City Council Meeting June 6, 2023

Great, thank you so much.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Today is Tuesday, June 6. The meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

I'm Deborah Juarez.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Present.

Council Member Sawant?

Present.

Council Member Strauss?

Present.

Council Member Herbold?

They're very hard to hear on the Zoom meeting, just so you know.

I'll go on.

Council Member Lewis?

Present.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Present.

Council Member Nelson?

Present.

Council President Juarez?

Present.

I'm present.

Thank you.

Let's move on to the presentations.

There are no presentations today.

At this time, as you all know, we will go on to public comment, and I think I will just repeat what I said earlier.

We will start with, I already forgot, did I say the people?

What did I say?

You said, hold on.

I wrote my notes down.

I apologize.

Thank you.

Let's start 30 minutes for the remote speakers for one minute, and then 30 minutes for the in-person speakers.

One minute.

That will give us an hour.

We'll see where we're at in an hour.

Madam Clerk, I'm going to hand it over to you to play the instructions.

And I'm going to ask that people please be kind.

Make your point, speak to the agenda, be respectful, and let other people have a different opinion.

And hopefully we can get through this in a kind and good way.

With that, Madam Clerk, go ahead.

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and use the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted.

and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the council.

The public comment period is now open.

and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Our first remote speaker, Kate Rubin.

Kate?

Hey, Ruben.

I see she's there.

There you are.

Hey, my name is Kate Ruben.

I live in district two and I'm the organizing director of the Seattle.

I'm calling today to urge you to vote no on the racist and deadly Council Bill 120586 that criminalizes simple drug possession and drug use.

This regressive measure takes us back to the failed war on drugs, harming public health and targeting marginalized communities.

Stable housing is a prerequisite for effective substance abuse treatment.

Housing First is the evidence-based, most effective approach to ending homelessness backed by multiple national studies.

I know that this isn't new information to any of you, but instead of addressing the sentinel crisis and investing in Housing First, this bill will drain our limited city resources, disproportionately harm our black, brown, indigenous, and unhoused neighbors, and overcrowd are already unhealthy jails.

It is rooted in white supremacy culture.

Do not deepen the divide, do the right thing, and vote no on Council Bill 120586. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Howard Gale, and Howard will be followed by BJ Last.

Go ahead, Howard.

Good afternoon.

Howard Gale, District 7. Today's potential vote on criminalizing drugs in Seattle will be portrayed as simply making Seattle's laws consistent with new state laws.

However, as noted in your council central staff memo, the council does not have the legislative authority to prescribe different penalties from what the state legislature has decided, nor can it compel the city attorney or chief of police to use diversion.

This means the vote today is a simple yes or no vote as to whether you will give unfettered power to the person who in the middle of the George Floyd awakening, the middle of the worst pandemic in 100 years, and after three and a half years of trump's fate thought it a good idea to publicly announce her embrace of the republican party you will vote to give that person unfettered power the person who suggested keeping the homeless in warehouses with two thousand people and just recently removed seattle for the community court system this is the person you will vote to give nine hundred and eight days of unfettered power to rule the lives of thousands of your fellow c

Thank you.

Our next speaker is BJ last who will be followed by Cody.

So Lusky go ahead.

BJ.

My name is BJ.

I'm a Ballard resident.

I'm calling on council to reject expanding the war on drugs with CB one, two, zero five, eight, six.

The war on drugs was never meant to improve drugs, to reduce drug use or improve public health.

John Ehrlichman president, Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief, and one of the architects of the war on drugs famously admitted all the way back in 1994. that the war on drugs was designed to demonize, criminalize, and disrupt marginalized communities, especially the Black community, and that the administration was lying about drugs.

The war on drugs has been incredibly efficient and effective at destroying lives, driving mass incarceration to the point that the US has the largest prison population in the world, something many would have felt the US carceral system didn't have the capacity to do back when the war on drugs was originally adopted.

Council members should assume this legislation will be vigorously enforced if passed since the city attorney has been incredibly clear that she wants to enforce it.

While the bill does not control enforcement, council just lets the SPD and the city attorney do that one.

Voting for a law you hope won't be enforced will be absurd.

Thank you, our next speaker is Cody Zaleski, and Cody will be followed by Zachary Kirschbaum.

Go ahead, Cody.

Good afternoon, council.

Okay, good afternoon, council members.

My name is Cody Zaleski, District 4. We know criminalization of substance use doesn't work and it doesn't help users get clean.

You're knowledgeable officials and know that CB 12586 flushes millions of dollars down the drain without saving lives.

I know several of you have reservations about this bill, but want to vote in favor simply because of concerns over a more conservative electorate this November, like in 2021. Many of the people sending you angry messages and advocating for criminalization of drug possession live outside of Seattle.

And you probably know that.

Your constituents are paying attention though.

Don't chase solutions that don't work just because they're Republican like Ann Davidson told you to.

I see my dad.

Your next speaker is Zachary Kirschbaum and Zachary will be followed by Sarah Robbins.

Go ahead, Zachary.

Hello, my name is Zachary Kirschbaum.

I'm from D6 and with 350 Seattle.

I'm calling to tell you to reject AB 12586. This is a law designed to clean up our public areas.

And in that analogy, people struggling with addictions are treated as dirt to be swept away.

This legislation doesn't provide any funding for diversion to treatment beyond property tax exemptions for treatment facilities.

And it doesn't acknowledge the decades of evidence and research that show that forced treatments and incarceration greatly increased risk of overdose and relief.

Passing this law in the city would not had any new funding for treatment.

The streets are not dirty because there are people in need on them.

Streets are dirty because the city always, always chooses punishment or neglect over treatment and social work.

I live in Fremont and I've watched my neighbors in the police sweep people in need out of the way so that we can have an empty spot to plant flowers.

I do not care if they're people with active addiction or in the street downtown.

What does bother me is endless police presence that sucks money out of the budget that could be used for effective treatment and social work.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sarah Robbins and Sarah will be followed by Ben Sircombe.

Sarah.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Sarah Robbins and I'm the senior policy manager at the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness and a resident of District 2. The coalition works to challenge systemic causes of homelessness and advocate for housing justice.

I'm here today to ask for a no vote on CB 120-586.

This proposed ordinance directly targets people experiencing homelessness.

The proposed ordinance directly targets those with the illness of substance abuse.

The proposed ordinance will have a disproportionate effect on people of color.

Our city is proposing criminalizing those that are too poor to have a home and those that are ill.

The answer is not to put people in jail and arrest people.

The answer is to invest and make treatment accessible.

more accessible medicated-assisted treatment, and more housing.

Let's have a real conversation about solutions that are proven to work and not put resources towards short-term interventions with the criminal justice system that we know does not work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ben Sircombe, and he'll be followed by Michael Malini.

Ben, go ahead please.

My name is Ben circa and I'm a resident capital health and speaking a day to urge the city council to not default back to a failed strategy and combating drug addiction study after study has shown that criminalizing drug addiction and mental illness hurts for more than it helps addiction isn't overcome by force.

My sister died from a fentanyl overdose last year.

There's no one wants to see this drug eradicated more than me, but we can't fall back into a strategy that simply does not work.

The only times my sister showed any improvements in getting better was when she had the resources, education, and support to fight her addiction.

When she got thrown in jail, all that progress was erased, and she was in a much worse place than she started.

I live in Capitol Hill.

I'm surrounded by addiction.

Criminalizing addiction has not and will not make things any better.

That's why I'm recommending City Council start a committee to combat drug addiction and employ more effective ways of dealing with this issue than defaulting back to this failed approach.

How many more times do people have to lose their sisters?

How many more times do we have to lose this drug war before people will wake up and understand this is not working?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael Maloney and Michael will be followed by Tatiana Quintana.

Go ahead, Michael.

Hello, my name is Michael Maloney.

I'm a resident of District 3 calling on the council to vote no on CB 120586. There's ample evidence that incarceration doesn't prevent overdoses nor give people the help they need.

city adoption of this law would likely just increase overdoses, deaths, and racial disparities in arrests, jail time, and overdoses.

This proposed bill will bring a faster, aggressive, and racist war on drug policies that have largely been replaced by evidence-based, effective, and more compassionate approaches.

The council needs to shift the conversation to scaling treatment, outreach, and housing services with our city resources, as opposed to prosecuting and jailing those with substance use disorder.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tatiana Quintana, and Tatiana will be followed by Taylor Riley.

Go ahead, Tatiana.

Good afternoon, Council.

For the record, my name is Tatiana Quintana, and I co-lead the Psychedelic Medicine Alliance of Washington, and I'm a vocal Washington member as well.

Two years ago, I volunteered as part of the Opioid Emergency Innovative Response Task Force.

Councilmember Lewis and Herbold were participants in this with us.

In the face of this proposed ordinance, I have to ask what innovative responses have been implemented from the list of recommendations from our task force almost two years ago.

Those recommendations include housing, substance use disorder treatment expansion, harm reduction services, decriminalization, and community education as the core tenants of what needs to be addressed for this crisis.

Despite massive governmental spending, why does it seem like we're barely making a dent in this issue?

This ordinance is going against one of the expert recommendations that was asked for from the task force in 2021.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Taylor Riley.

Taylor will be followed by Aiden McCall.

Go ahead, Taylor.

Hi, my name is Taylor.

I'm a Seattle resident in District 3 and an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, and I study the public health impacts of the criminal legal system.

Unequivocally, CB1020586 will be ineffective, harmful, and result in more overdose deaths and harm to our community.

I'm baffled that this is the same city council that just unanimously passed the Race and Social Justice Initiative that codified into law a commitment to equity.

And now, just two months later, you all are considering a regressive and racist policy that will send us back to failed war on drugs policies.

This legislation is directly antithetical to the commitments you made just literally two months ago.

We have decades of public health scientific evidence that incarceration does not prevent overdoses nor give people the help they need.

This law would assuredly increase racial disparities and arrest jail time and overdoses.

Council Member Lewis, I know this is something you're concerned about and you've committed to work with community to improve public health and safety in Seattle.

Please don't take us back 50 years to a failed war on drugs and vote no

Thank you, our next speaker is Aiden McCall and Aiden will be followed by Randy Banneker.

Go ahead Aiden.

All right, my name is Aiden McCall and I'm addressing council bill 120586. I oppose this ordinance and I think the city council should as well.

With this bill, the city would spend some of its limited resources prosecuting people when what they really need is support to adjust to a healthier lifestyle, not punishment.

Incarcerating drug users for possession makes it harder for them to make those lifestyle adjustments later on.

So I reject Council Bill 120586. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Randy Banneker, and Randy will be followed by Alice Lockhart.

Go ahead, Randy.

Thank you, Chair Juarez, members of the City Council.

My name is Randy Banneker.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Seattle-King County Realtors.

We urge your support of Council Bill 120586 relating to drug possession.

and simply aligning city policy with action taken by the state legislature last month.

The crisis of overdose deaths in our city is horrific.

Lives are being lost each day.

We must use every opportunity to get people into treatment, and this legislation will provide one more way to do that.

Also important is the reality that ongoing drug sales and drug use in public are a threat to public safety.

They create an atmosphere on the street, in our parks, and on transit in which people do not feel safe.

It erodes our quality of life.

Drug activity also slows the recovery of downtown Seattle.

People did not feel safe coming to work, coming to shop, coming to have lunch or dinner or an evening out.

Passage of this ordinance is an important step forward.

Please take that step.

Pass this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alice Lockhart and Alice will be followed by Jody Nathan.

Go ahead, Alice.

Hi, this is Alice Lockhart and like many others here today, I'd like to urge council to vote no on council bill 1, 2, 0, 5, 8, 6. Um, I was taken by council president Juarez's, um, words be kind.

This is such an unkind bill.

And I know you all are kind people.

I know that from many really nice actions that you've taken.

And I trust you won't pass this bill.

I, I just, I shudder for what will happen to the, to people who are arrested under this bill in our already dangerously crowded and inattentive to people's needs.

King County jail where.

The lack of understaffing already means that people are left in their cells alone.

Imagine that.

for someone who's withdrawing from fentanyl.

People will die, and we need that not to happen.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jodi Nathan, and Jodi will be followed by Alex Fay.

Go ahead, Jodi.

Hi, I'm Jodi Nathan from District 2. I'm here to urge you to reject this proposal criminalizing drug possession and public drug use.

The public use of substances is a public health issue, not a crime issue.

A so-called quick fix of jailing people doesn't actually fix anything.

Jailing people for drug use or possession is not going to lead people to recovery.

Studies have proven that a harm reduction model of intervention works.

And investing in such things that reduce poverty, such as housing, health care access, and case management, are more likely to lead people to recovery, while jail does not.

In fact, jailing people for drug use and possessions puts them at a higher risk of overdose.

The overdose rate after release from jail is 16 times higher than that of the general population.

Now, take a minute and think about that.

That's huge.

We also know from history that passing this legislation will serve to increase racial disparities and arrest, jail time, and overdoses.

I'm sorry, but Seattle can do way better than this.

Please vote now.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alex Fay.

And Alex will be followed by Camille Gix.

Go ahead, Alex.

Hi, my name is Alex Faye.

I'm a registered nurse from D3 asking the council to reject CB 120-5486.

I work with people who use drugs every day.

I have responded to multiple overdoses in the past year, most recently this week.

The biggest barrier to getting my patients the care they need after they have overdosed is their fear of getting in trouble with the police for their drug use.

I want my patients to thrive and criminalizing people for their drug use totally harms them and does not help them seek the care that they need.

We already have evidence-based research that shows that harm reduction approaches such as needle exchanges and housing first help decrease overdoses, connect people who use drugs to vital services and reduce drug use.

It's frustrating and disappointing that city council is considering adopting a regressive and racist war on drugs policy when decades of experiences have shown they do not work and instead harm our communities.

Instead of criminalizing drug use, they should keep focusing on community-based and compassionate approaches to truly keep our communities safe and healthy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Camille Gix and Camille will be followed by David Haynes.

Go ahead, Camille.

Hi, my name is Camille Gix.

I work with Real Change and I'm going to be turning my time over to our vendor, Eric Jarvis.

My name is Eric Jarvis.

I'm a vendor for Real Change Newspaper and activist, writer, and recovering fentanyl addict with 62 Days Clean.

I'm speaking to ask that we be careful not to redo the mistakes that we learned in the crack epidemic in the nineties.

I was a crack addict and went to King County jail many times during this period.

And every single time I noticed the 25 to 50% of these people were African-American.

I was given a gift regarding my addiction.

I was still on subduction, which eases withdrawal and helps to also block opiates.

I'd like everyone, everyone up on third Avenue right now, given a, uh, people, uh, giving people a longer arrest record.

or maybe a long wait in jail is an extremely traumatic.

And so I can help people get off drugs.

If you want to pass this thing, you absolutely have to.

I ask, do you have an untrusted outreach program?

30 days of 24 hour outreach, a pass to treatment, and a warning that most likely mass arrest.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Haynes, and David will be followed by Joey Smith.

Go ahead, David.

Thank you, David Haynes.

I acknowledge that I live on Duwamish land and that I've bared witness to the local native population, unable to get through Pioneer Square Park without evil predatory drug pushers, pimps, and junkie thieves, bothering them, ruining every night, every night, violating chief Seattle's trades for peace.

While the Seattle police chief training refuses to help solve the drug crimes that reclaim our neighborhood every night, we need to trespass every addict to jail or treatment after they are questioned to find where they got the drugs to go shut it down.

And we need an investigation in the city council redirecting American rescue plan dollars away from solving the homeless crisis for innocent homeless who've been racially discriminated and forsaken.

due to a priority for repeat offenders who gobbled up over 50% of the George Soros funded LEAD and Just Care public defender money to help.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joey Smith, and then Joey will be followed by Julia Buck.

And those will be our last two speakers for this 30 minute segment.

So go ahead, Joey, please.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Hello, my name is Joey Smith.

I'm a lifelong Seattle resident and a homeowner in District 7, specifically Queen Anne.

I'm specifically asking my council member, Andrew Lewis, to vote no on Council Bill 120-586.

Council Member Lewis, I've been a constituent of yours for several years.

You might not have supported in the past.

Incarceration is not the way to help people with drug addiction.

It is clear that this push for criminalization is part of a national right-wing fear-mongering campaign.

What people need is housing for the homeless, voluntary, public health services for addiction.

We do not need more people in jail.

I would also like to point out that Council Member Sharon Nelson is Literally a drug dealer.

She sells alcohol.

That's a drug.

Hypocrisy here is incredible.

It's amazing.

Andrew Lewis, please vote no.

Thank you.

And Council President Juarez, I believe I shorted us 10 minutes, so we will have some more speakers besides Julia Buck.

So next we have...

I thought she was going to say something, but I thought I was wrong.

Thank you.

Nope, that was me.

Julia Buck is next, and she will be followed by Kylie Rolfe.

