Hudson and Hollingsworth
The candidates to serve District 3 on the Seattle City Council are divided on their support for the legislation passed last week that will open the way for a Seattle Police Department crackdown on public drug use on the city’s streets while doing more to emphasize diversion and treatment. One would have sided with current D3 rep Kshama Sawant in unsuccessfully opposing the bill, the other says her personal experience and family loss would make it impossible for her not to vote yes on the legislation.
“I lost my brother-in-law to fentanyl. He used to be on 3rd and Pike,” Joy Hollingsworth tells CHS as she called last week’s vote “a much needed step in the right direction to help manage the fentanyl crisis that is ravaging our community.”
“Unfortunately he was murdered, shot in the head point blank range,” Hollingsworth said. “Compassion has many forms. It’s sometimes soft and sweet, and other times it’s accountability and action.”
Hollingsworth’s opponent Alex Hudson says, like Sawant, she would have opposed the legislation. But unlike the socialist firebrand who criticized Democratic leaders and championed police abolition in her vote against the bill, Hudson offered sober legislative reality in her reasons for the hypothetical “no” vote.
“The current version of the bill has some positive stated intentions of diversion, but it’s an empty promise,” Hudson said.
“There has been no established process to divert, and no resources have been allocated to create treatment to divert people to.”
The newly passed law will incorporate elements of statewide changes allowing the city attorney to prosecute a wider spectrum of drug cases while adding new policies about arrests, plus tying funding for treatment and services to the legislation by shuffling $27 million in budgeted spending toward enhanced treatment facilities, new addiction services, and improved overdose response for first responders including $7 million this year in capital investments in facilities to provide services such as post-overdose care, opioid medication delivery, health hub services, long-term care management, and drop-in support. Critics like Hudson point out that the plan includes no new spending and is likely inadequate to support true balance to the law and order component it opens up.
CHS reported here on the 6-3 vote approving the bill that fell as expected with District 2 representative Tammy Morales, and current District 3 leader Sawant joined by citywide councilmember Teresa Mosqueda in opposing the bill.
Hollingsworth, who has spoke up for equity in the city’s legal cannabis trade and is part of her family’s marijuana growing business, is entangled in a race for the D3 seat with former First Hill Improvement Association and Transportation Choices Coalition leader Hudson. Hollingsworth has spoken in favor of more efforts to arrest and prosecute public drug use while also calling for additional treatment resources. “Using deadly chemical drugs in the open air is illegal and we need to apply the law to ensure people are getting treatment. It’s unhealthy and dangerous,” she told CHS this summer. While Hudson opposes the crackdown without adequate treatment and diversion programs, she has said she does not support the so-called defunding of police but would like to see more efforts to connect the force to the communities it serves. “I hear overwhelmingly from residents that they want to see the return of community-based policing and ‘beat cops,’ officers who are deeply embedded in neighborhoods, out walking around in communities, getting to know residents and workers, and who can help mediate conflicts, address issues before they boil over, and be a resource for all,” Hudson said. “Ideally, this will foster supportive relationships between the police and the community and contribute to the important work of rebuilding trust in our police while improving public safety.”
The candidates’ full statements on the recently passed drug use enforcement and treatment bill are below.
JOY HOLLINGSWORTH
I would have voted YES on the bill. Our City Council took a much needed step in the right direction to help manage the fentanyl crisis that is ravaging our community.
I lost my brother-in-law to fentanyl. He used to be on 3rd and Pike. Unfortunately he was murdered, shot in the head point blank range. Compassion has many forms. It’s sometimes soft and sweet, and other times it’s accountability and action.Most people suffering on our streets using fentanyl are mentality incapable and emotionally controlled by this poison they are putting in their bodies. People have lost lives and they have been disconnected from their families.
People have to get treatment. We have to make suboxone and methadone so easy for people to access to help them transition off fentanyl. We have to stop normalizing people suffering on our streets. The compassionate approach is to ensure that people get treatment, have open access to mental health services, we protect the service providers who are doing the work, and we also protect our neighborhoods from the damaging aftermaths and activity that surrounds people using fentanyl, thats a public safety concern.
ALEX HUDSON
I am not able to support this legislation as written and passed. The current version of the bill has some positive stated intentions of diversion, but it’s an empty promise. There has been no established process to divert, and no resources have been allocated to create treatment to divert people to. So, I worry this bill in its current form is not going to help anyone or make any noticeable improvement to the misery and disorder on our streets. I look forward to seeing a budget that invests in support and medical treatment at the scale of the problem, which is costing hundreds of people their lives and making our city not able to reach our full potential.
