions at the end.
Thank you.
Hello, everybody.
Seattle's hands-off approach to people using illegal drugs
in public has resulted in rampant street crime
and a death toll rivaling that of COVID-19 in Seattle.
Complacency is no longer an option.
Cities have laws and enforcement
to dissuade activity that is harmful to ourselves
and to others, just like speeding in school
zones and unlawful possession of firearms.
And public use of deadly drugs should be no exception.
Thank you all for coming.
I'm Sara Nelson,
citywide councilmember and chair of economic development.
I recently received an email about a small business closure
in which the owner explains
that they managed to survive the pandemic, but, quote:
the latest challenge with Seattle is the drugs and addicts
severely impacting the day to day operations.
I'm removing individuals illegally
using substances in our doorway on average 2 to 4 times a day.
And he goes on to describe an attack on an employee
and an ends by saying it's just too much to handle.
It has crippled the business
and more critically, it has crippled me.
Now, this is happening to
neighborhood businesses across our city.
Now, here at City Hall, we're
focused a lot on economic revitalization of downtown.
And key to that is getting workers back to the office.
Employers are telling me they're having a hard time doing that,
not because workers are afraid of catching COVID on the job,
but they are afraid to ride public transit, to work
or walk to their office past
people smoking fentanyl on the street.
Meanwhile, summer is around the corner
and parents want to be able to take their park,
their kids to the park
without people doing drugs right in front of them.
So I'm just trying to paint a picture of what
my constituents are saying and seeing across the city.
That's what I'm doing here.
And they want to know what we're doing about it.
They're demanding more.
Last year, I proposed a budget item
that would have expanded access to addiction treatment
because addiction lies at the intersection
of our public safety and our homelessness crisis.
And I remain committed to that today.
But this is a drug crisis and people are dying.
And we have got to face the fact that law enforcement
is a component of our response.
By making consumption of controlled substances
a misdemeanor, the legislation this legislation gives
our officers a tool to interrupt that behavior, and it provides
the City Attorney with the ability to prosecute.
I'm proud to stand here and announce this bill today.
This is not controversial.
Regardless what the legislature ends up doing on
possession, people are dying every day.
Let's not lose sight of that.
Let's not lose sight of that fact.
More simply, these drugs are illegal
and we need a rule to prohibit their public use.
Period.
Good morning.
I'm Alex Pedersen Seattle City
Councilmember and chair of our transportation committee.
It's not okay for people to smoke fentanyl
or to use other illegal drugs
in our public spaces or in our public transit.
And the laws on the books
need to reflect those basic health and safety standards.
So everyone knows the Wild West
is no longer acceptable in Seattle.
Children walking to school, customers
shopping at stores, workers coming downtown to their jobs.
Transit riders taking the bus and the light rail.
Tourists wondering whether they will
bring their families back to Seattle.
None of them should think that City Hall is okay
with people smoking fentanyl or meth on our public sidewalks,
in our parks, at our public transit stations.
As transportation chair, I hear frequent concerns
from transit riders about feeling unsafe
when they encounter people using illegal drugs
at our bus stops and in our light rail stations.
Everyone deserves to feel safe traveling through our city,
especially on our public transit.
Our state government
has left a gap in enforcement,
so we need to fill that gap
for health and safety.
We know it's a severe public health crisis,
so we need to do everything we can to address it.
As reported earlier this month, illicit fentanyl kills
at least two people every day in King County,
and the powerful opioid
was responsible for over 700 fatal overdoses
last year, roughly triple the death toll of traffic
crashes and gun violence combined.
That was reported in the Seattle Times.
And when our fentanyl is combined
with methamphetamine,
the result is even more devastating for public health.
We all need to play a part in the solution.
Earlier this week, King County voters chose to build
five new crisis care treatment centers.
King County continues to operate its program
for mental illness and drug dependency, the MIDD program.
Our city government partners are the King County
Regional Homelessness Authority to fund outreach
workers, shelter and housing from various nonprofits.
We also need our state legislature to provide
additional funds to treat substance use disorder.
And yes,
our justice system also needs to play a productive part
and they need clear legal tools and direction to intervene
when illegal drugs are used in public spaces.
A misdemeanor is the bare minimum we should be
implementing for illegal drug use in our public spaces.
I want to thank our City Attorney
for taking the initiative in drafting this ordinance
so that we can take this through the legislative process
here at City Council
and get something effective for Mayor Harold to sign.
Because our mayor has stated very publicly
that he's focused on public health and safety,
as well as the recovery of downtown.
I also look forward to working
with my colleague, Councilmember Sara Nelson,
who chairs the Economic Development Committee.