And thank you, Amelia, for setting me straight.

Julia Buck, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Julia Buck, I'm a resident of District 6, and I'm calling in an opposition to Council Bill 12568. While I agree with a number of the points that have been made so far, I would like to focus on how expensive 12568 will be.

So it costs approximately $7,000 per night to put people into the King County Jail.

This is estimated to put as many as 800 additional people into jail.

And the average stay is 42 days, but could be longer as toxicology reports are weighted, you know, to see if somebody is actually under the influence of a substance.

That's going to blow a big hole in the city budget.

Um, and I have no confidence that our city attorney will respect the budgeting process and be limited by that.

Please vote no on CB 1, 2, 5, 6, 8. Thank you.

Bye.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kylie Ralph and Kylie will be followed by brand Bradley.

Go ahead, Kylie.

Good afternoon, my name is Kylie Ross, speaking on behalf of the Downtown Seattle Association.

I'm here to express strong support for CB120586.

Last month, after two years of debate, the state legislature passed a law making knowing drug possession and public drug use a gross misdemeanor.

While some may not agree with the specifics of the legislature's action, I hope that most can agree that doing nothing is inhumane and unacceptable, both for those in the throes of debilitating and life-threatening addiction, and members of the public who are exposed to toxic fumes in our shared spaces.

At a critical time for the recovery of downtown, the use of dangerous drugs in our public spaces is a significant contributing factor to people feeling unsafe downtown.

In fact, in a poll we commissioned late last month, a full 77% of voters agreed with the statement, Seattle pans off approach to people using illegal drugs in public is contributing to rampant street crime and is making it much harder for downtown to recover.

As referenced in a letter from last month to council, the DSA signed on to, we must focus on new options for treatment.

This is one more path to do that.

I urge you to pass this conforming legislation today.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Bradley.

Before we move on, I just want to caution people again, please allow people to have an opinion that is possibly different than yours, give people the dignity and the respect.

This is a safe place.

It's the public's house, if you will.

Everyone that comes here should feel free to state what their opinion is.

This is a very obviously emotional topic that we're going to be discussing, and we appreciate public comment, but I'm going to ask again that we move forward in a good way and that we respect other people's opinions.

I don't want to have to interrupt again and remind people.

So thank you.

Madam Clerk, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Bradley Dosh, and Bradley will be followed by Linnea May.

Go ahead, Bradley.

Hi, my name is Bradley Dosh.

I'm a constituent of Seattle and District 4. I'm calling in to ask you to reject the proposed legislation, CB 120 586, to expand the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession and public drug use.

We have decades of evidence that incarceration does not prevent overdoses, nor give people the help they need.

City adoption of this law would likely increase overdoses, deaths, and racial disparities in arrests, jail time, and overdoses.

This proposed bill will bring us back to aggressive and racist or on drugs policies that have largely been replaced by evidence-based effective and more compassionate approaches.

Thank you for listening.

That's all.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Linnea May and Linnea will be followed by Rachel Rourke.

Go ahead Linnea.

Hello, my name is Linnea.

I'm a resident of Capitol Hill and I urge you to vote no on council bill 12586. The idea that people using drugs in public are creating a dangerous wild west in the city solved only by criminalization is fear-mongering that I just don't buy.

Instead, the people in real danger are the black, brown, and indigenous people that will be disproportionately affected by this bill.

I care about my neighbors more than I care about manufactured fear, and I urge you to vote no and consider evidence-based, compassionate alternatives to addressing the fentanyl crisis.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rachel Rourke, and Rachel will be followed by Drew Batchelor.

Go ahead, Rachel.

Rachel?

Hi.

Hi, my name is Rachel Rourke, and I'm here to oppose the bill 12056. It's a punitive measure under the guise of treatment.

Harm reduction programs are access points for treatment and as a social worker, peer specialist who worked throughout the pandemic at DESC on the front lines and I experienced burnout, It is actually a lie that jails will increase treatment.

Many times I had clients released from jail who were scheduled to go to treatment.

And I would plead with the jail release people to not release them during the weekend.

I would call on Friday and say, please hold my client till Monday morning because we have a treatment date.

And they would for sure release them during the weekend.

And that client would end up suffering overdose or death.

And this happened multiple times.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Drew Batchelor.

And Drew will be followed by Miriam Hale.

Go ahead, Drew.

Hi, I'm Drew Batchelor, and I live in District 6. Last week, the Sackler family agreed to a multi-billion dollar fine for deliberately fueling the opioid crisis in America, which has caused thousands of deaths and ruined thousands of lives.

No jail time.

Two weeks ago, Walgreens agreed to a fine for substantially contributing to the opioid epidemic in San Francisco.

No jail time.

This year, the mayor proposed allowing certain people to consume intoxicating drugs on public sidewalks to boost business for his wealthy real estate holding donors, who we just heard from a few minutes ago.

A member of this council has illegally placed eco blocks in the public right-of-way outside her business, where a drug that causes thousands of deaths annually is sold and consumed.

And yet this council isn't considering jail as a disincentive for this illegal use of public space.

Like the war on drugs, this law deliberately targets the poor and the marginalized.

Like the war on drugs, this law will make everything worse.

Vote no on 120-586.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next here is Miriam Hale and Miriam will be followed by Jess Wallach.

Go ahead, Miriam.

Hello, my name is Miriam Hale.

I'm a voter in Seattle District 3 speaking on a proposed controlled substances ordinance.

I am strongly opposed to this ordinance.

It will expand the city attorney's office's prosecutor's powers in a way that will be costly for the city and counterproductive for the ordinance's stated aims of improving public health and safety.

and reducing deaths from drug overdoses.

We have decades of evidence that criminalization is worse than useless as a means of reducing illegal drug use and helping people suffering from addiction.

Criminalization only cuts people in need of real help off from the social programs that actually work to improve health and safety in our city.

Contrary to what this ordinance implies, the city of Seattle is not legally obligated to assume responsibility for arresting and prosecuting people for drug possession and drug use.

Passing this ordinance would only lead to the waste of limited city resources that could be much better spent expanding public housing and social outreach programs to the homeless and the vulnerable in our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jess Wallich and Jess will be followed by Katie Gendry.

Go ahead, Jess.

Hi, my name is Jess Wallach.

I'm a campaigns co-director with 350 Seattle and a Green Lake resident.

I'm urging you to vote no on Council Bill 120586. It's 2023. Why is Seattle looking backwards towards the racist and failed war on drugs policies of the 1980s?

Decades of research show that criminalizing drugs is ineffective and harmful.

Jails can't solve a public health problem.

If anything, they make it worse.

According to a Washington State study, people who've been incarcerated were over a hundred times more likely to die from drug overdose.

But this law isn't about helping people recover from addiction, avoid overdose, or improve their quality of life.

This law is about dehumanizing drug users, destabilizing people in already precarious situations, and expanding the carceral system, which disproportionately harms Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor people.

If implemented, this law would cost the city upwards of $1 million a year.

That's real money that we could instead be spending on real solutions that help people stabilize and recover, like health care, harm reduction, and affordable housing.

vote no on this racist law and fund real public health solutions in this year's city budget.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Katie Gendry and Katie will be followed by Josie Tracy.

Go ahead, Katie.

Hi, I'm Katie Gendry and I live in D6.

City Council, especially Dan Strauss, I'm asking you to reject Bill 12586. I professionally work closely with people who use drugs and are living unsheltered.

Many of my clients have died of overdose after being incarcerated and then released from jail with no support for their drug use and lowered tolerance.

If you do not reject this legislation, you are killing my clients.

One example is Kathy, who had a mental health crisis and there was an eight-hour wait for the mobile crisis team.

Police booked her in jail because taking her directly to a psych facility would result in immediate release due to lack of capacity.

This is not okay.

Kathy did not belong in jail.

She needed psych treatment and housing.

She sat in jail, was transferred to Navos, and then released quickly without notification to caseworkers.

Upon release, she used and overdosed outside of a church.

Kathy would not have died if we had widespread access to voluntary mental health resources, local pharmacies for daily medication management, low barrier access to voluntary and patient treatment centers, increased harm reduction measures such as safe consumption sites, and a safe supply of tested controlled substances.

If you do not reject this legislation, you are killing or unhealthy.

Thank you.

Our last speaker for this remote group will be Josie Tracy.

Go ahead, Josie.

Now see.

let's see her on their star six Josie.

let's give her.

Okay, see.

So um since we she's on the line, obviously, but I don't she's not pushing star six to unmute.

So if she stays on the line, let's just come back to her.

OK.

So let's go ahead with a half an hour, 30 minutes for the people in chambers, one minute.

And I'm going to give one more warning.

If people cannot behave, then I'm going to call a recess and ask my colleagues to leave the dais for 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Let's move on.

All right, so we will begin with in-person public comment.

There are two microphones where you may address the council.

I'm going to call two names at a time to kind of speed things up.

The first two people are going to be Anita Candlewell and Eileen McCain.

And please make sure that you're close to the microphone as well.

My name is Eileen McCann Ballard.

I'm voting.

I'm asking you to vote against this bill.

Everyone has said what the reasons are.

The truth is, we all know, including you, that every study that's ever been done, every proposal that's ever been put forth, has told us that this is not a deterrent for drug use.

This is not the right thing to do.

And you want to vote for something that you feel is the right thing to do.

So I'm asking you to look at your conscience right now.

This is going to increase profiling.

It's going to increase homelessness.

It's going to increase overcrowding of the jails.

It is using police to give something equal to a parking ticket.

instead of really dealing with crime, which is murder and rape and theft and mayhem.

We do not need to waste our resources like this.

This is not a good thing.

I'm looking at what other motivation it could be.

It could only be business interests who want and you want to look like you've done something or our city attorney.

Follow Anita will be Malika.

Hi, my name is Anita Condeville, I'm the director of the King County Department of Public Defense, and I'm here in opposition to the passage of CB 120586, because prosecution is ineffective at reducing drug use and causes severe harm to our community in particular to people of color within our community.

The state legislature defied decades of research and experience with the war on drugs by criminalizing drug possession, but Seattle need not repeat that mistake.

In fact, Seattle has long recognized the failure of the war on drugs and has long funded harm reduction approaches to drug use in recognition that these approaches are much more effective.

To the extent that this law is going to be enforced at all, it is the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office that is in the best position to enforce the law.

They have their own filing standards that permit them to file many drug cases as misdemeanors and have been diverting those cases for years.

The city attorney's office, on the other hand, has no experience with drug diversion programs and has only diverted approximately 60 cases in all of 2022. In short, there are no resources in the Seattle Municipal Court to handle this work.

But more importantly, because prosecution is ineffective,

Our next.

Our next speaker is Malika Lamont and then followed by Dante Damper.

And again, there's two there's two public comment podiums.

My name is Malika Lamont and I'm the director of Vocal Washington based in downtown Seattle.

We work with people that have been impacted by mass incarceration, the war on drugs, HIV and AIDS, and homelessness.

Andrew Lewis, Lisa Herbold, you both participated in our Overdose Emergency Innovative Recovery Work Group two years ago, and this This bill 12586 flies in the face of those recommendations, which we recognize that evidence based approaches are need to be funded and scaled to need, including lead low barrier housing, housing first and harm reduction related interventions.

We know that the criminal legal system is not effective with helping people navigate their behavioral health issues.

It does not prevent overdose, it increases it.

And Washington State is fourth in the nation with having the most deadly in prisons and jails.

So this is not going to help keep people alive.

It is not going to help people access treatment.

This is going to kill people.

But that's never a good policy.

Hey, Madam Clerk, can we again remind people that we have a 10 second reminder to watch?

I know we just hate cutting people off.

So for the callers on the line, listen for the chime.

And for those of you in chambers, the clock is in front of you.

So please be mindful, because then it gets cut off.

So thank you.

Next speaker is Dante Damper, followed by Tony Randovich.

Now, can I go?

OK.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Deontay Damper.

I'm the community organizer for Vocal Washington.

I've never been here.

But when you're talking about the war on drugs tactics from the 80s that is coming before the court today, before you today, I'm urging you all to vote no.

You do land acknowledgments.

You have BLM flags in your offices.

And you come to different parades.

But we know that voting yes on this would just put, would impact Black and brown people more, most of all.

It's extremely hurtful that we have to kind of go through this space.

You've had a quarter of a century to already figure out what to do in this space.

And this is just navigating us back.

We have community members on council that are in recovery.

And we have community out here that needs to recover.

Recovery does not mean incarceration.

It means equitable treatment and access to care.

And I thank you very much for your time.

Jesus help us.

Thank you.

Tony Tony and after Tony will be Reverend Walden.

Hello, council members.

I'm a third-generation Seattle resident, and I currently live in District 3. I'm also a person in long-term recovery, and I currently am a certified peer counselor at a community-based organization.

I primarily work with people who utilize harm reduction services.

So those are the individuals that my colleagues have talked about who utilize low-barrier services.

Those communities are scared in regards to what's going to happen.

A lot of those community members have no idea what sort of hammer is about to fall on them.

I want to thank you for the investments that you've made in communities in regards to some of these programs.

The real solution is scaling up those programs, not utilizing a punitive, approach based on power, because this is what it is.

It's all based on power.

So thank you so much.

After Reverend Walden will be Jesus H. Christ.

Thank you.

I'm very seldom as I am in the minority but I am asking you to support the legislature, the ordinance, and I want to spend my time talking about the difference between the one drugs that people were charged with a felony.

And when you charge with a felony.

You're, you're no longer American citizen.

I mean, and this legislation that the state has proposed is not about a felony.

It's like gross misdemeanors.

And there is a difference.

And I do agree that we do need a lot more resources.

But I also want to know the difference between the war on drugs was all felonies.

And those people were disenfranchised.

And in a lot of states, they could never get their rights back.

So we need to understand the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor and gross misdemeanors.

So that's what I wanted to spend my time talking about that.

And now.

Thank you, Reverend Walden.

Has to see each crisis can be followed by Colin J. Lamb.

Hi, everybody.

Am I on?

It's been a while.

My name is Jesus H. Christ, but you can call me Josh.

I am the son of God.

I'm also his press secretary here to deliver a quite urgent message to all of you.

So, if you shall, the Father God is very disappointed in this piece of legislation, which will disproportionately affect poor people and people of color.

and he's disgusted with the council members who want to bring this saying specifically quote i can't believe they want to do this uh especially sarah i thought we had this worked out where's the compassion can't wait for your life review ha ha ha ha ha ha ha unquote look uh I forgive you, I'm not like my dad, he's kind of a hothead, but it's pretty obvious that he doesn't support this.

I didn't come to flip any tables today, this is kind of heavy, but I can't promise you that I won't.

So I would say don't pass this legislation if you believe in him, capital H, and if you believe in follow me, I'll see all of you and my true followers at the Pride Parade.

Namaste.

After Colin, it's going to be Emily Greenberg.

Members of the Council, as you debate today whether to recriminalize poverty and declare war on those struggling with substance use disorder, I'm here to ask you a simple question.

All the individuals who are living on the streets, all the individuals struggling with addiction, do you think they want to be where they are?

People don't just use drugs like meth for the hell of it.

They use it because it helps them stay up at night so they don't get robbed or worse.

People turn to drugs like heroin and fentanyl because they offer escape from a reality that all too often is unbearable.

So if you really wanna tackle the drug epidemic, why not start by tackling the causes and conditions that exacerbate it?

Homelessness, poverty, out of control rent hikes and institutional racism.

As an outreach worker, I work directly with those CB 120586 would affect most.

So I can say with absolute certainty that if you move forward with this awful bill, many people will die.

Stop criminalizing your constituents.

I'd like to say a few things that are similar to what others have spoken on.

I'm strongly opposed to this bill because studies have proved this path doesn't effectively decrease drug use or overdose in the long term.

These policies disproportionately affect black, brown, and indigenous people, as well as low income and the houselessness, and have inherently racist undertones.

These policies have been researched to not work, and our country is proof that this is ineffective short term solution that cycles people in and out of jail rather than making any changes in society.

We need sustainable lasting changes for everyone in the community.

Everyone in this situation is struggling.

The question is, do we as a society choose to treat drug users as criminals or as people with addictions?

So I ask for you to vote no to this proposed bill and seek more humane, sustainable options that aren't cycling people through a broken system to profit the wealthy, and at the expense of the sick.

I don't have many convictions, but this path being wrong is one of them.

The next two speakers are going to be Adam Kendall, followed by Allison Isinger.

Can you hear me through the mask?

Yep, we can hear you.

Okay, cool.

Okay, so my district six.

I'm sure others have spoken to you about nature of addiction, the multitude of reasons why someone resorts to drug use, and how incarceration only rehashes the failed drug court.

I'm here because all the reasons why someone becomes addicted to drugs are the same reasons why I became addicted to cutting my arms 10 years ago and still struggle with those thoughts every day to this day.