Mayor Bruce Harrell has signed the legislation and it will go into effect next month. Meanwhile, ballots for the November General Election will be mailed the week of October 18th.
HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
I continue to be impressed with Joy’s deep understanding and nuanced positions that are shaped by her lived experience as a queer, African American woman and small business owner that was born and raised in D3. Alex has some good transportation experience and ideas, but her drug, crime and housing positions are flat, ideological rigid and detached from the day to day experience of people that live and work in D3.
Agreed. Support this legislation and then explain the diversion/treatment legislation you will be introducing once elected. Otherwise you sound like all the other lefties who decry anything harsher than our current system for addicts.
I’m not an absolutist either way on this issue (or this campaign), but Hudson’s criticisms of the bill do seem valid. Pointing out its lack of procedural specifics or any new funding is hardly a mark of ideological rigidity.
Agreed
After Hudson told the stranger she supports defund, I’m not surprised she’s for more of the failed policies that got us into this mess.
Hudson living in 2020
I trust Hollinsworth on this a lot more, particularly since she’s lost a family member to the crisis. Hudson sounds like another Mosqueda – no thanks. We’ve had Progressive demagogues already. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place.
Kudos to Alex Hudson for using facts to guide policy.
I guess I see part of the problem being folks like Hollingsworth that seem to think the answer to fentanyl addiction within their family is to get them into a KCRH Quality Inn hotel room, hope for the best, and then use their death for political gain… Do we really expect this mentality to get us a working solution to this problem?
Hey Matt! Thanks for the comment. The last 12 years have been pretty rough for my wife’s family. My brother-in-law had been in/out of jail, treatment and care facilities. Just last year in october, is when he was introduced to Fentanyl. It was a new beast and it happened super fast. We never hoped for the best, we prayed for the best. We did our best with love, support, prayer and even more prayer. That poison is something I don’t wish on anyone. Political Gain? Nope. This is real life, real stories, real impacts and Real PAIN. [email protected] if you want to chat more. Hit me up!
I’m sorry for your pain Joy, but please explain how this legislation would have had tangential impacts on your brother-in-law! What insights have you actually gained, how would you have addressed this family issue differently knowing what you know now. You don’t really answer these questions and just seem to use this pain as trump card against your opponents when convenient…
Also, in your Real Change interview a few weeks ago you stated he got into fentanyl in August, not October… I know this is an uncomfortable story, but it’s one you brought into the public realm, and it relates to important topics about our city, and im sorry that I find your descriptions about this topic in general to be all over the place
Dude chill. She gave you her email. Go email her.
She’s the one that is campaigning on her family’s tragedy and brought it up on several occasions, she should be able to answer questions about it publicly too, the private email was a bit off putting honestly…
Your take on this is helpful in determining how to interpret things that you type. It’s pretty hard to take you seriously now.
I liked you better when you restricted yourself to ending all your posts with a shoulder shrug emoji.
Good one Glenn, would you like to regale us with more stories about how you’re saving the common folks with your garden and lawn watering habits? 🤷🏻♂️
The legislation creates the possibility that less of the drugs will be traded on our streets, perhaps arrest the person selling and buying as a stopgap measure to getting into treatment, perhaps make it harder to find/get and most of all stop the free for all on the streets. Is it a panacea? No, but if it has the possibility of saving some lives and restoring some addicts back to their pre-addiction productive lives then it’s worth doing.
Have you read the legislation? There’s no new funding for treatment, and I’m not seeing how criminalizing possession and use is going to do much other than send people to jail where the problems often get worse or increase likelihood for overdose from loss of tolerance. It’s currently illegal to fence stolen goods, but I see it daily in the open in Little Saigon, laws don’t fix problems, people do, and that requires funding people to actually address the issue, not making a procedural change to the very lowest of charges…
It’s literally just virtue signalling, there’s more than enough laws on the books to stop the problem actors, they can’t even stop the fencing of stolen goods in broad daylight, what makes you think that this will make a difference. If SPD wanted to address drug addiction, they could sell off their military grade crowd control equipment and invest it in treatment.
This legislation is about how drug possession is addressed. By getting people into the system they can attempt to deal with their addiction and it also includes some treatment funding that was added between the mayor and the council however the city and county budget are where the main funding comes from and that is being addressed in the 2024 budgets. The status quo is unacceptable.