And both of us serve on the City's Public Safety Committee.
Thank you.
Now I'll take questions.
(off-screen) At this time we can maybe take a question from each of you
and then follow-up time. I think I heard Matt first and then Erica.
(off-screen) A question for all three of you.
The governor just said a few minutes ago
that he's in negotiations with the leadership of the House
and Senate on a fix and hope
that in the next few days he'll announce
a special session day in May.
My question is, would you rather have a statewide fix
or that may preempt cities from enacting their own laws
regarding this?
Or would you rather have city control over drug possession
and use of city, the use of drugs on the street?
Which one would you prefer?
-I think it's important to understand
that cities are going to be the ones
facing the brunt of this.
When we look at the face of addiction,
it is all-encompassing.
It is, crosses, all walks of life
and all socio economic classes.
And I think it's important for them to understand that
we are going to have that role, recreating social fabric.
And often the budget doesn't roll downhill.
We need to have treatment beds available.
The goal is always recovery, to disrupt antisocial behavior,
to encourage people into treatment
and to make our streets, parks and busses safer.
-Can I. Can I.
-I'm sorry. Go ahead. -Thank you.
We could have both on the books.
It really depends on the details of
what is worked out at the state level.
You know, they said they were going
to act in the past and they didn't.
So we shouldn't as people are dying
every day, we shouldn't delay here.
But depending on how they write it, we're talking about use
in a public space. They're talking about
possession, which is a wider category.
So there's a way to have both laws on the books.
(off-screen) In the previous bills, there was an inclusion
about use in open space that would be prohibited.
It would be would not be allowed, but that's statewide.
Would you prefer local control or statewide control?
-They're not going to be inconsistent then,
if that's what they do, because we would.
This is about public use.
And if they have it as public
use then, it'll it'll dovetail well.
(off-screen) What do you all anticipate the actual impact of
this will be?
The jails are fairly full.
And so saying, you know, we're going to crack down on this,
you know, this is one thing, but actually
effectuating any change on the street is another.
You know, and SPD has said that they're going to focus
just the other day, that they're going
to focus on higher level dealers and the traffickers.
So, you know, how do you square that
and what resources
are you going to be able to put in to actually make
a visible difference?
-The City Attorney can speak more about the
about the jail and issues outside of our control here
at City Council. But I'll just say this.
We need to establish rules so that people know
what is acceptable behavior
and what they stand to be in violation of.
And like I said before,
this provides a tool for officers to enforce
the the rules on the books.
So I would say that, yes, I recognize that -
not talking about the jails being full - our officers
are stretched thin.
And so, you know, people are going to ask about,
well, how are they going to enforce this there?
And I recognize that they are
at you know, they're down 30% of their of their force.
And we need to make sure
that they've got adequate staffing levels to be able
to improve the public safety
of people and businesses across the city.
What I'm worried about right now is getting the basics right
in basic and making explicit that we don't allow
the public use of illegal drugs.
(muffled off-screen voices)
-I just support every avenue to get people into treatment.
We need to be investing in in-custody treatment as well.
And we will continue to work
with our diversion partners, again,
with a goal of getting people into treatment and recovery.
(off-screen) This would be perhaps for the City Attorney as well.
So we're talking with councilmember, King
County Councilmember Reagan Dunn yesterday,
he said that you two were in conversation
over what he has proposed for King County.
How does this new ordinance
proposed here in Seattle, how does that stack up?
Is there similarities? Are there differences?
Because I know there's a concern that you could go city
to city and county to county and you would have different
public drug use bans.
-I just learned of his
action yesterday with with a news release.
That's the first I'd heard of it.
And again,
it is working with our councilmembers
here about what we are hearing from people in the city,
which is they are wanting to have safer
streets, parks and busses,
and we are needing to say that
the use of controlled substances is a crime
and we need to be working
with the diversion partners to get people into treatment.
That is always the goal and the focus
and we need the state and local lawmakers
to use the funds that have been tagged for this
to get us the beds we need for the treatment.
(off-screen) So just clarifying, is there like you guys look at potential
jail time for offenders or anything specific like that?
Again, we will continue to work with our diversion partners
and we I support every avenue to get people into treatment.
The focus here is to make our streets, busses and parks safer.
And this is one of those ways we can do that.
(off-screen) Question for the councilmembers,
why now, instead of waiting a month.
Why introduce this now?
Instead of waiting to see what
the state does and filling in the gaps?
-Let's remember that that gap is because of the Blake decision
and because the temporary fix is going to expire.
And so that is what they're focusing on.
Possession.
We are focused on the use of public
of illegal drugs in the public.