And I do not see any one of you proposing that we criminalize the sale of razor blades to stop the epidemic of self-harming.

If your reasoning for criminalizing drugs is overdoses, you should know that cutting can also become life-threatening as well.

as I once had to go to the hospital for cutting too deep.

There are many ways, often unhealthy, that we all cope with and use to deal with our pain and navigate life.

None of those should be criminalized.

We need treatment and empathy and love, not more slave patrols and prisons.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Allison Isinger.

I'm the director of the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness.

Our mission is to organize our community to challenge systemic causes of homelessness and to advocate for housing justice.

This bill before you is a systemic cause of homelessness.

This bill is squarely aimed at people experiencing homelessness and almost no one else.

This bill is squarely aimed at people experiencing homelessness with a disease, the disease of substance use disorder.

And this bill would do nothing to respond to the needs of people for housing, treatment and care.

Council Member Lewis, Council Member Strauss, Council President Juarez, I invite you to vote no on this legislation in keeping with your prior personal and professional demonstrated commitment to responding to the crises of homelessness, substance use disorder, and other social ills in positive ways.

The next two speakers is Rye Armstrong and Rachel Scott.

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me OK?

I am a resident of district three and a commissioner on the LGBTQ Commission for the city.

This will impact the queer community unlike anything you've ever known, I have held chosen family members that are in withdrawals on methamphetamines.

This will hurt everyone attached to it and I believe that this is cowardice.

I think that dealing with addiction is something that holds a lot of shame.

And I think you cannot just simply sweep people who you deem are problems away with police and money.

We need to treat people who are victims of a system that is continually criminalized, marginalized communities simply because of a lack of access to treating chemical dependencies.

Our criminal lab is more than a year behind on testing even simple DUIs, and yet you want to throw people in jail.

Let's remember our empathy over this disgusting piece of legislation.

Thank you.

Following Rachel Scott will be Teresa Lam.

Hi, my name is Rachel Scott.

I hold a master's degrees in social work and public health.

and I'm Homeless Outreach Coordinator with REACH, also a D6 resident.

There's no evidence to support that incarceration leads to better outcomes for people with substance use disorders.

In fact, public health research shows that overdose is the leading cause of death among people recently released from prisons.

I personally lost multiple clients to overdose after their release.

Here's what we know.

Jail is a deeply traumatic place.

Jail provides no detox support.

Getting access to medication like Suboxone is almost impossible.

People are not given assessments or referred to treatment, let alone a safe and stable living environment.

We all want to reduce the devastating outcomes of the current fentanyl crisis, but I urge you to listen to the experts on these matters, including the detailed letters signed by local health professionals, which will be provided to each of you today.

Let's scale up programs that already exist to meaningfully connect people to resources, reduce community disruptions and emergency room visits.

We need permanent housing, treatment options, street-based medical outreach.

We need evidence-based solutions, not a return to failed.

Following Theresa Lam will be Amber Casey.

Hi, my name is Teresa Lamb and I'm in District 1. I urge you to reject CB 120586. Right now, everywhere in our nation, legislative proposals disguised as beneficial are being pushed through local governments.

In reality, these proposals are inhumane and end up placing people in very dangerous situations and causing unnecessary suffering.

This ordinance is part of this trend of misrepresenting the truth for personal interest of a few city officials.

If passed, this ordinance will plunge those already suffering so much into even greater distress and even deeper injury.

There is no fact-based positive result that can come from this.

The motivation for this and the integrity of anyone who supports this should be seriously questioned, especially those who proposed it.

I urge you to reject CB120586.

I urge everyone, all of you, to personally investigate what the real results of this ordinance will be.

Following Amber will be Jade Wise.

My name is Amber Casey.

I'm the Director of Operations at the Hepatitis Education Project.

I'm also a small business owner in Seattle, a mother of young children and a public transit rider.

I have a master's degree in public health and I'd like to express my concerns about the city ordinance and our desire to reignite the war on drugs.

I want to believe in my heart that this ordinance is coming from a place of concern about the overdose crisis and safety, something that we are all concerned about.

But I also want to tell you the same thing that I tell my six-year-old and my 10-year-old when we're downtown shopping, dining, and going to Sanders matches.

People who are experiencing homelessness and people who are using drugs are our neighbors, and we need to treat them with kindness and empathy.

I promise you that punishing people and making them fearful is not going to solve this problem.

If the tough on crime approach worked, the last 50 years of the drug war would have shown us that and we wouldn't be here.

Punishment and threatened incarceration only drives people underground.

And I see every day how radical love, empathy and care changes people's lives.

People need resources.

Following Jade will be George Arden.

My name is Jade Weiss and I'm a King County resident, former Seattle District 4 resident.

I'm an illegal advocate as well working here with some of the most vulnerable community members in Seattle.

And while working with the community members, I've had the honor of assisting over the years.

Those who they are those who are going to be most drastically impacted by the spill it's not hyperbolic language to say that this ordinance if passed will kill people and deeply exacerbate the many parallel barriers and systemic issues our communities face.

I urge you all to oppose.

CV 120586, and consider the many flaws it has within it, considering the fact that it fails to address that the city attorney's office is misguided and their overconfidence and their ability to handle the insurmountable new cases that this measure will ignite, considering the well-known fact that they've never handled these before.

And thank you, I'm sorry, this is my first public comment, thanks.

Following George will be Mary Patterson.

Hello, council members.

I'm George Ardham.

I'm a District 4 resident, and I'm here to speak in support of codifying Olympia's bipartisan drug law.

I'd like to share a personal story.

For most of my life, I've been lucky.

I've had a job and a roofer in my head.

But last year, I was homeless for a brief period of time.

Nearly every person I encountered while living on the street was struggling with some kind of drug addiction or outward mental health issue underpinned by the prior.

I was no exception.

The greater Seattle area encounters four overdose deaths per day and is on track to over a thousand this year.

We've developed a false idea that drug addiction and homelessness is somehow involuntary and that jail is cruel and inhumane.

I've been to jail and for those who refuse treatment, it's actually compassionate.

Can't tell you the number of people in my recovery circles who recall spiritual awakening behind bars.

Today they lead beautiful lives of freely giving back to what was given to them.

Thank you.

After Mary will be Cara W. Chubb.

I just want to appreciate the former speaker because I saw how nervous he was, which is also how nervous I feel.

My name is Mary Patterson.

I'm a settler descendant of Irish, English and Scottish working class people.

I currently live in the Lake City neighborhood.

And President Juarez is my representative.

So my remarks are just especially to you, Representative Juarez.

I strongly oppose the bill before you.

Ten years ago, I worked with an organization called No New Jim Crow Seattle Campaign.

If you haven't read or studied the works of Michelle Alexander, I urge you to do that.

She's on YouTube all over.

She was on fire 10 years ago giving talks to various entities, having explored the racist origins of the war on drugs and the marginalization of people as they go through the criminal legal system, not the criminal justice system.

Thank you.

After Kara will be ash woods.

Hello, my name is Kara Wetzel-Chubb.

I ask you to reject 1, 2, 5, 6, 8. I'm coming to you today with a decade of experience working in drug user health and harm reduction.

I'm also a graduate student at the University of Washington, the School of Public Health, and the School of Social Work.

And I graduated with an undergraduate degree in pre-law and political science, the vice president of my honor society.

I have a gross misdemeanor for drug-related crimes.

And after graduating from undergrad, I had to turn myself into jail.

Going to jail did not save my life, harm reduction did.

In fact, going to jail has cost me a lot of money, jobs, housing, and a path to becoming an attorney.

I knew then what I am telling you now, that the courts are not the solution to the war on drugs.

Those of us here today who work in drug use or health services do not do this work because we like to see people suffer in the face of systemic discrimination.

We work in drug user health services because we cannot live with the trauma the war on drugs has created and do nothing about it.

My 89-year-old grandmother and my namesake is a drug user.

She did so from the 1980s after my grandfather survived a drug-induced coma.

I want to know how many generations of my family are going to have to give up their dreams so that we can protect the rights and freedoms of those of us in this country who use drugs.

After Ash will be Alexander Schreiber-Heinz.

Hi, I'm Ash Woods.

I come to you today as a doula from Harm Reduction Doula Collective and a member of the Swedish Hospital doula team.

I primarily serve houseless, pregnant, and parenting people who use drugs or are on medications to help them stop using drugs.

Incarceration is extremely dangerous for a pregnant person, as is going to withdrawal from substance use can cause preterm labor, miscarriage, and even death.

Pregnant people who are actively using drugs are closely monitored by their providers as they transition to medically assisted treatment.

Even one night in jail can have negative consequences.

Additionally, pregnant and parenting people who have completed treatment still face challenges with CPS and DCYF due to previous drug use and possession charges.

The war on drugs is racist, disproportionately impacting black, brown, and indigenous peoples.

It has led to mass incarceration, targeting low-income residents and houseless communities.

Please vote no.

After Alexander, it will be Angelica Pizarro.

Hi, my name is Alex Schreiber.

I have a career in restorative justice.

I have tutored GED programs in jails.

I have facilitated nonviolent communication workshops in state prisons.

And I oversaw a juvenile court diversion program for a year and a half in the District of Columbia.

I have also overdosed on heroin 14 years ago, and I have been in recovery for nine years.

I moved to Seattle three years ago to work in King County Public Health in the COVID response unit, and I have chosen to stay to make this place my home.

I am currently a student in a graduate program to become dually licensed as a substance use disorder professional, licensed mental health counselor.

I chose to stay here because I believed I wanted to build a career and a place that had progressive politics where we treated people like people.

This bill is ironic to me because the proposal comes from this place of being tough on crime.

And I wonder how to be tough on crime or to solve the problem of Seattle Police Department's recruitment and retention by overburdening officers with petty possession and public consumption.

Furthermore, county jail that's already overcrowded.

Ultimately, we know this will not solve the overdose crisis or the opioid epidemic.

But we know that harm reduction housing and compassionate care will.

When we know recovery is facilitated through social supports, this bill is at best a gross negligence and at worst willful harm.

People who use drugs are people.

They were children once.

They are people who are loved.

They are people who deserve dignity.

And their lives are at stake.

Please vote no on Bill 12658.

Angelica, after Angelica will be Jodi.

And just to note, we only have three more minutes for this in-person public comment period.

My name is Angelica Chazaro.

I'm a professor at the University of Washington School of Law.

Given the decades of evidence proving that criminalizing drug use is a failed approach, it is hard to believe that this will likely be a close vote and that there's a chance that we will leave these chambers today with this body having created a criminal law that puts people who use drugs at further risk of harm and death.

I am particularly upset when I consider that the three white men elected to this council might vote for a bill that will make it more likely that black and brown people in general, and black and brown men in particular, will experience violence.

Black and brown people will experience harm when Seattle police officers feel empowered by the new law to stop and frisk any person they suspect of possessing or using drugs.

If they are not citizens of the U.S., they will experience harm when a drug possession or drug use arrest can lead to their deportation.

Andrew Lewis, Dan Strauss, in theory you sought this office to be public servants.

I ask you to take a vote today that shows us that you're more worried about your chances of harming black and brown people than harming your own political careers.

The next speaker is Jody.

If you want to hear from more people,

If you want to hear from more people, we need to keep the laws to a minimum.

Jodi, followed by E.

Bailey, please go ahead.

My name is Jody Rao, and I'm a public health nurse with 20 years of experience, and I will read into the record a portion of a letter from healthcare providers.

We write to you as over 100 individual healthcare and public health professionals to ask you to vote no on CB120586.

It is in your authority and your solemn responsibility to ensure that our city's municipal code reflects sound public policy.

As health professionals, public health researchers, and experts in our field, we urge council members to recognize that criminalization will be will not be an effective strategy to reduce public drug use or help people access treatment or reduce harm.

We have 50 years of experience showing us that criminalization of drug use does not decrease drug use.

On April 17, 2023, Mayor Harrell signed Executive Order 2023-04 addressing the opioid and synthetic drug crisis, which calls for expanding the city's public health infrastructure via evidence-based treatment approaches to effectively combat the synthetic and opioid drug crisis.

We are in alignment with this order to enact smart data-driven policy to reach our intended goals.

There are effective interventions that council members can consider that are long-term, short-medium solutions to worsening problems with increasing visibility to homelessness and public consumption.

I have a full copy of the letter for all of you here.

Thank you so much.

E. Bailey.

Welcome.

Thanks for waiting.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Bailey Medillo.

I am a Southeast Seattle resident, District 2, and I'm a political worker who's not going to waste your time.

I already know that you have heard countless people bring to you studies, workshops, An entire war of drugs happened.

And if this does not convince you to vote no on the war on drugs bill presented before you, then I'm going to say what it is.

This is about values.

It is time to leave the 80s behind.

It is the 21st century.

We need to lead with compassion.

We need to lead with love.

And all of your votes will be remembered by the citizens of Seattle.

We have our eyes on you.

It is time to choose love.

love.

Thank you.

I believe it's time to move back to remote speakers.

Is that correct?

Council President.

Okay, let's do it.

Okay.

Our next remote speaker will be Josie Tracy and Josie will be followed by Celine Russo.

And remember to press star six in order for your phone to be heard.

Josie.

Yes, thank you.

Sorry, I was having phone issues earlier.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

I'm Josie Tracy, District 1, urging you to vote no on CB 120-586.

I'm a clinical psychologist licensed in Washington State, and I have 12 years experience working with addiction treatment with military veterans, and I'm also a member of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.

The proposed ordinance is a step backward for Seattle.

I've witnessed multiple harms that criminalizing substance use has caused our military veterans who often struggle with homelessness and multiple mental health and medical conditions.

Pure and simple, you've heard it from everyone, criminalization doesn't work.

It causes numerous harms and health risks.

I also signed on to the letter that was just read to you with a hundred other healthcare professionals against criminalization who are adamantly opposed to this ordinance.

Fortunately, we have evidence-based humane solutions.

You've heard people talk about those.

And what we have in Seattle is primarily a housing problem.

People are using drugs outside because they're living outside, and we need to put people in homes, not cages.

I encourage you to allow science and kindness.

Madam Clerk, can I inquire, how many people do we have?

on the line because we've reached one hour?

Yes, I was going to mention that.

We still have 25. Let me see.

28 spoke in the first session.

We have 25. I'm sorry.

Yes.

How many people do we have on the line since we reached our one hour?

25 more.

And Council President in person, we still have 27 in person speakers who have signed up who have not spoken.

Okay, so this is what we're gonna do.

We are gonna give 15 minutes to the rest, 15 minutes, one minute for people online.

And then 15 more minutes for the people in chambers one minute, and then we're gonna close public comment.

Okay, are we starting with remote then for 15 minutes?

Yes.

Okay, our next remote speaker, Selina is not present.

Our next remote speaker is Amy Wilhelm and Amy will be followed by Gabriel De Los Angeles.

Amy go, oh, Amy's not present either.

Gabriel and Gabriel will be followed by John Grant.

Gabriel, go ahead, please.

Hey.

Hello, my name is Gabriel De Los Angeles.

I'm Sonic Chief Andy Gillespie-Gillis and serve as the Communications Manager for Chief DeAlla Club.

In King County, we are just over 1% of the population, but over 15% of unsheltered people and 32% of the chronically homeless.

Every time legislation is passed that hurts homeless people, our members are grossly and disproportionately affected by said laws.

A yes vote on this ordinance means your voting to literally undo the work of healing American Indian and Alaska Native people by separating them from their communities.

We work to create sacred states wraparound services and housing for them, creating connection instead of separation.

We are not against drug control.

Drugs on the street are also harming our communities.

The first ever tribal summit on the opioid and fentanyl crisis was convened only two weeks ago.

Our communities need time to do the work.

I implore the city council to not only reject this council bill, but also go back to the drawing board.

Your own team said it is black and indigenous communities, as well as other communities of color who will suffer disproportionately from the harms of the criminal legal system.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John grant.

John will be followed by Isaac Miller.

Go ahead, John.

Good afternoon council members.

My name is John grant and I'm the chief strategy officer for the long term housing Institute, or I am just testifying today in opposition to council bill one two Oh five, eight, six.

Last year, our tiny house village, uh, villages sheltered the 12 homeless people, having many of the chance to rebuild their lives, get into housing and for many to get to the treatment on that last point that came overstated.

Our city government must wait for what it is, a public health crisis, not a law and order crisis.

This month, our city attorney ended community court, a national model for version.

Ever any doubt what intentions the city attorney's office had when asking the council for this new enforcement authority, you could not have asked for a clearer signal.

Please listen to the public health experts and back evidence-based methods for harm reduction.

Please vote no and change the direction of this conversation.

The council should be debating on how to expand behavioral health and end unsheltered homelessness.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Isaac Miller, and Isaac will be followed by Mike Tsai.

Hello.