The bill doesn’t include any new funding for treatment, they just keep making it sound like it does. Please do some research before spouting off falsehoods…
https://www.kuow.org/stories/seattle-city-council-passes-drug-ordinance
Joy Hollingsworth is an inspirational engaging candidate. Hoping Seattle can take a step forward with her rather than stay mired in absolutist-activist politics similar to the retiring incumbent.
Hudson sounds like a flop. Maybe she’d be a better fit working for SDOT, sound transit or king county metro?
I make no comment about this politically but I think the typo, “Lawn and Order,” in this article is incredibly funny. I will be using this in the future, despite having no lawn.
Happy to entertain. Repaired.
Don’t be fooled by Joy Hollingsworth. She is a corporate candidate. Everything she favors, would directly benefit her business. “Equity” is great and all. But what “inequity” and is it a beef with any merit? None the less, it’s her personal issues that’s at the forefront.
On the other hand? Hudson has nothing to gain. There’s no incentive to create laws that directly benefit her monetarily in any way.
We’ve had enough of corporatists. Hudson is easily the better candidate. She’s not bought and sold in self dealing.
*looks around* … SEATTLE … has had enough “corporatists”? In my 23 years, I don’t remember a time when there was even a plurality of people truly advocating for business interests in this town, let alone a majority.
Well I’ve been here 58 years and I can assure you…We advocate for business interests around here. But there needs to be balance. There needs to be no self dealing involved if we can help it.
Seattle has been trending anti-business for as long as I’ve been here. As a business owner myself, I can assure you that if we are out of balance in any direction, it’s not in the favor of business, at least not small business. Those property taxes? That’s my personal as well as real property tax. That means that every time you vote to fund another program with property taxes, I pay both with the building value (in actual tax if I own it, and tax passed down through NNN if I rent), as well as the value of my brand, the value of my chair, my leasehold improvements, literally everything that classifies as an asset. This town disproportionately expects small business to carry the weight of the majority of funding. Then we’re expected to pay an eternally increasing minimum wage and rent, all while people sleep on our patios, leaving actual piles of shit and needles behind and never raising prices to handle it or your neighbors trash talk you as a money-grubbing capitalist … why? Because our progressive city council has told them that this is what we are. Our employees expect us to keep them perfectly safe while the lawless are more emboldened than ever and our cops are hated and made toothless. This is a city that is not balanced, and just because it courted Amazon and Boeing with incentives does not make it necessarily a “pro-business” city. Small businesses are what provide the majority of our jobs, develop your culture and make your city a desirable place to live in, and our policies do not show awareness of this.
Agreed Jason! Very frustrating, but very well explained by you. Thank You!
You do know that “corporatist” means large corporations and not small businesses right? Saying Seattle has had enough corporatists one is saying we’ve had too many officials that court large businesses instead of promoting our city from the ground up. There’s a huge difference between supporting small businesses and being a corporatists, far too many have been the latter and few have truly been the former.
Sure do, but tell that to average Seattle voter. Candidates and policies are frequently voted down under the assumption that business is business regardless of size. Small business owners are treated like Bezos all the damn time. I, for one, am really f*ing sick of it, but it’s a pervasive narrative in this town, visible in the comment thread I’m replying to.
So spread the word, please, and let’s maybe not trash a progressive candidate when they have small business know-how and sympathies as many people, like Butch Griggs, do. Calling her a “corporatist” is absurd, and that is what I’m responding to.
She’s endorsed by Mayor Harrel and the Seattle Times, two corporatist and status quo institutions in Seattle, so I think it’s a fair assessment…
What an incredibly thoughtless way to judge someone’s future potential as a candidate. So you’re saying that there doesn’t need to be direct evidence of someone’s desire to push benefits for large corporations, only backing by individuals or organizations that you have determined to be “corporatists”? There is nothing logical about this. What if none of the candidates were corporatists, and so corporatist organizations were forced to consider other topics in choosing an endorsement.
Voting strictly by endorsements is a great way to guarantee that there will only ever be 2 powerful parties that will forever grow more extreme and less creative in their solutions.
You would have to be naive to think that the Mayor Harrell endorsement wasn’t sought out by the Hollingsworth campaign… the ST endorsement was sort of the confirmation. Do you think she won’t owe political favors to Harrell for that early endorsement from the Mayor?
Ok Sawant, sure.