So the you know, there are two separate
they're two separate things and they should both.
Ideally, we would be
doing this in tandem, but that is not what.
That is not our reality right now.
And so we're responding to the crisis at hand.
(off-screen) Along with this
proposed legislation, will you be pursuing any parallel efforts
to increase funding or access to treatment?
-Well, we want the state
legislature to act to provide more money for treatment.
They apparently had some money available, but part of them
not passing the the misdemeanor or possession
law, the treatment money was lost with that.
So we're hoping that they deliver
those treatment funds as well.
That's why we want we still want them to act.
(off-screen) Thank you.
-Can I just add to that.
As the person who has received treatment, let me address that.
We absolutely have to increase funding for treatment.
And more importantly, we have to remove barriers to access.
And the Executive Order that was issued by the mayor
this last week does contain one component which
expands the methodology that we can use
to treat substance use disorder,
and that is contingency management.
And I spoke out in favor of that because it rewards people for
sobriety
and hopefully they can make a decision
about their future, about perhaps
going into recovery based treatment
once they've gotten that respite.
And so, yes, we absolutely have to to increase funding.
That program that I just spoke of is funded by the opioid
distributors settlement.
And we will see what happens at the state level.
But I would say that it's not just more money,
it's money for what.
(off-screen) Yeah, two quick things.
One clarification, is this legislation
you're proposing simply public use or is it also
possession as well?
And then with regards to the state legislation that failed,
it was largely a block of Seattle lawmakers
that voted against it.
The Democrats could have passed it on their own.
What's your message to your own representatives
that blocked this bill from passing?
-This is a public use,
which is a
would be a subset of possession, is a right
that the state legislature was talking about possession.
There was not there was not agreement.
There was no compromise found.
What we are saying is it is time to solve the problems
and focus on what they are supposed to do.
We put lawmakers there to help us make laws.
We need those because we are dealing
with the problems on a day to day basis
with our streets and our parks and our busses
being unsafe and people then dying in the midst.
So it is important that we have that going forward.
So this is just a use
because that is the part that is absent at the moment
where we can be instrumental in helping to make those safer.
(off-screen) Yeah, I
follow-up, I speak to addicts every single day
and they say to me police aren’t going to do anything about it.
Prosecutors do anything about it.
Why is this only going to be a misdemeanor?
Why not make it a felony to send a stronger message?
-As you would know, that the state statute that was found
unconstitutional was for Class B felony.
That's what would come into effect
July 1st when this temporary fix expires.
In our view that the current temporary fix
puts the state law as a misdemeanor.
So we should not be going above that.
We cannot go above that
as we cannot make it a gross misdemeanor or anything else.
That's why this is that.
After July 1st, if there's not a compromise,
then there is the ability to go up.
(off-screen) Would you consider that?
And that's ultimately what I was asking.
If there's nothing, you know, no compromise before
July, would you consider making this a felony?
-As I said, we can't do that
because it is contrary to state law.
The current temporary fix
is set as a misdemeanor for possession.
And that's why this has to be set as that,
because we have to be following what is already set
there, even in the temporary fix in state law.
(off-screen) This would be for the councilmembers, at this point
are you getting buy in right now from your other members?
Are you getting some push back right now?
Who do you think will stand with you two right now?
-Well, I’ve learned not to predict.
I've learned not to make predictions, but I am hopeful
because I represent the same people that they do, and we're
all hearing the same stories and so I am optimistic that
we can move forward.
-Can I add one for that?
No, I just to say that
I think City Councilmembers
will hear that this is a common sense approach
to making our parks, busses and streets safer
and getting people into treatment.
(off-screen) Have you guys received feedback from Seattle Police
on this specific legislation about enforcing this and
what were their thoughts and what did they say?
-We wanted you to hear it first.
This is all happening very fast.
And we have
we have notified them and the mayor's office is is
leading on that communication.
Based on what I have heard in the past, I don't see
this would be met with resistance.
(off-screen) So I'm interested to kind of understand,
you mentioned the drug reward program.
Are you going to be working with Plymouth Housing on this?
Is it going to be a collaborative approach
or how does this play into this ordinance?
-This is this is.
What you're referring to, which is the contingency
management program or the gift card program?
That is not part of what we're talking about right now.
But just for some information about that,
it is going to be Plymouth Housing as a partner
with the City because it's those residents
that will be enrolled in that program.
-Thank you.
That's all
the time...- Wait can I say one more thing on the record.
I just want to thank city attorney and Davison,
because it is
it's wonderful to work with you on a shared priority
and thank you very much for for the urgency.
Thank you.
And also you.
Thank you.