I think everyone's covered almost everything I wanted to say already, but I just wanted to state that I think it's interesting that the only people who have spoken in favor of this bill clearly have the best interest in retail and selling land, and I just think that's interesting.

And those of you that vote yes, you know, no matter what silly technocratic reason you come up with to vote yes for this bill, we know where your loyalties really lie, and we're watching.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mike Asai, and Mike will be followed by Peter Manning.

Go ahead, Mike.

Yes, good afternoon.

My name is Mike Asai with Black Excessive Cannabis.

I'm in support of this legislation.

And I'm black, and I've been in Seattle since 1978. The war on drugs has definitely affected my family, my brother, who just passed away two months ago, and myself.

I applaud Sarah Nelson and Ann Davison.

We need to do something to change the city of Seattle, ladies and gentlemen.

The notion that this is going to affect black and brown What I see out there, I see a lot of white people doing drugs and doing crime.

We need to clean the city of Seattle up.

We need to come together and figure it out.

So let's do that.

But we have to make a change.

We can't keep letting this continue and continue to go on.

The city has said, I have family and friends who drive King County Metro bus.

They can't even work anymore because of fentanyl smoke on the bus.

I used to be a transit driver myself in 1999. I can't imagine driving a bus now and dealing with We have kids, we got to think about the youth.

Let's make a change and come together, but we got to clean this.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael.

No, excuse me, Peter Manning and Peter Manning will be followed by Joe Williams.

Go ahead, Peter.

Peter Manning.

Oh, I'm sorry, he's not present.

Our next present speaker is Michael Wilmarth, and following Michael will be Lily Hayward.

Michael, please go ahead.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michael Wilmarth, and I'm a resident of District 3. I cannot believe Council is entertaining the criminalization of simple drug possession and public drug use.

Locking people up does not address addiction, and neither does forcing them into treatment before they're ready.

Both of these things do, however, have a proven track record of increasing the likelihood of overdose death.

BP 120586 isn't about helping people break the cycle of addiction.

It's about punishing poor people for being poor and using drugs.

How dare you try to frame it as anything but.

If you really want to help people struggling with addiction, you could start by allocating funds to supportive services like safe use sites and safe supply.

Vote no on this retro tough on crime garbage.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lily Hayward, and Lily will be followed by Howard Greenwich.

Go ahead, Lily.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lily Hayward with the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

On behalf of our more than 2,500 members, I urge you to pass Council Bill 120586. In May, before the state acted in the special session, the Seattle Metro Chamber signed a joint letter to Council about the urgency of taking action on the use of dangerous drugs in our public spaces.

During that special session, many of our state legislators demonstrated leadership to ensure there would not be a patchwork of laws related to open drug use and possession.

With the new state law in the books, it is important that Seattle passes conforming legislation.

In the midst of a fentanyl crisis in our community, we can't take an either or approach.

There isn't one perfect solution.

We need to deploy every tool we have.

At the state level, that meant making drug possession a gross misdemeanor and funding treatment and services.

At the county level, we might thank voters for passing the crisis care centers levy, and at the local level, it is adequately enforcing public safety.

Taking these steps at all levels of government is the only way we're going to make progress.

Thank you for your leadership in addressing this critical issue.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Howard Greenwich, and Howard will be followed by Erica Rusher.

Go ahead, Howard.

Good afternoon, Council President, lawyers, and council members.

I'm Howard Greenwich, Research Director with Puget Sound SAGE.

I live in District 2. I'm a veteran and a father to two teenagers.

I'm urging you to vote no on Council Bill 120586. As I've watched my kids become young adults, I have seen them and many of their peers struggle with mental health issues, with some struggling with drug use and addiction, and a few having to live on the streets.

This bill makes me very afraid for them.

afraid they will receive punishment instead of treatment, and indifference instead of compassion, afraid they'll get busted for possession, but will start a perpetual cycle of incarceration and possibly ending in an early death.

So it's unnecessary, it sends us backwards, it goes against emerging public opinion on drug addiction and how to solve it, and it feels like we're trying to make Seattle great again at a time when we need to make Seattle healthy for everyone, maybe for different reasons.

Please vote no, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Erica Rusher, and Erica will be followed by Courtney Wedeman.

Go ahead, Erica.

My name is Erica Rusher.

I am urging the council to say no on this today.

I'm a public defender in King County and a member of SCIU 925. I'm here speaking individually, but in solidarity with my union and my department.

I've experienced making bail arguments.

I also have experience in involuntary treatment court.

There is a law called Ricky's Law that became effective in 2018 that allows the state of Washington to detain people and treat them involuntarily for substance use disorders in safe withdrawal facilities.

There is one such facility in Kent.

The Seattle City Jail is not a safe place for people to withdraw.

They will die there.

The city ordinance would overburden this portion of King County because Seattle shouldn't have to pay for what King County is already taking care of.

This is the responsibility of the county.

It's creating massive liability for the city if you're going to be putting people in jail where they cannot be taken care of if they need a safe withdrawal.

And thank you and take care of yourselves.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Courtney Wetman and Courtney will be followed by Aiden Carroll.

Courtney.

Hi, my name is Courtney Wetman and I live in District 3. I urge the City Council to reject Bill 12586. I'm an opioid overdose survivor and a drug policy researcher and I've worked with people who use drugs for nearly a decade.

I've lost so many of my friends to overdose.

I live in Capitol Hill where many of my neighbors are living outside and are policed aggressively.

Again, we have a massive body of evidence that shows that incarceration only contributes to the worsening of overdose deaths.

Some people on this call are complaining of feeling unsafe because people are using drugs in their site, but there's a difference between feeling unsafe and being unsafe.

Hundreds of our unhoused neighbors die outside each year, and city council should feel responsibility for that.

Do the right thing, invest in permanent housing, supervised consumption sites, and harm reduction instead of renewing a racist war on drugs in Seattle.

If passed, bill 120586 will directly contribute to worsening overdose deaths, increase racial disparities, and make our community less safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Aiden Carroll, and Aiden will be followed by Reed Olson.

Go ahead, Aiden.

This legislation is not a tool.

We need every tool available to solve this crisis and to stop deaths, but this is not a tool.

This is worse than nothing.

This will make the problem worse.

But no one is proposing that we do nothing.

We are all in agreement that we are in a crisis, but the crisis is being defined differently.

And I don't think the person who pointed out that most of the people speaking for this are connected to downtown and financial interest.

It was out of place.

The thing that's needed is treatment that people want.

Outpatient treatment, the kind of thing that's not a place you go, but medication you're prescribed, that is the answer to this.

Housing is the answer to this.

Slowing down the sleep so people aren't constantly having their communities torn apart is the answer to this.

There are a lot of things you could do, and this is incredibly wasteful, ineffective, and there is a treatment to force people into.

If you force people into treatment, it's like jail.

Thank you, our next speaker is Reed Olson, and Reed will be followed by Kevin Vitswong.

Go ahead, Reed.

Hello, y'all.

If you're tired of hearing that we have decades of evidence that incarceration does not prevent overdose deaths, imagine how tired we are of saying it.

I work in healthcare, and I was an essential worker in downtown who now has fellow coworkers houseless because we have a housing crisis and we don't value human life.

And this, I am here to say no, please, God on CB 120586, that this will just continue, devalue human life.

And this will lead to death.

In a real world where real people live and die, this is on your shoulders.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kevin Vitswong, and Kevin will be followed by Griffin Bird.

Kevin, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Kevin Vitswong.

I'm a resident of District 3. And yeah, as others have covered many, many points, I'm just going to point out, you know, this scrambling towards the right from these Democratic council members under threat of election and, you know, towards Thoroughly debunked and unscientific tactics.

This is because they're busy listening to the chamber of congress to develop a lobby You know doing anything they can to claim the mantle of friendly to business so What does the democratic party represent in this other than bold-faced lies marching steadily backwards?

You know waging only the minimum struggle in a temporary defense of our rights when pressed This is exactly what lost us roe v wade last year at a national level and the absence of of this, uh You know, people coming into your rationality and morality to just simply not unleash hell on folks with the least.

Is it because you've done the cost benefit analysis and not here to listen to people with expertise?

So for us, you know, we need to push.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Griffin Bird.

Griffin will be followed by Jordan Vestal.

Go ahead, Griffin.

Hi, yeah, my name is Griffin Bird.

I'm an honors student at the University of Washington and co-president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

Quite frankly, I think it's ludicrous that the city council would even consider voting for a proposal such as the one that's criminalizing public drug use, and especially coming from someone like Sarah Nelson, who owns a brewery.

I don't even know if she's there right now.

I heard she walked out.

I know she had her AirPods in, clearly doesn't want to listen to her constituents.

So yeah, I'm disappointed.

And to go ahead and vote for that would be voting against all of the evidence and instead voting in favor of business interests, putting profit over people once again, nothing new for Seattle or Seattle City Council.

So hoping for something new, hoping to see you guys make the right decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jordan Vestal.

And our last speaker after Jordan will be Joe Kunzler.

Go ahead, Jordan.

Hello.

Thank you for your time.

I'm Jordan vessel.

I'm a resident of district two.

Uh, and, uh, I'd really like to know why we're still arguing about this.

We know that criminalization doesn't work.

It's never worked.

It's never going to work.

We have decades of evidence as many, many people before me have said to this end, but, uh, the people insisting that it can be, uh, to them, I say this bill is nothing but a cynical attempt by city attorney Davidson and council members, Peterson and Nelson to score political points by pandering to commercial interests.

You scream for our leaders to get tough on crime and have no regard for the actual result.

Because if they did, they'd be pleading for evidence-based solutions.

Because we know that the only thing this bill is going to accomplish will create more barriers to treatment, more barriers to employment, more barriers to housing, more barriers to recovery.

It's only going to worsen and compound our homelessness and drug addiction crises.

and then compound these people's problems and subject them to get trauma.

Wasting municipal resources by shoveling them into the mouth of the carceral justice system in the process.

And if you think it doesn't matter what happens to the victims of these crises because they'll be locked away out of.

Now we'll move on to our 15 minutes of in-person public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Okay, 15 minutes begin and the time is 3.33 and our next speaker is.

Hello.

Okay, well, let's do Joe, since he's there.

Joe, you'll be our last in-person caller.

So go ahead.

Thank you so much, Council President Gerez.

Joe Kunstler here, a big supporter of Seattle.

I've been following this debate with some concern.

Now, I don't do drugs, and my approach to drugs is just say no, but I'm also concerned that one of my favorite political people in Angel Ann Davidson is walked away from community court.

So I hope the council can consider a friendly amendment to this requiring that Angel Ann Davidson return the city attorney's office to community court and also add community service because I think in any conversations about drug use, we need recovery.

With that said, I'm a disabled person.

I take public transit.

I need a public transit to be safe.

I need the sidewalks to be clear, that kind of thing.

And so we need to find a balance here between getting everybody addicted and recovered.

That's the humane thing to do.

and also protecting a disability community.

So I'm going to leave you with that.

And thanks for all you do.

You're awesome public service.

Thank you.

All right.

The time is now 334. Our first speaker in the 15 minute slots is going to be Efren H.

and followed by Peter Condit.

I'm just going to keep calling names because I know people have left.

After Peter Condit is Matt Offenbacher.

Please state your name so I can know.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Peter Condit, and I'm a community member with a home in District Six.

People who want to criminalize drug use are placing misguided hopes for comfort and easy living above the very lives of our neighbors.

Council President Juarez, Council Members Nelson, Peterson, Strauss, Lewis, I ask you, does it matter that deaths from overdose are 10 times more likely after leaving jail than before going in?

Do people who die in jail itself matter?

How many more loved ones will wind up dead in the name of tourists, businesses, and Northside foot traffic?

And what will you cut to pay for incarceration?

Will you defund housing?

Will you defund our public schools and libraries?

Your vote on this bill is a signal of your priorities and of your understanding of history.

You must not start a new drug war.

Reject Council Bill 120586. Thank you for listening.

Following Matt will be Annette Klapstein.

Excuse me.

Hi, Council.

My name is Matt Offenbacher.

I'm a Seattle resident and small business owner.

I came here especially to speak to the council members who know that this public drug use and possession bill is a bad bill and yet are still considering voting yes.

You know all the reasons why it's bad.

You've been hearing abundant reasons today.

We need housing, case management, poverty reduction, accessible health care, not criminalization of our most vulnerable residents.

But I can imagine some of the pressures that might make you consider voting yes.

And I've heard the argument that, yes, we'll put this on the books, but there won't be any intention to enforce it.

We'll keep pursuing treatment and non-criminal approaches.

We just need some cover in an election year.

I get it.

But I also feel like if all of this means something, all of this here actually means something to you, I think there's a time when being a great politician, not just a successful one, means voting your conscience, voting

After net it'll be Zoe fanning followed by Christian wise.

Hi, my name is Annette Klapstein, and I live in District 3. I'm a longtime member of the Seattle Raging Grannies, and frankly, I'm tired of having to rage all the time.

I'm 71 years old.

I'd love to be able to just stay home and relax, but when such hideous, blatantly racist policies are being considered by this council, I have no choice but to drag my elderly behind down here.

The war on drugs was a colossal failure, and it caused immense harm to black and brown communities.

You all know this.

Criminalizing drug possession will be targeted overwhelmingly at black, brown, and poor people.

You all know that too.

If you vote for this, I can only conclude that you are deliberately colluding in racist, classist policies.

Throwing people in jail does nothing to address addiction.

Harm reduction, accessible treatment programs, housing, accessible health care in general, those are the things proven to help.

Vote to fund those.

Vote no on this horrible racist legislation.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Zoe Fanning, and I'm a junior at the University of Washington studying public health.

I'm also the other co-president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, if you remember Griffin from earlier, and I'm here today to testify against CB120586.

Voting in favor of this bill is inhumane, economically irresponsible, and will undoubtedly lead to an increase in overdose deaths.

First, I urge you all to look at the economic impacts of increased incarceration.

Research from organizations such as Pew Research Center point to incarceration as an incredibly high cost option with low returns in terms of any metric.

In addition, this bill reveals its inhumanity in the way it targets homeless citizens.

People experiencing homelessness account for a disproportionate amount of overdoses, making up 20% of overdose deaths recorded by the Medical Examiner's Office in 2023, while representing just 1% of the total population.

This bill will increase that 20% via a well-known phenomenon that according to a vast body of research, those recently incarcerated have an overdose risk 10 times that of the general public.

Thank you.

Following Christian will be Molly Gilbert.

Hi, my name is Christian Wise, and I'm a student at UW, a community member in Seattle's District 4, and member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a student-led club on campus.

Last week, two devoted harm reductionists, people who spend their lives working directly, tirelessly with drug users to keep them safe and improve their lives, came to speak with us, and they told us about the ways drug criminalization makes their job harder.

When those working with the people this law would affect on a daily basis are speaking out against this bill, we have to listen to them.

Adoption of this law would only increase overdoses.

When drug users are put in jail, their tolerance drops way down, and as soon as they get out and used, they are highly susceptible to overdose.

If you act in alignment, I hope that you act in alignment with your goals of making positive change as city council members and reject CB-120-586.

After Molly, it'll be Austin Fields.

My name is Molly Gilbert.

I'm a public defender and contracted employee of Seattle, and I am addressing you in my capacity as union president for SEIU 925. The fentanyl crisis surpasses class lines.

And we all know that the Seattle Police Department will not be investigating, arresting, and charging anyone who's doing lines of coke in the bathroom of the Fremont Brewery.

This proposed ordinance is a political stunt.

It is being used to force the council to make the worst possible decision about a extremely important issue in mysteriously expedited circumstances.

Public health and public safety are subjects that should be outside of politics.

Our union's ask is very, very simple.

Don't rush an issue that is as important as this.

Don't just push this discussion off of your desk today.

Delay this vote, send it to subcommittee, and allow actual democratic process and discussion to continue.

Following Austin will be Marguerite Richard and Preston Sahamba.

Good afternoon.

My name is Austin Field.

I'm a public defender and I'm a member of SEIU 925. And I'm urging you to reject this ordinance.

We've heard a lot of people today.

And the question really is, what are you doing?

Like, why are we doing this?

Why did all these people have to come down here?

Even the proponents of this ordinance have offered us no reason to enact it.

You have no plan.

You have no strategy.

You have absolutely no idea how this law is going to be implemented the moment you vote on it.

You took no time to think any of this through.

And other people today have said that misdemeanors don't matter.

And that's false.

Misdemeanors destroy lives.

I have had clients lose homes.

I have had clients lose families.

I have had clients lose everything because of misdemeanors.

And all you are doing today is enacting this policy because it's sort of the right thing to do.

Is that really what you're doing?

You've given us no reason to believe that you've even devoted the slightest amount of thought to this.

It's unbelievable.

How are we doing, Madam Clerk?

We still have six minutes in this segment, Council President.

Okay, let's finish that up.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm Marguerite Richard, known as Queen Pearl, and I'm devastated.

And I'm going to stay devastated when you sit up here and talk about racism and being racist and your ideology is still racist and you're sitting up here trying to have an image like If you drop the D from drugs, you get rugs.

You're trying to sweep this up under the rug, like you do indigenous black people 24-7.

And you think that we're still ignorant?

We wasn't ignorant when you're sitting up there slaving us on the auction block.

and your Jim Crow-ism, and you all need to get out of here with some kind of spray that'll just get rid of you right now, because I don't like what you've done.

I don't like it.

And I say, get rid of everything that we don't like and start all over again.

And get rid of this racist stuff that they're talking about.

After after Preston after Preston we have a lawn was feels.

Hi, my name is Preston.

I'm a resident of District 4, a member of Socialist Alternative, and an activist with Worker Strike Back.

Criminalizing drug possession does nothing to address the drug crisis.

Instead of solving the problem, this bill attacks poor people, and especially people of color.

The council members proposing this bill are clearly more interested in brutal sweeps and expanding the power of a Republican city attorney than actually helping those suffering in the fentanyl crisis.

This isn't surprising for council members Nelson and Peterson, who have carried water for big business, opposing renters' rights and the Amazon tax.

Instead of criminalizing poor people, the Council of Democrats should take action to actually solve the drug and housing crisis by passing strong rent control, which Council Member Sawant is introducing.

The opioid and homelessness crisis, the refusal of the Democrats to do anything to fix them, demonstrate the failures, the for-profit healthcare system, and it demonstrates the failures of capitalism itself.

I've heard some council members are considering a delay, even though we've all taken time to speak against this.

Despicable bill.

We need the city council Democrats to vote no right now.

After Ilan we have Victoria Palmer.

I'm Alan Bustillos from City District 4. I understand that the City Council has good intentions in proposing this legislation.

However, this bill would only exacerbate the drug epidemic.

Addiction expert Dr. Gabor Mate said that if you wanted to design a system that would perpetuate the drug epidemic, then you would design a system that punishes, shames, and gives people criminal records for being addicted.

That would be the perfect system to ensure that drug users never recover and die in the streets from an overdose.

Because inflicting more pain will only drive people to snuff out that extra pain with more drugs.

Public health research shows that the best way to combat the drug epidemic is to create safe and welcoming environments where people can get the help they need free of judgment.

An environment where people can give up their toxic relationships with drugs in favor for a healthier relationships with a safe and caring community.

People are dying and they need help.

So in the name of public health, let's help them, not hurt them.

Following Victoria would be, excuse me for mispronunciation if I do, it's Leigh Hoon.

Hey Victoria.

Hello, my name is Victoria Palmer and I'm a candidate for city council district six, but I'm here today to speak as a resident of the Greenwood neighborhood and to voice support for council members Nelson and Peterson and urge the council to pass CB 120586. Greenwood was largely unaffected by this issue until a few years ago.

Since then, we've seen encampments, public drug use, and obscene and violent behavior from homeless individuals that can only be explained by their long-term drug use.

Just last week, an RV exploded under the Holman Road overpass not far from where I live.

It was a known meth lab.

Laws are not written to protect offenders.

They are written to protect neighborhoods.

It is not our civic duty to provide housing first.

For those who have chosen this lifestyle, It is the city's job to use its power to shut off the supply of drugs and provide a sober environment.

We must hold them to the same standards of conduct that the rest of us uphold.

It is in the spirit of true compassion that I see them as individuals with full potential to return to society.

Thank you very much.

In the future, I should remind people that this is not the opportunity or the time to talk politics.

That's not what this is for.

It's public comment to the agenda.

What else do we have, Madam Clerk, so we can move on?

Council President, we have one more speaker at this point, Victoria Palmer.

Sorry, excuse me.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Yikes.

Okay.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Lee.

I'm from District 4. I'm a licensed social worker and I've been working with homeless people for eight years.

I've seen from the emergency department and the shelter have drugs beaten away at the community.

And last week I was just at a client's funeral.

I want to stop losing people to overdose, but punishing people for it isn't the way to do it.

I had a client that I'll call Adam.

He was put on suboxone in jail.

He came out with no medications, no resources, and had hours before withdrawal.

We called around and found only one walk-in clinic that day.

Later, Adam came back saying he waited for three hours and they didn't have time to see him.

He ended up using to keep off withdrawal, and today I have no clue where Adam is, whether he's in jail or still alive.

Harm reduction, however, does work.

I gave a client Narcan, and they used that Narcan to resuscitate their friend.

They came back, they got a methadone, and continue to be on recovery to this day.

The key here is that people voluntarily have to choose to stop using and get on other things.

Every day, people wake up and make that choice.

And it's a hard choice, but it's their choice.

It doesn't work to force someone into treatment that they don't want.

Choose harm reduction, choose housing first, choose care and control.

Vote no on this ordinance.

All right.

Okay, Madam Clerk, how are we doing?

We have concluded in-person public comment, Council President.

Okay, so I think that is going to conclude our public comments.

What time is it now?

3.50?

Again, I have to remind people, and it's unfortunate that I have to say this again, when people come to do public comment, just let them talk.

You know, it's just a decent thing to do.

Council President, I'm sorry, we cannot hear you at this point.

My apologies.

I'm unmuted.

We can hear you now.

Thank you.

Did you hear what I said about?

We were not able to hear you.

Thank you.

Well, let me say it again.

So I've been here seven and a half, almost eight years.

And we've seen a lot of interesting public comment.

And the one thing that we just ask of people is to just let people have an opinion and speak.

You don't need to call people names.

You don't need to talk over them.

You don't need to holler at them.

You don't need to attack the integrity of your district representative or your city council member.

We're listening to you.

We got the emails.

Council President, we cannot hear you.

Oh, man.

Well, I don't know what to do.

People that have not had an opportunity to weigh in on this proposal yet.

Both online and in council.

Have you taken the time to be down here today to weigh in on this initiative?

And all we're asking for right now is to continue with the public comment.

It looks like maybe we may need to take a recess.

Are we not?

I'm trying to, but I again, I guess it doesn't matter that we try to tell people to behave.

So can you hear me now?

Yes, Council President, we can.

OK, public comment is closed and we're going to take a five minute recess right now.

Madam Clerk, let's do that and let's clear the dais for five minutes.

you

Let's just do it.

Madam Clerk.

Recording in progress.

Great, we're back on.

Madam Clerk, do we need to do a roll call after recess or can we just start?

Yes, Council President, if we can do roll call to call the meeting back to order, that would be preferable so we can know who is actually present at this point.

So let's do a roll call.

And just a second, the audience needs to come to order first, Council President.

OK, so we can't start until the audience comes to order.

And let me know when.

All right, Council President, you may proceed with the roll call.

All right, I'm going to call us back to order.

Council Member Sawant, thank you.

I'm glad we had a chance to talk offline.

We'll honor that request.

We have 15 people left, and we will give each of those individuals one minute.

I hope that everyone will allow them to speak.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Present.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council President Juarez.

Present.

We've been joined by Council Member Herbold.

Okay, Council Member Herbold is with us now.

So now we have all nine.

I don't believe is Council Member Herbold and Peterson.

Peterson is still out.

Okay, Council Member Herbold.

So we have eight present.

Well, we can we can continue and when council member Pearson joins us, we'll make note of that.

So what we're going to do is we're going to allow the last 15 people there one minute for public comment.

Madam Clerk, can you start to start the call the names and start the timer?

All right, our next three speakers, so we can wind people up and get as many as we can, and then it would be Patrick Mowing and then Can't read the last name is Nick Castro, I believe, and then.

My apologies, number 40. Be a DB, I can't remember, I can't thank you.

OK, no one's coming up, none of those names, Megan Murphy, Zion Grove, Andrew, she off.

OK, thank you.

I'm buying this for two.

Criminalizing drug use will further dehumanize the homeless population within the Georgia municipal community due to the federal government mandating that we can't have more than $2,000 in savings or else our social security income will be stripped.

The average price of one bedroom apartment in Seattle is $2,300.

There's more information I could share with you about the rising cost of groceries and insufficient SNAP funds, but you all already know that you're very well informed.

They've even spoken to Seattle City Attorney Davis personally, Davis and personally, and in depth on prison abolitionism and transformative and restorative justice.

Choosing to create laws that you know are going to harm the community is a display of an eroded sense of empathy, which is a trait for antisocial personality disorder.

As someone who lives with antisocial personality disorder and has been in rehabilitation for about 10 years, I can recommend critical race theory and transformative and restorative justice practices as a means of creating cognitive empathy and manual compassion, which some of you have difficulty with.

I urge you to vote no and those of you who are pressing for this kind of criminalization of drug use, please step down from your political positions until you start treating your mental health disorders because right now your cognition is impaired.

I'm speaking to you as someone of your own community with solidarity.

Excuse me, can you please your name please?

Thank you.

Council President, I'm here.

It's Council Member Peters.

We did call Patrick Boeing.

Patrick's not present.

Okay.

The Megan Murphy after Megan Murphy, Zion Grove L.

Thanks for letting me speak because jails and prisons are an invention of the capitalist system of slaveholders who inflicted psychological torture on people that they forced to work for cheap labor and a way of controlling the wage labor force.

Then like in colleges when you study drug addiction, it says to treat them kindly and nicely and therapeutically.

So why the why the cognitive dissonance between like the most therapeutic environment, which is housing, where people can go to meetings regularly, whatever kind of meeting that they choose or if they want to use, then the whole reason why drug addiction and drugs are criminalized is my my guess is to enforce borders such as the one in Mexico and just enforce the whole you know the the border of like the workforce feeling psychologically abused and wanting to cross over into a place where they get a chance to say how they like to be treated at work and then the drug addict is like also on the other side of the border and it needs to be legalized and capital

I'm a pastor, I'm a public defender and also a member of SIU 925. I'm here to comment in opposition.

The city attorney's office is already dismissing approximately 70% of its cases.

Our jail is already overcrowded that we're having to contract with the for-profit score.

There's not enough providers or beds for people that already want and need treatment.

Please put the funds that are needed towards harm reduction, not additional policing.

After Zion, it'll be Andrew Ashiafu.

Zion had to leave because he has a job.

This is a waste of all of our time.

On behalf of UFCW 3000, we oppose this and we hope you do the right thing and vote now.

Thank you.

So we have Andrew and then we have Renaissance.

Hi, my name is Andrew Ashiafu.

I'm a clinical program manager I am living with HIV.

I'm a son of an immigrant.

I'm a black person.

I'm a gay person.

What I see in this bill is a dead sentence on my intersectional identity.

What I see is that my patients are going to die and I will not be there to help them when they need me the most.

This is not something we should be doing in 2023. When I heard about this, I had to check the calendar to make sure that I didn't time travel back to the 80s.

Please don't vote yes on this bill.

Pete died two weeks ago because he didn't have a place for safe injection.

We need to invest in harm reduction, not on killing people, not on incarceration.

How many black people do you think will be impacted?

My queer community will be impacted.

Please vote no elections have consequences everyone vote wisely and i'm running for city council.

So we have renaissance Michael and then Brandon Davis and Kathleen mulligan.

Okay.

City Council members.

I am a co director of campaigns at 350 Seattle, and I'm on the board.

I'm also an organizer with who streets are streets.

I'm an organizer with the Seattle solidarity budget.

I'm an organizer with the shutdown King County Jail, and I'm the secretary of the Seattle MLK organizing coalition.

I am also a survivor of drug and alcohol addiction, 22 years sober this May.

A survivor of gangs, a survivor of the school to prison pipeline, a survivor of being homeless, a survivor of police brutality, a survivor of crisis mental health facilities, a survivor of both voluntary and involuntary treatment, and a survivor of incarceration.

And I'm here today speaking on behalf of 350 Seattle and Whose Streets Are Streets, and on behalf of myself in opposition of council bill 120586. The number one reason that this that is that this law is hearkening back to the war on drugs of the 1980s that did not provide justice for society.

In fact, it led to much well documented injustice, the rise of the prison industrial complex mass incarceration devastated communities and expansion of racial profile and targeting criminalization and so on.

All things our communities most impacted by this violence and injustice have been working to undo since then, putting more laws on the books to reignite that failed strategy is not what our city needs to overcome the hurdles that we are confronting.

Another reason for opposition to Council Bill 120586 is that this process has been very rushed.

I'm personally a part of many groups and organizations and coalitions throughout Seattle, and none of us were consulted about this proposed ordinance.

The arguments for the legislation include a paternalistic element of being helpful to those in need by imposing treatment on them via criminalization and interaction with the police.

Our community members are justified in our concerns about stop and frisk pretext stops that target people who are black Indigenous and people of color, people who are impoverished, our neighbors who are houseless, members of the LGBTQIA plus community, migrants and people thought to be migrants, younger people and so on that have been marginalized and targeted by the policies such as this and by those who interpret and enforce it laws such as this.

This has not been a good process.

It is rushed.

and had community stakeholders, especially those most impacted by the impacts of such a law as this becoming an ordinance, had been consulted to learn what we actually need.

Council Bill 120586 is not the result that would have been.

Our community is concerned about what is happening to our people.

that many are turning to drugs as a means to cope with the day-to-day and that many are dying as a result.

We are also concerned about the harm that emerges within the community as a byproduct of drug usage.

Every life is precious and so is the quality of life.

This is why it is not good enough for us to simply do anything because something needs to be done This legislation lacks imagination and supporting this legislation lacks courage.

It is easy in this political climate to lean towards tough on crime rhetoric and policy.

Our society is inundated with it via the news.

movies, cartoons our children's watch, how the schools utilize zero tolerance policies and punitive structures.

It has been offered up as the only solution to a whole host of problems that in large part involve mental health and economic distress.

But I ask you to really consider the situation Has all this increased criminalization actually solved any of the problems they are purported to solve?

Have they curtailed crime?

Has it really helped any drug epidemic?

Have they increased safety?

Have they improved the quality of life of the members of our community?

Or have they exacerbated the issues?

Mounds of research have shown time and again how policies and laws such as these have compounded and exponentially increased the prevalence of the very things they are purported to be a solution to and yet it is easy to resort to what is comfortable, what is common, what is paraded and touted as the only solution.

It takes courage and imagination to try new strategies and to resource those strategies meaningfully to provide them with an appropriate opportunity for success.

That is what we are asking you to do.

We are asking you

Please vote on this council bill 2120586 today so that we can begin strategizing and planning a course of action that will actually be a positive benefit

for and with our community.

All right, let's get to our next speaker.

Since I took up the time of six speakers, so...

Madam Clerk?

Oh, I'll proceed.

Brandon Davis followed by Kathleen Mullikins.

Thank you.

I'm a public defender and I'm a contracted employee of Seattle addressing you as a union member of SEIU 925. I'm addressing these comments specifically to you, Andrew Lewis.

I saw on Twitter that you might be the deciding vote on this bill.

And I thought that's wild to me because I knew you five years ago.

And I knew you as this prosecutor, just another guy who was trying to put my clients in jail.

And now you're the guy that decides whether I can be arrested for carrying MDMA on my way to a pride festival.

Andrew, the truth is a part of me is hopeful today.

And I'm gonna say something that might anger some of my fellow public defenders, but I think we could do a lot worse than you.

I think at heart, you're an ethical and honest person.

And I think our core values and beliefs are probably pretty similar.

I know that you didn't get into politics to put poor people in jail for drug use.

You know that this bill is just plain wrong.

You know that criminalization of drug possession does not help people who are struggling with addiction.

You know that criminalizing drug use is just another tool for police to surveil and punish certain populations.

You know that voting for this bill would be a betrayal to every marginalized person you've ever said you cared about or stood up for.

I am begging you, do the right thing.

Following Kaitlin will be Tyreed.

My name is Kaitlin Malkin, and I am a grad student at the University of Washington studying public health and social work.

You've heard from numerous community members, community groups, that this bill is harmful, that this will kill people.

Putting people in jail, increased contact with police, surveilling them, this is going to make things worse.

This is not going to make things better.

How many more people have to tell you this?

All these people here today considering voting yes, what do you need to hear?

What do we have to do to make you accountable to the people here who are begging you and pleading you to vote no on this bill?

What do we have to do to hold you accountable to the people living outside, who this bill will disproportionately impact?

Vote no on this bill if you care at all about what your constituents have to say, what people outside have to say.

Vote no.

Following Tyreed will be Nicole Walker.

We know that a lot of people here today are going to vote for this bill.

I want to know what you are going to do to challenge this bill.

It is very likely that today a decision will be made to continue criminalizing people, even if they don't vote for this bill today.

We know there's a war going out there against people who are homeless.

There have been over 900 sweeps in 2022 with nothing to show for it but a worsening crisis.

I need to know that it isn't just going to be, we're sad because someone made the wrong decision on a vote.

I need to know that we're not going to leave this chamber if they decide that they're going to be able to round up any one of our neighbors when they decide that they're doing something that isn't appropriate in our society.

So I don't really care what council has to say.

I don't actually care about the facts or the data.

I'm asking you, what are you going to do when these people make the wrong decision because they've done it every fucking year they've been in Auburn?

That's what I want to know.

Nicole Walker followed by Henry Keene.

My name is Nickelle Walker and I live in District Two.

I'm here on behalf of collective justice but also myself.

I urge you all to vote no on a new war on drugs.

People need care, compassion and community resources not cages and criminalization.

People need housing and rent control.

All this talk about safety from privileged voters and business owners, many of whom use drugs or damn cells.

They just happen to have white skin and or homes to do them in.

This isn't about safety.

This is really about not wanting to see houselessness and drug addiction.

People want to sweep people up and throw them away.

That is what you will be doing if this passes.

This is not a solution.

This is not about safety and it is a shame that you sit in these positions of power and you talk about social and racial justice when all of your solutions continue to be rooted in punishment and further criminalize the most vulnerable, black and brown people, the poor and the houseless.

Henry Keene will be followed by Annette Flepstein, but I believe you spoke already, if I'm mistaken.

Hi, my name is Henry Keene.

And I am an internal medicine physician.

I am a signatory on the coalition on homelessness letter that you guys accepted earlier.

There are a lot of signatories on that letter that have a lot more highfalutin background in addiction medicine than I do.

I work as a hospitalist.

I do see and work with the people who are being treated for the addictions and who have made it through.

And in none of those cases has imprisonment and that path been a help to the work that I do.

I'm sorry, I'm very nervous up here.

I've not come to one of these comments before.

I will leave it at that.

Thank you for your time.

Sir, did you hand us a, Madam Clerk, did the gentleman hand us the letter?

I'm sorry, Council President, I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Did the gentleman who just spoke, did he hand us a letter with the signatories?

I have one letter from a previous

Oh, we got it.

I'm sorry.

My staff is showing it to me now.

I'm good.

Thank you.

We received another letter, but only one copy, so I was unable to distribute that.

We only have two more speakers left, and that's Lilithi and Jenna.

OK, great.

Thank you.

This is Lilithi.

Thank you.

And I represent WSOS, but I'm also here to represent a person in recovery that works.

I want you to know that the long-term damage of these misdemeanors is that I don't have any retirement, that they wouldn't hire me for 30 years.

When I got high and smoked crack, when I went to jail, when I stole from my kids from the stores, it took me 30 some years for the attorney general to finally clear my record.

I don't have anything.

I'm 62 and don't have any retirement.

I have to work and I'm sick.

I can't have surgery because I can't miss work all because of my drug addiction in 1990. Those misdemeanors destroyed my life and my opportunity for my children to have a better life.

They are not just misdemeanors.

This is my life, and I've been clean for 30 years, working in schools, in prison, and everywhere else for my community, and I still can't go to the doctor.

We have tumor and Jenna and then after Jenna Evans.

Okay.

Hi, I'm Jenna and I am here today to encourage you to oppose this proposed ordinance.

I am a service provider in King County and I serve mostly unhoused folk who struggle with mental health and substance use.

And I feel very privileged to be able to do that work because I have a front row seat to people who are working very hard to change their lives for the better.

And I have never had a conversation with a client that I've worked with and built a relationship with for any extended period of time that has not wanted to see something for themselves and have a vision for a future that's better than what it is now.

And we know what works to help get them there.

And that's harm reduction.

And that's housing first.

And at this point, I think any ignorance to the evidence of what works is willful.

We had a wonderful teach-in hosted by the Seattle and King County Coalition on Homelessness, and I would encourage everyone to watch that to learn more before making a decision.

But we need to be putting people and people's lives and agency above bad policy.

So thank you.

The best thing to do is to get.

Is it Eva Owens?

Eva, thank you.

Sorry, thank you.

That's all right.

Hi, guys.

My name is Eva Owens.

I live in Ballard.

I'm the mother of three.

This is Paul.

What's your name?

Victoria.

So Victoria is my people in the sense that I live in Ballard, my kid goes to school in Greenwood, my other kid goes to John Stanford in Wallingford.

I get the safety thing, but it's not going to work.

It's just not going to work.

We know that.

As you've seen this all before.

These people are going to go to jail, waste all of our money, and then they're going to be back out on the street.

So I have such a hard time with this idea from Councilwoman Nelson, et cetera, that this is actually just even going to meet the objectives that you guys are trying to meet.

Many people mentioned there's good degrees.

I have an MBA from the University of Michigan.

And I just want to say, why do we not have a budget?

Why do we not have a process?

Why have we not done analysis?

This is ridiculous.

Please take more time.

And I can tell you the constituents, your constituents who live in those neighborhoods, we talk about this, we see it, you're transparent.

Those of you who say you're doing this for safety, we see you.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, I understand we have a late signer up or person.

Yes, the last speaker, Mr. Monty Anderson, I believe.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

First of all, I want to thank the council for their support of the housing levy.

I'm the head of the Seattle Building Trades.

We represent about 20,000 workers here in Seattle, and we want to thank everybody for working on that and also with the crisis care centers.

I come to you from my affiliates who for the last few years have had a hard time on the job sites.

We've had a lot of theft.

Unfortunately, a lot of deaths on the job, which is sad.

A lot of people living under containers and drug use, and it's tough.

It's tough for us who care about the community.

Yes, you know us in construction.

We pretty much lead the industry in suicides around drug use and alcohol abuse, and it's tough.

So I'm here to tell you that we support every tool, the toolbox to try to help people be safe in this community, have the buses be safe, have the sidewalks be safe and people get care.

But sometimes there's just people just need to be approached and said that what you're doing is just not right.

And I think that we need to have all the tools, including enforcement of laws.

And I support Sarah and Andrew Nelis.

Thank you.

Okay.

So my understanding is that was our last speaker, Madam Clerk.

Correct.

All right, so thank you, everybody who called in.

Thank you, those who are still there and who also spoke in chambers.

We appreciate you taking the time from your day to come down to talk to us and give us your comments and your concerns about the one item on our agenda today.

So I'm going to go forward with our agenda.

So.

There's no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Not seen or hearing an objection, the introduction and referral calendar is indeed adopted.

There's no objection.

Today's agenda will be adopted.

Not seeing or hearing an objection.

Today's agenda is adopted and we have one matter.

But before we get there, I'm going to move to the consent calendar.

Items on the consent calendar include the minutes of May 30th, 2023. Council Payroll Bill 120589. And then we have two appointments from Council Member Sawant's committee, two appointments to the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee.

Are there any items that any council member would like removed to discuss later in the agenda?

Not hearing or seeing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Thank you, I had a second there.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the consent calendar.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Moving on in our agenda to committee reports, as you know, we have one.

So this is what we're going to do.

First, I'm going to have the clerk read the matter into the record.

And then I'm going to move it.

I'm going to look for a second, and then I'm going to hand it over to the two sponsors to speak.

That would be Councilor Nelson, then Peterson.

And then I'm going to speak, and then we'll move on, because I understand Council Member Strauss has an amendment.

So with that, Madam Clerk, will you please read item one into the record?

The report of the city council agenda item one considerable 120586 relating to control substances, adding the crimes of possessions of a control substance and the use of the control substance in a public place and amending 12 a point 09.0 20 of the Seattle municipal code.

Thank you.

I move to pass Council bill 120586 Is there a second.

Thank you for the second.

As I share, there are two sponsors today and it's been moved and seconded.

So Council Member Nelson is the prime sponsor.

You are recognized first.

And then I understand that Council Member Peterson will speak second and then I will take it over from there.

So go ahead.

The floor is yours, Council Member Nelson.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, so state law makes cities responsible for charging all misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors occurring in their jurisdiction.

And this legislation would adopt state law, Senate Bill 5536, making the knowing possession of, and public use of controlled substances, a gross misdemeanor into the Seattle Municipal Code.

Now, this is standard procedure.

As the mayor said in the statement following passage of Senate Bill 5536 in special session, After each legislative session the city council modifies the city's criminal code to be consistent with changes the legislature has made, and we support amending our local laws to comply with state law and quote.

Now, most other cities as city attorney Davison explained in an email circulated last night.

quote, adopt the state RCW's whole cloth so that any new amendments to state law are automatically incorporated by reference into their municipal code.

For example, Bellevue, Kent, and Federal Way will automatically conform to the new state law when it goes into effect on July 1st.

Bellevue City Code states, for example, all RCW sections that constitute misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors are hereby adopted by reference as currently enacted.

So it's not the same here in Seattle, which is partly why we're doing this.

So moving on, it seems like there might have been a little bit of confusion yesterday about why we have to act.

So let's get this straight.

The Seattle City Attorney's Office is responsible for prosecuting misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors in Seattle, but can only handle cases under the Seattle Municipal Code.

The central staff memo states on page three that if the city does not pass this bill the King County prosecuting attorney's office, what would have the jurisdiction to prosecute gross misdemeanors that occur inside city limits.

However, on May 31 King County prosecutor Lisa Mannion, whose job is to prosecute felonies, sent an email to council members stating.

There's an incorrect notion that misdemeanor drug possession or public use cases falling within Seattle city limits can simply be referred to King County to handle as contracted services.

State law may technically allow for a municipality to enter into a contract for prosecution services, but the contract would need to be negotiated and agreed upon.

The PAO does not have the funding or the staff necessary to take on a new body of misdemeanor cases.

So essentially Seattle would have to pay King County to do what the city attorney's office already does, which doesn't make sense.

And she ends her email with this, please pass an ordinance that authorizes the available and needed resources from the Seattle city attorney's office.

This is a sensible approach that will help ensure a more swift and appropriate response to the immediate public need.

So that's the general context of this policy discussion.

And I worked with city attorney Davison to develop the more narrowly drafted original bill to make public use of deadly drugs a simple misdemeanor in an effort to curb skyrocketing overdose fatalities by providing the city with an additional tool to get more people into treatment.

And so That was my original intent, but I was also focused on reducing the significant community harms associated with people smoking or injecting drugs in public places.

And two, in particular, drug use on public transit is putting the health and safety of drivers at risk and disproportionately impacting low-income people who rely on the bus or light rail to get to work, school, wherever else they have to go.

In fact, It's gotten so bad that King County Metro installed air quality monitors on some buses to analyze the circulation of fentanyl smoke and to assess the danger to drivers of long-term exposure.

I will have to say, President, could you please ask that people not interrupt speakers at the dais?

Yes, again, another caution.

Can we please just let people speak?

We've had two hours and a half of public comments.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

I don't want to have to clear the chambers and just leave the council members out there.

I do not want to do that.

So Council Member Nelson, please proceed.

Anyway, air monitors on buses to analyze the circulation of fentanyl smoke and assess the danger to drivers from long exposure.

Secondly, public drug use on sidewalks and in the doorways of small businesses is driving customers away and creating safety risks for their workers and at the same time making our streets unsafe for everyone.

So both of these are slowing downtown recovery and which fundamentally depends on people feeling safe enough to return to work.

All right, so a little bit of history.

When the state legislature adjourned on April 23rd without a fix to the Blake decision, City Attorney Davison transmitted our legislation, also co-sponsored by Councilmember Peterson, on April 27th.

And at the following council briefing on May 8th, colleagues expressed opposition to acting on any legislation before the state legislature had had the opportunity to act in special session.

because they wanted to avoid a, quote, piecemeal approach, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, that tries to solve a problem that the state legislature is poised to fix.

So after the state legislature did fix it and passed, and the governor signed Senate Bill 5536 on May 16th, making prosecution and public use of controlled substances a gross misdemeanor, City Attorney Davidson, Council Member Peterson, and I updated our bill.

So if we do not pass the conforming legislation, it will create the exact scenario that the state legislature and my colleagues wish to avoid, namely a disparity in how drug laws can be enforced among neighboring jurisdictions.

All right, so existing interventions aren't slowing fentanyl's death rate.

toll in the city of Seattle.

So I believe we must use all means at our disposal to attempt to interrupt the cycle of addiction and move people into recovery.

And as council members, we actually also do have a responsibility to address the very real public health and safety risks associated with public drug use on our streets, parks, and transit.

This legislation provides officers with a tool to get people into treatment and gives the city attorney the authority to prosecute drug possession and public use or divert those cases for treatment.

Those are my opening comments.

Okay, I'm going to hand it over to your other sponsor.

And I made a mistake after Councilor Peterson speaks, I understand Council Member Strauss has something, and then I'll speak.

So with that, Councilor Peterson, is there anything that you would like to add as one of the sponsors of this bill?

Council President, yes, I wanna thank the many people here today, the many constituents from District Four who contacted my office with their various views on this important topic.

I hope Seattle residents focused on this issue were also able to provide their input last month when the state legislature was debating this, because that's where the underlying law was crafted.

This Council Bill 120586 this one page Council Bill simply adopts the state law on drug possession and use legislation carefully crafted by our democratic governor and democratic led state legislature.

As was said, I know several colleagues had, they said last month, they had wanted to wait for our governor and state legislature to finalize their actions so that we did not create a piecemeal patchwork of laws.

And nearly a month ago, our state government did adopt their law.

So here we are.

This state law is another tool in the toolbox as part of a much broader system of programs and funding, including treatment.

Our King County prosecutor made it clear she does not handle these misdemeanor cases as that is the function of city government.

So adopting here in Seattle, the criminal code updates from our state government is standard.

As usual, last year, all nine, all nine council members here voted on a similar update.

Last year, we unanimously adopted Council Bill 120422, which became Ordinance 126691. That unanimously adopted legislation had the following title.

an ordinance relating to crimes and punishment conforming the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law.

What is different between 2022 and 2023?

I believe it's unfortunate that this routine function of adopting our state law is being politicized this year.

There's been a lot of harsh words hurled around about this bill, and for the general public, I want to take 100 more seconds of my time here to read the one-page bill into the record, because I think that will help, for some, demystify this legislation and confirm that it simply adopts the carefully crafted state law.

So this bill that we're voting on today, be it ordained by the city of Seattle as follows, section one, section 12A.09.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended, ordinance 126691. It's amended as follows.

12A 09020 adoption of RCW sections.

The following revised code of Washington sections as amended are adopted by reference and it goes and it lists those seven references to the state law.

This ordinance shall take effect And be in full force 30 days after it's approved by the mayor.

That's what we're approving today.

So I just, again, this is a one page bill we're adopting what our democratic governor democratic state legislature crafted carefully to avoid a confusing patchwork.

twisting this routine adoption of that one page state law into a revival of the fair failed war on drugs, which it was a failed war on drugs.

It's not inaccurate, and it's also insulting to our Democratic governor and the vast majority of Democratic led state legislators.

I trust our mayor to implement this law appropriately in a measured and just manner for Seattle's public health and safety, and I look forward to adopting this state law this afternoon.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Madam Clerk, if I'm incorrect on the routine here, please correct me.

I wanted to open the floor because I know that Council Member Strauss has an amendment.

So do we allow Council Member Strauss to go ahead with his amendment in a second before we have people actually comment on the base legislation after it's amended?

Council President if Councilmember Strauss would like to be recognized now he may let you know that he'd like to be recognized and proceed with his amendment if not you can open up the floor as well.

Councilmember Strauss would you like to do your amendment.

Yes, thank you, Council President colleagues.

Good afternoon.

I would like to move amendment, a version one to Council the 120586 as shown on the agenda.

All right, it's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill as presented on it as Amendment A. And again, Council Member Strauss just introduced it.

Council Member Strauss, you want to go ahead and share with us your amendment, and then I have a few comments to say about your amendment.

Go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Yes, thank you, Council President.

I distributed Amendment A yesterday and attached it to the agenda.

My original desire was to bring an amendment requiring diversion to be used by the city attorney.

Because of the separations of power, I and we as the legislative branch do not have this authority.

This is the same reason that the state legislature incorporated this very same language that I used in my amendment, because again, The state legislature does not have the authority to require diversion.

We know that diversion is an effective intervention for so many people.

Our city attorney has the power to lead with diversion.

And I'm shocked by the withdrawal from the community court by the city attorney.

If it was within my power, I would require the use of diversion when appropriate.

And I have deep concerns.

This bill will be implemented without leading with diversion because it is not within the power of the legislative branch to require this.

I am adding this amendment because I do not want any confusion about whether or not diversion should be used.

My amendment highlights my and the state legislature's deep, committed encouragement of prosecutors and law enforcement entities to prioritize diversion and treatment services whenever possible.

By explicitly including text from the RCW, this amendment clearly states my intent to expand and prioritize treatment options needed to balance accountability and treatment as state law intends.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, and my comments to your amendment, and if there's any other comments to the amendment, is that Councilmember Strauss, you actually just took the language from Senate Bill 5536, which is page four, RCW 69504011, section two, subsection two C, and you basically took that exact language that the state legislator passed and the governor signed and put that into the Seattle Municipal Code as amended.

So that's there for everybody to see and it's been there.

Council Member Herbold, I see your hand is up as well.

That's the end of my comments.

We're now taking comments on the amendment before we go to the roll call.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the amendment as the recitals in the base legislation are limited to public safety.

There is, for example, no mention of substance use disorder, which again brings into question the true intent of the legislation as described by the sponsors and City Attorney Davidson.

But as a recital, we should be clear, it's a recommendation only, it has no power of law, unlike when in 2018, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg announced a policy of not pursuing charges against people for possession of small amounts of drugs when expanding programs like LEAD that work to provide case management and service connections to people who use drugs.

As an aside, I'd like to use this opportunity to say that King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg was quoted on KUOW saying about this debate, to me, it's kind of back to where we were in the 1980s When we really launched the war on drugs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

I'm sorry.

I just got some news.

Okay.

Are there any Oh, Councilmember Mosqueda, you have your hand up to comment on the amendment.

You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'm going to make some comments on the underlying bill after we consider this amendment, but I think it's important that I try to correct some of the information from the sponsor of the underlying bill as it relates to the legislation in front of us.

I also want to appreciate that my colleague is trying to bring forward something that will improve this.

legislation, but overall, I think while I will support the amendment, I'm absolutely opposed to the underlying bill.

And the underlying bill here is absolutely unnecessary.

So let me say that I appreciate the efforts by my colleague to try to strengthen the effort to push the diversion public health proven strategies yet again, but the underlying bill here is poisonous in itself.

We do not need to move forward here.

This is not a requirement that the city of Seattle act to enshrine what the state legislature passed.

The state legislature was in the position to have to pass legislation.

That is true.

They had to act.

We do not.

Let's get this straight because there does seem to be some confusion by the sponsors themselves.

And this comes from Anita Crenwell, the King County Department of Public Health.

defense who said that there have been multiple other instances where Seattle has not codified the state's RCW and put into statute other misdemeanor offenses that the state has passed.

The city has not put it into Seattle Municipal Code.

Let me just give you three examples.

Misdemeanor offenses relating to failing to report have never been codified in Seattle Municipal Code.

RCW 74-34053, RCW 26-44080, never been codified in Seattle Municipal Code.

Example number two, recent changes to the statewide bail jumping statute.

RCW 9A-76-170 were only partially codified into SMC and not fully.

And I don't see any immediate rush by any council members here to apply the same level of urgency to enforce other new gross misdemeanor acts by the state, including House Bill 1112, imposing criminal penalties for negligent driving involving the death of a vulnerable user victim.

Those are three examples where the Seattle Municipal Code has not been updated, and it is clear that this is a policy choice.

And let me again quote Anita Crenwell, who said that, Prosecuting attorney's office history and policy of prosecuting drug offenses as a misdemeanor, even when they are committed within cities, has never required a contractual relationship.

In fact, the public attorney's office own filing standards direct that many drug charges may be filed as misdemeanors in district court.

Now, let me be clear.

I am not encouraging King County to prosecute these misdemeanors, but it is very clear that these past examples and what the actual statute says goes contrary to what we just heard by the sponsor.

It is not required for us to act upon this.

It is not standard and it is not routine.

I will be voting no on the underlying bill and making some additional comments here, but let's not feel compelled to act on this underlying bill.

I will support my colleagues effort to try to get additional push towards misdemeanors.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have comments regarding Amendment A?

And if that passes, then we will all open the floor for discussion on the amended bill.

Right now, I'm focusing on the amendment.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

I do have comments about the bill which I completely oppose needless to say but at the moment we're going to be speaking on the amendment.

This amendment, let's be clear, changes absolutely nothing.

All that it does is adds a whereas clause without changing one word of the operable part of the legislation.

There are whereas clauses that just give some information, and then there's the actual actionable items in the bill.

It does not change the actionable items one bit.

And the whereas clause being added is extremely misleading.

The proposed whereas clause essentially urges prosecutors to refer people to substance use disorder treatment rather than prosecuting them.

However, it is totally contradictory because the actual substance of the bill puts the decision about whether people are referred to treatment into the hands of a prosecutor who has a Republican prosecutor who has announced her intention to prosecute and not put priority on treatment.

So it's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house and then urging the fox to guard the hens well.

Okay.

I will vote yes on this amendment because yes, of course, prosecutors should refer people to treatment services.

I don't expect that to happen in this case, but this amendment cannot be used as an excuse for council members to support the underlying legislation, the actual substance of the bill, which in reality does the exact opposite of what this amendment purports to support.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

We are going to, I don't see anyone else, so we have had comment on the amendment.

So let's go and will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Amendment A to Council Bill 120586.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

So it looks like what we're going to move forward then it passed.

And so now we're going to speak to the amended bill.

So before we open the floor, I'm going to make some comments.

And then I will open the floor to my colleagues on the amended bill.

All right.

First, I want to apologize, I had made some comments yesterday, and I was confused.

And I was corrected immediately.

So I I think I caused some confusion regarding community court.

The city attorney's withdrawal from community court is an entirely separate matter from the state law blade fix from the drug cases.

Drug cases have never gone through community court.

I had made an assumption that they did and my understanding now is that they didn't.

So I apologize for the miscommunication and the confusion on my part.

Second, Council Member Nelson went through a chronology that I was prepared to go through as well, starting with the state legislature and the governor on May 16th, signing Senate Bill 5536. And of course, the May 31st clarification letter from the King County prosecutor, Lisa Mannion, in which Council Member Nelson read parts of that, which is open for everybody to see, parts of that discussion or parts of that letter into the record.

and also that between January and April, there were 92 drug dealing cases that were filed and 70% of those were fentanyl or methamphetamine.

So moving from May 16th to today, that's three weeks, we have had an opportunity to have a 12 page analysis from central staff.

We've had a summary and fiscal note prepared.

We've had letters of opposition.

We've heard from the ACLU.

Thank you, Alison Holcomb.

We heard from the support letters, the Lions for Pioneer Square.

Thank you, Lisa Howard.

We heard from SEIU and their opposition letter and thank you.

And of course, many other form letters and regular emails of people being concerned.

So I'm very happy that we are engaged in true democracy and listening to everybody's opinion in a collective voice to address this issue.

And in the prosecutor's letter, she recognized and states that while They do file these type of cases.

They understand.

And I quote, it does not provide the necessary treatment to those that need it, nor does it fully address the needs of communities addressing the drug, the drug and overdose epidemics, which require a collaborative approach.

Please pass an ordinance that authorizes the available and needed resources from the Seattle City Attorney's Office.

This is a sensible approach that will help ensure a more swift and appropriate response to the immediate public need, quote unquote.

And I state that because that is from our King County prosecutor and who we will work in collaboration with as well as the city attorney's office.

Second part I wanted to share is why I will be supporting this as amended.

I speak to this issue as someone with lived experience, and we throw that term around a lot.

And it just basically means I'm older than many people in this room.

So I speak with lived experience, both personally and professionally, of the darkness and pain of addiction.

The deaths, the overdoses, the suicides, the enormous loss that our families feel when addiction takes over a loved one's life.

Something I've learned and something we can all see is that the most marginalized people suffer the most from both immediate impacts of addiction and the ways it ripples through our communities.

The loss of supportive relationships, random street violence, domestic violence, child neglect, missing child support checks, property crimes and theft, and dangerous behaviors like walking into traffic or entering into sex work to support the cost of addiction.

And I'm sure we all know the list goes on and on.

Make no mistake, it is poor people, it is black people, it is brown people, and as we say, our relatives who are suffering from this fentanyl crisis.

And I believe we must do something.

Let me be clear, fentanyl is poison.

The effects of fentanyl use are different and more deadly than we have ever, than I have ever witnessed with other dangerous drugs like cocaine or heroin.

There's no such thing as a functioning fentanyl user.

You either have treatment or you die, and you die soon.

Let's not assign malice and practice partnership, partnership, I said that wrong, with hard questions when hard questions are asked.

Potential solutions shouldn't be dismissed in favor of easy outrage that does little to ease the suffering in our communities.

We hurt ourselves when we ignore the evidence, the inhumane conditions of addiction in our streets, public spaces, parks, and the damage sustained by our relatives, family, friends, and communities.

And we have all been seeing the spike in this in the last two to three years.

Sometimes, And this is what I truly believe.

Sometimes we vastly overestimate the likelihood of racial bias and prejudice, while seriously underestimating the social, economic, and mental health impacts of drug addiction that are literally killing our people right in front of us on the streets, hurting our communities and our relatives.

I agree with what Reverend Harriet Walden said.

It is not the war on drugs.

They didn't live it, and they should stop talking about it.

And let me say it differently.

Some of us were there during the war on drugs in the 90s.

This is not what I saw as a public defender or one of the first judges to do drug court.

This is not what I saw.

Fentanyl is a different animal.

Is it the best thing today, this ordinance?

No.

But again, every tool in the toolbox.

About fentanyl dealers, Reverend Walden said, they're selling death.

And I wholeheartedly agree.

These are the states.

1,000 people died of drug overdoses in King County last year.

And 570 people have died so far this year.

That's 1,573 relatives, friends and neighbors lost.

1,573 people taken from their families forever.

In my years as a defense attorney, as I shared, as a King County Superior Court judge, also doing drug court, I can tell you that I learned that often, even though we don't want to admit it, sometimes the front door to treatment, whether we like it or not, is the courthouse.

Is it the best alternative?

No, it's one alternative.

So when you have somebody in a position where they have the choice to accept treatment and they can accept it or they can not accept it, But it is a choice between life and death.

Council President, could you say that last line?

I couldn't hear you.

I said, whether we like it or not, it is the courthouse door where the choice to accept or deny treatment can be a choice between life and death.

Nobody today, and I know this from my colleagues who I talk to, and they all feel deeply about this.

Nobody today believes that this is the best path, that conforming city law with state law is the silver bullet, the best path that we're criminalizing drug use and addiction.

That's not what I believe we're doing.

But by doing nothing today, the most marginalized people and their families, the people that we've heard who say today that asking us to vote no, those are our people that are going to get hurt.

Those are our neighborhoods.

While I appreciate the allyship, I also know that it's community of colors that get hurt first.

Now, I don't know what the intent is of the city attorney.

I do know what the law is.

I do know what the law is on the King County side for felonies, but I and we all have worked closely with our municipal court judges.

And again, we know that we have pre-trial diversion and we know that pre-trial diversion as an opportunity to go into treatment works and we have the statistics to prove it.

So today, even though some people are not happy, people are yelling, Oh, people are yelling over me.

Okay.

Let me just say this.

That is why I'm voting yes on this bill.

I truly believe for today that we hopefully will save some lives because I know in Indian country and where we're at, we have people dying.

And there's not a police officer, there's no one nearby with Narcan, they're just dying.

It is decimating our communities.

And I feel like we must do something.

So today, I will be voting yes on this bill.

And I think it's unfortunate that people have to holler over anybody trying to just have an opinion.

So with that, I will close and I will open the floor for my colleagues.

First hand up, I see is Council Member Herbold.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'm wondering whether or not the sponsors need to speak to the bill first.

I'm happy to do so.

Well, I kind of let them both speak to it to introduce it, and I was going to let them close this out.

Got it.

I just don't want to step out of line.

Appreciate that, Madam President.

Go ahead.

So yes, thank you so much for the opportunity to address the bill.

As we all know, city attorney Davidson and council members Nelson and Peterson proposed a bill to make public consumption of illegal drugs, a simple misdemeanor last month.

At the time, I did state, as some of my colleagues here have reminded me today, I did state that I wanted to wait for the outcome of Governor Inslee's special session of the state legislature before the city council considered a bill specific to Seattle in order to avoid a patchwork of different regulations across the state and to ensure that the legislation was considered with full knowledge of the new state law.

As a result of the governor's special session, we do have a bill before us today.

Had we acted on the original bill, it would have been in conflict with state law.

So it was a good thing we did that regardless of the outcome of today's vote.

But there is now a clear statewide standard.

And there is not a patchwork of differing regulations across the state, even if this legislation fails today.

So that is, I think, a good thing to create as a foundation, the fact that we are not working with a patchwork of state laws.

The state law will be effective in Seattle on July 1st.

Nothing the council does or doesn't do will affect that.

And I wanna take a minute to just reflect on what the city's law enforcement priorities are as it relates to substance use disorder, both from the mayor and Chief Diaz.

From the mayor's recent executive order, recognizing the harm created by illegal opioids and synthetic drugs, the Seattle Police Department will prioritize enforcing sales and distribution related crimes to the fullest extent permissible.

Similarly, Chief Diaz in a press conference at that executive order announcement said, that's what we're focusing on.

It's the big time dealers that are bringing in this distribution and trying to prey and harm our community.

We're hoping that we can actually shore up with state legislation, the Blake decision, and that will allow us to really be able to figure out how we get people into treatment and reduce demand.

Further, the police department's position as reflected in our council central staff's memo notes, SPD has indicated that it believes arresting individuals on these charges provides a meaningful opportunity to divert rather than default to jail.

This bill has no impact on whether or not the police department can arrest regardless of the action council takes.

Again, state law will be in effect in Seattle and throughout the state on July 1st.

Supporting more, scaling up meaningful opportunities to divert rather than to default to jail can and must be developed.

Over our northern border, after engaging First Nation communities and broad stakeholders in effective of January this year, and as a public health response to substance use disorder, adults in British Columbia are no longer subject to criminal charges for the personal possession of small amounts of certain illegal drugs.

In support of that, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated, We, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, agree that the evidence suggests, and numerous Canadian health leaders support, decriminalization for simple possession as an effective way to reduce the public health and public safety harms associated with substance abuse.

Their statement, the police chief's statement, in Canada also endorses alternatives to criminal sanctions for simple possession, access to diversion measures, and increasing community capacity, and similar to our mayor and our chief, quote, agree that police services remain committed to combating organized crime and disrupting the supply of harmful substances coming into our communities by targeting drug trafficking and illegal production, and, importation.

We received an email from the City Attorney via Council Member Nelson last night where she wrote, I further pledge to continue with unprecedented transparency about the operation and decision making of the City Attorney's Office as we work through the variety of individual circumstances that people struggle with struggling with substance use disorder face.

The recent community court decision of her office is very pertinent to this issue.

Before the city attorney's notification to my office, just minutes before the Friday announcement of the unilateral decision to end community court, I was wavering in my decision of how to vote on this bill.

But the community court decision that was made was made neither with transparency nor with any understanding of the variety of circumstances that people struggling with substance use disorder face.

With that track record, I have no reason to believe that the city attorney's office use of prosecutorial discretion in making decisions about possession and public use enforcement will be anything that we can count on occurring with her, quote, understanding of the variety of circumstances that people struggling with substance use disorder face.

We know that up to 95% of opioid users who choose voluntarily into treatment relapse.

Why does anyone believe that mandatory treatment will have a different outcome?

And what does it happen when people who are incarcerated relapse?

We know from Thomas Fitzpatrick, an infectious disease physician with the University of Washington and an expert in harm reduction and public health approaches, that after people are released from incarceration, within the first two weeks, they have nearly 10 times the risk of overdosing than the general population or people who are otherwise exposed to opioids.

I'm really confused about how the proponents believe that this is somehow a pathway into treatment.

This is not a pathway into treatment.

And Most funding for evidence-based treatment actually lives at the county level, which is why it is so important to leave prosecution of drug crimes at the county level, where they have the infrastructure and funding streams to address it as effectively as possible.

For instance, unlike the city attorney's office, The county has operated a therapeutic alternative to drugs therapeutic alternative diversion program, which is a partnership between the King County prosecutor's office and the office of public health.

It targets individuals with possession.

And it with those with possession and also charge the property offense, and it's only offered on expedited felonies.

And this is pre Blake and that's why it was felonies because that that's what possession was as a charge at that point.

This TAD program now focuses on property cases post-Blake.

Its historic focus on drug cases and ability to partner with public health is clear.

The city does not have that in place.

Though County Prosecutor Mannion suggests that her office has limited jurisdiction for prosecution of misdemeanor charges in the city of Seattle without an interlocal agreement, as Council Member Mosqueda gave as examples, we know that the March 2023 filing standards for the King County Prosecutor's Office clearly state that they will file certain behavior related to drugs as misdemeanors.

And then finally, I want to just uplift some of the things in Mayor Harrell's executive order.

They're working on convening a task force, including the Seattle Attorney's Office, the King County Prosecutor's Office, and federal and state partners.

And the focus will be to collaborate on and develop innovative approaches to targeting dealers and traffickers.

But then they're also working on pulling together a work group to map out the existing programs and services available to treat and respond to the opioid and synthetic drug crisis.

This is really important work to identify what the gaps are and it's a conversation that we need to have regardless of the outcome of this vote today.

I wanna close with just, we've heard a lot of people's personal stories.

I wanna close with reference to some information that I received from a from a constituent specifically related to this myth that jail is an effective pipeline to treatment.

This constituent wrote to me.

She's somebody that tells me that her father was sent to Vietnam.

Her father came back as a broken and abusive person, an alcoholic.

Though her mother had sole custody of her, her sister grew up in the same house with her father.

And this person writing to me asked, where is our societal responsibility for addressing the downstream effects of failing to provide the services that their father needed and deserved and that her sister needed and deserved for being on the receiving end of his not receiving?

those services.

She wrote, I've spent the last eight months helping my half-sister survive jail, then transition into addiction treatment, and now begin addressing the underlying challenges that contributed to both of those.

Not only is jail not treatment, it is actively harmful and counterproductive to recovery in a number of ways.

jail caused my sister to lose most of her possessions and almost caused her to lose her home after her mother passed away.

From our journey, I can tell you that the threat of jail is not what keeps her sober.

What keeps her sober is a combination of having access to services and also having strong relationships with family and friends, which jail actively undermines, especially for families without both the money and the schedule flexibility to make use of the jail's phone system.

And then lastly, we've been getting information from the Seattle Fire Department and the Seattle Police Department about their work reversing overdoses and saving lives.

Breaking down all the data is challenging, but one thing that we do know is that as of a few weeks ago, fire personnel have responded to about 10 incidents a day to a patient with a suspected drug use on a street in Seattle since spring of 2021. They have responded to street locations more frequently than residential locations.

The police department has used Naloxone 43 times in a public place so far in 2023. Criminalization would put into the shadows with deadly results, the life-saving work of our first responders.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

I see Council Member Morales has her hand up.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you, President Juarez.

I have a question.

I have a statement to make, but I wanted to just check on procedure here.

Are we asking questions of the sponsors or are we just making our statements about the bill?

Yes, this is not a committee hearing because the chair of public safety did not want it in the committee hearing.

So we are just now closing out with our statements.

So we will ask you to make your statement regarding the amendment.

This amended bill that we already voted on the amendment.

This is the package.

So thank you for the clarification.

Since we did not have a committee meeting, what I think I will do is read the questions I would have asked into the record and then I will make my statement.

So the first question I wanted to ask was the CEO.

The city attorney did send a letter this morning stating that her principal goal was to get people into treatment programs.

I'm interested on an elaboration of what kind of treatment programs and how this bill accomplishes that.

My second question, the letter also stated that we need to mitigate the impact of the drug epidemic on our buses and parks.

I'm curious how this bill would accomplish that.

My third question is what direction Chief Diaz intends to give to officers about whether to arrest or divert?

This is an issue that came up and is not answered.

And how do we know when the chief will provide that information?

My fourth question, what is a typical caseload for the criminal division staff?

What is the estimated number of cases that would come to the city attorney's office and what changes in staffing would be needed to handle the estimated number of cases?

And then the last question before my statement, we don't have a drug court at the city.

Is the intent to prosecute these cases in a drug court?

If so, how much would it cost to create that infrastructure?

When would that be done?

And what happens to people who are arrested in the meantime?

I also do want to say it's my understanding that the county spends millions of dollars in mid funding for a county drug court and drug diversion.

So it is disingenuous for the county prosecutor to claim that there is no funding for drug diversion at the county.

Okay, so I want to acknowledge that the people of Seattle are frustrated.

They're fed up.

They are worried about the state of the city.

There is no doubt about that question.

Just this morning, I had to switch buses because someone on the seven passed out and was sort of half in half out of the bus.

So the driver had to stop and call the medics and we had to switch buses.

We all see that people on our streets are suffering and they need real help to get the appropriate treatment they need and to get housed.

And Seattleites understand that these are complex public health issues and there are no easy answers.

The bill under consideration offers the sheen of an answer without providing any real solutions to our crises.

Jail is not a solution to a public health problem.

In fact, jail will exacerbate the problem by increasing the likelihood that people will die either of overdose or by suicide in jail with an unusually high suicide rate.

In this particular scenario, there are no alternatives being offered.

No community court, no supervised consumption or counseling sites.

None of the options that mountains of data tell us could work.

Nothing but jail.

The sponsors claim the intent is to interrupt the supply of drugs or to curb street sales.

But if that's true, they should be focused on organized drug trafficking, not the end user.

This morning, we got a letter, as I said, from the city attorney stating that her principal goal was to get people into treatment, yet nothing about this legislation even mentions treatment programs, much less a plan for establishing them.

This feels performative, I have to say.

And passing this legislation will divert resources and criminalize people with the least amount of power in the situation while not tackling the manufacturing and distribution of these products.

If this had gone through committee, there would have been ample opportunity to question the city attorney about their analysis of the cost, what kind of treatment alternatives the city attorney plans to implement, the impact on jail and jail staff, the impact on our state crime lab and its ability to investigate organized drug rings.

None of this information was made available to council for consideration and debate.

The only conclusion one is left to make is that this bill is not intended to solve substance use disorder.

It is not intended to provide treatment to people.

It is not intended, even if encouraged, to support pre-trial diversion.

It is not intended to mitigate the racial disproportionality that always comes when arresting people is made easier.

The sole intent then is to put poor people in jail, most of whom will be black and brown, and then let them out and ensure that they have a record that follows them forever and makes it harder to get a job or get housing.

This council has an obligation to ensure that the Seattle Municipal Code reflects sound public policy regardless of what the state passes.

Our mayor has said that his North Star is to save lives by leading with safety and equity.

Our police chief has said that his priority is to work with federal partners to target large-scale distributors.

As black and brown men, they have seen what happens when communities of color are targeted by possession laws.

I still hear neighbors talking in South Seattle about the trauma caused by the weed and seed program, another effort to target users and round them up, especially in communities of color.

Let's be very clear that what hangs in the balance today is whether we will vote to put black and brown people in jail.

This vote will have generational consequences for black and brown people, and that's why the entire 37th Legislative District delegation elected to represent the Central District and South Seattle voted no on Senate Bill 5536. Our black and brown neighbors need to know that we don't stand with targeting them.

Our neighbors who struggle with substance use disorder need to know that we will invest in treatment for them, not throw them in jail.

Our jail workers need to know that we hear them when they say that jails are full and provide no safety for cellmates.

And we need to show our neighbors that we will focus on real solutions like diversion and treatment and housing That's how we create safety for Seattle.

And I will be voting no on this bill today.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Lewis.

Council President, thank you.

I owe the public the full weight of my experience and knowledge of this topic.

I owe the public the truth on some of the fundamental undergirdings that have been shared that just don't completely shake out for the debate that we've been having here or for the debate that we recently had in Olympia to resolve the Blake decision.

Council President, it is not entirely the case that the community court was not a drug court.

The community court did not prosecute drug crimes, but it treated people who were suffering from substance addiction and required as part of its treatment, a service assessment that was informed by producing a urinary analysis.

75% of the people that entered the community court got a needs assessment to help inform those underlying problems, 80% graduated from the program.

And I came out here on the dais today fully prepared to vote for this measure.

because I do think it is generally proper that we reconcile our SMC to the state law.

But this discussion deserves more than this.

And I wanna speak directly to the people who I know who are watching, who are constituents, who I represent downtown, who are business owners, who are residents, who are rightly scared and concerned by the state of substance addiction that is in our streets.

And I wanna reach out because I have spent every waking hour of my time on this council dais and in service to the city to help downtown recover from that crisis.

I fought with the former mayor to fully fund Just Care and we removed encampments.

We resolved encampment locations in the downtown center of this city in a way that centered everybody's interests in our parks and our open spaces without the need to criminalize open public use We are working on the 3rd Avenue project right now on 3rd Avenue that is helping to connect people with services, that is doing a census of the people who have underlying substance addiction problems.

I am not necessarily opposed to incorporating the statute into our SMC.

and I was prepared to do this, I think it is generally proper for us to do it.

But with the ending of community court, without any additional process, I just can't do it today.

I just can't.

Let me speak.

And I'm speaking extemporaneously, but the public deserves that discussion and that debate, because it is true.

If the Seattle Municipal Court is going to take on these referrals, and I speak from personal experience, we can build the infrastructure to do that.

Community Court was well-positioned to do that.

You had to provide a urine analysis to get through the door of the Community Court.

And you had to engage in services at the Community Court in order to graduate.

And while I understand that what we are facing here today is trying to get through this challenge and that part of it is respecting the Blake decision, part of respecting the Blake decision is figuring out how we are going to do the diversion and treatment component of this as part of the package.

And we need to have a reset to have that proper conversation.

Profiles and Courage is a thin volume.

And I don't disrespect at all the intention of the sponsors in bringing this legislation here today.

And I think it was courageous for them to do so.

And I understand that it polls well right now.

I understand that it polls well to simply pass this statute, but if we're gonna pass the statute, we need to do it with a full programmatic understanding of what the wraparound services and institutions are going to be.

Now, in the meantime, because I'm going to get a lot about this later when I'm off the dais from a lot of different people, the RCW is going to be in place.

The authority of the Seattle Police is completely uninhibited, completely unhindered by whatever we do here today.

The Seattle Police, and I wanna be completely clear from this dais, the Seattle Police are fully empowered under the RCW to arrest people if they are publicly using and to arrest people for possession.

Passing this SMC will not change that.

I am fully committed to working with all parties, to working with this council, to working with the mayor and to working with city attorney Davison to talk about how we might take on this body of work post-Blake.

I'm committed to that.

But I can't sit here when one of those tools is being taken away and the promise of a pre-filed diversion program hasn't been fully fleshed out yet.

I just can't, because I've worked in these systems.

And I owe it to everyone involved to bring my experience on that sincerely to the table and to daylight it.

I just do.

It's more important than whether I stay on this dais.

Because real public policy matters on how we take care of this.

And that's it.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

All right.

I'm not seeing any other hands.

I'm going to give the sponsors an opportunity to close us out and perhaps address.

Oh, I'm sorry, Councilor Sawant, I did not see your hand.

I see it now.

Councilor Sawant, you have the floor.

Thank you.

I want to thank everyone who gave such moving testimony and public comment against this legislation.

And thanks also to the 600 working people and activists who sent emails to the city council against this bill.

I will be voting no on this bill, which would, if passed, would essentially empower Republicans, city attorney, and Davidson to decide when to prosecute and criminalize instead of referring someone to treatment for addiction.

On the surface, this legislation appears to be a routine technocratic reference to state laws, as some council members, even the ones who have said they're going to vote no, have said.

But that's completely misleading, because the effect of this legislation is to increase the authority of one individual, Anne Davison, over people's lives.

And it's not just about her, it's about expanding the power of the system.

And I want to be clear, I have zero confidence in how Anne Davison will use this power.

Anne Davison joined the Republican Party after Trump was elected.

In 20, after Trump was elected.

In 2020, she recorded a video for the hashtag walkaway campaign, a campaign that held events supporting Donald Trump and was started by a January 6th rioter who was arrested and later convicted.

She also promoted a right-wing attack on homeless people, labeling them, quote unquote, a COVID threat.

Prosecution and prison is stunningly divorced from the conclusions of statistical and scientific evidence that addiction is a public health issue and requires public health solutions.

So who is in favor of a policy that is completely contradictory to overwhelming evidence?

Republicans, of course, conservative Democrats, even Democrats who say that they're progressive.

And then they say that, oh, they just had a change of heart about this bill because of community court.

No.

I'll tell you why whoever changed their vote changed their vote is because ordinary people showed up and showed that there are going to be real consequences for that vote.

That's what happened.

And it's not a surprise that two of the very, very few people who spoke in favor of the bill in public comment were executives with the Downtown Seattle Association, in other words, the Chamber of Commerce, which represents the interests of the obscenely wealthy people of this region, the same people who want to continue the sweeps, the same people who oppose the Amazon tax tooth and nail, the same people who oppose any progressive measure, including the $15 an hour minimum wage measure, which we won, you know, nearly 10 years ago.

One of those chamber people who spoke today, her name is Kylie Rolf.

She used to be in the office of the former Democratic mayor, Jenny Durkin.

It is extremely unfortunate that the leader of the building trades unions, Monty Anderson, spoke in support of the bill.

I speak as a rank and file member of the labor movement and as an elected representative of workers that's very unfortunate.

It is certainly understandable that first responders, park employees, bus drivers and other workers who are among those on the front lines of dealing with the breakdown of society under capitalism feel extreme concern because they have to deal with the fallout of it every single day.

But we need a labor movement that is united against anti-poor and anti-Black policies, a labor movement that has the courage to fight for what's right.

And I'm going to come to that in a second.

But let's be clear, this bill shows a dishonest response to the fentanyl crisis, which has reached tragic and frightening proportions.

The opioid epidemic is affecting vast swaths of the American working class and poor, but the crisis is especially severe in communities of color.

From 2019 to 2020, overdose deaths increased 44% for black people and 39% for American Indian and Alaska Native people.

Most people who died by overdose had no evidence of substance abuse treatment before their deaths.

According to a February 2nd, 2022 report from the Stanford Lancet Commission of the North American Opioid Crisis, 1.2 million people in the US and Canada will die of opioid overdoses by the end of the decade without urgent intervention.

Half a century of failed war on drugs has proven one thing, criminalization of addiction will absolutely not address the nation's raging opioid crisis.

Opioid overdose deaths among 35 to 44 year olds have experienced a shocking 73% increase since 2019. I had to read that again and again to make sure I was reading that right.

Treating opioid users as criminals would do little in the way of helping.

76% of those jailed end up back in the same place, meaning these people will never see the proper treatment or care necessary to combat addiction.

Instead, the war on drugs is a deliberate strategy of incarcerating those already ravaged by the system, poor and low income people and black and brown community members.

Drug overdose is the leading cause of death following release from the criminal justice system.

Internationally, the majority of overdose deaths are opioid related.

And individuals released from prison in Washington state had 129 times greater risk of drug overdose in the first two weeks post-release relative to the general population.

There is no justification for a law like this.

Seattle's and Washington State's democratic establishment have outrageously spent decades refusing to support any solution that is statistically proven to work.

Safe consumption sites, or also called community health engagement locations, fully funded public services, rent control, taxes on the wealthy to fully fund high education, high quality public education, housing, health care, living wage jobs.

None of these things have been supported by the Democratic establishment at the state level.

And what we have won on the city level has been despite the opposition of the Democrats.

Let's be clear.

resources to seriously address substance use disorder.

We are presented a bill relying on the tried and failed criminalization of drug possession.

And I agree with Council Member Peterson on one thing.

This is entirely motivated by the Democrats.

I am glad that they're owning this.

But where are the criminal charges for big pharma billionaires who have made hundreds of billions of dollars from selling dangerous opioids?

of the billionaire Sackler family whose fraudulent marketing of OxyContin has killed thousands.

The opioid crisis and the pharmaceutical industry's role in it, and the refusal of the Democrats in the city, in Washington State, and in Congress to fight for any sensible policies like Medicare for All, help demonstrate the failures of the for-profit healthcare system and of capitalism itself.

In their insatiable search for profit, pharmaceutical companies have misled doctors and patients and put countless lives at risk.

The need to prescribe as much of their product as possible in order to increase profits for the billionaire owners, regardless of the human consequences, puts these drug companies in direct opposition to the interests of ordinary people.

That is why, as a socialist, I believe that these big corporations should be taken into public ownership under democratic workers' control, and that we should have socialized medicine.

I will be voting no on the failed war on drugs today, and I urge all council members to vote no and to seriously fund addiction treatment, housing, and good jobs.

But I'm not holding my breath.

We, ordinary people, will need to fight for it.

Working people will need to fight for all of these things.

Most immediately, I urge all the people who came here today, working and young people and activists who spoke against this bill today, please sign the petition for rent control and help my office help workers strike back, win rent control in the next couple of months.

That is concrete policy that will help keep people housed.

And in addition, it is extremely important for those of you who are rank and file members of the union movement, don't hold your breath that your leadership will fight for the things that working people need.

We need a militant uprising in the labor movement to fight to win the things that working and poor people need.

At the very minimum, we need Medicare for all and to tax Wall Street to fully fund high-quality public education, publicly owned affordable housing, public transportation, and unionized living wage jobs for a safe planet, meaning they have to be sustainable jobs.

But none of this is going to be possible if we believe that the Democratic establishment or the sections of the union leadership who are tied at the hip to the Democrats are going to fight for these things.

We're going to have to do that ourselves.

We are going to need to get organized.

So please, I urge you to sign the petition on rent control and to please get involved with workers strike back, solidarity.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council President, did you call me?

Yes, I did.

I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much colleagues for this conversation and really thanks for the members of the public who brought up all of the issues that are underlying here.