Hudson seems to be ignoring the fact the legislation will earmark $27 million in additional spending to the programs she supports, such as diversion and enhanced treatment facilities. This may not be “new spending” as far as the total budget is concerned, but it does add more money to help addicts get sober, on top of the large amount we already spend on the homeless.
This just cements my decision to vote for Joy Hollingsworth.
The $27 million is spread out over a 17-year period. Though there is a larger up-front investment to fund capital costs, the reality is that the remaining $20 will hardly scratch the surface in terms of the services needed to meet need and the ability to keep them operational in the long run. $27 million is a nice headline number to give the illusion that the legislation is doing something for treatment and diversion, but the reality is that it does not at all follow the guidance of King County public health experts and only continues the failed War on Drugs.
OK, but what about the $200 million we already spend annually on the homeless issue? Some of that, anyway, goes to things like diversion and treatment.
Would you like to cite some sources on this $200 million/year spending you’re quoting? The majority of spending I’ve seen these days is mostly towards finding housing, turns out that a rapid influx of individuals with overpaid salaries and a housing market with a primary goal of profit can create a catastrophic situation for cities that rely on individuals of all walks of life
IMO people on the far sides of the political spectrum are viewing the passing of this law with a polarized black or white lens. I see it as another tool that police can use. Will they use it? Depends. Obviously they’re not going to sweep everyone using illicit drugs and put them in jail like conservatives cry for (and who don’t want their taxes raised to pay for that).
But it might help them make a point by clearing out the bus stops, the buses, and light rail of the worst users so everyone else can use public transportation in peace, as well as private entrances to businesses and dwellings. Word will get out on the street, and the users will know they have a choice to continue flagrant public use, or spend a six month stint in county.
The far left progressive stance has been that driving the use more underground will result in more od’s. But that’s flawed thinking – many of these users will od no matter where they do it, whether it be a bus stop, a tent, or a County supplied hotel room. Fentanyl and the new breed of meth has too powerful of a hold once addicted. And even old school ex-junkies I know are shocked by the behavior of this new era of drug users. I know it’s key and most effective to go after the dealers, but many of the street users we see are mid-level dealers themselves, and/or involved in crime in order to pay for their habit.
I’ve recently had to pick up used foils from the Leschi school playground. Not to mention the edges of most green areas are now littered with used toilet paper. Do we want to continue to coddle addicts or take our city back for our children’s future?
and how much you gonna pay the cops to do this? Do understand, the cops are thin already.
Hudson won’t change anything. You can’t wait for the perfect to start doing good. I frequent Little Saigon and the stretch along 12th is a disgrace, with the addicts openingly killing themselves and bringing the whole neighborhood down with them. I pity the businesses and law abiding residents there. Time for a change.
agreed 100 percent. we need action on this issue enough with the theories
The folks there are committing plenty of other crimes with greater penalties than drug use and possession, how will this legislation actually help address this issue?!?
This issue is this: Compassion dictates that some people must be compelled against their will to take actions in the interest of themselves and society. Enabling drug use in public spaces in not compassionate to the drug user nor to the surrounding community. So, how do we as a society morally compel people against their will? We use a democratic political system to construct laws and institutions to ensure justice. That is what is being asked here. And that is what Joy Hollingsworth is offering to do if we elect her.
This is a very childish and outcome based view of the problem, I think the better question is how do we create a system that distrupts the current pipeline to addiction that starts much earlier than someone considering illicit drugs…
I admire Alex Hudson and voted for her in the primary. While I knew our politics didn’t align 100%, I do think she is well-studied on issues like zoning and transportation.
Based on this article, I will be voting for Joy Hollingsworth in November. The correct approach is to pass the law and then do the work of budgeting diversion programs over the course of years.
On this issue, the progressive bloc on the council has been unable to drive toward solutions because the perfect has been made the enemy of the good.
The JumpStart tax was created while we were in the middle of a mental health and addiction crisis, yet no funding was allocated to these pressing problems. It funds affordable housing, which is good, but later we learn the goalpost for solving our homelessness crisis has changed from affordable housing to “permanent supportive housing”.
Now the same bloc is demanding dramatic funding for treatment before we align with state law. Where were the demands before this year? Moderate Sara Nelson proposed an amendment to last year’s budget for drug treatment. It was voted down. I was told the city couldn’t afford it. For years, these leaders have been funding harm reduction instead of treatment. And leaving mental illness for some other level of government to maybe do something for, one day.
I fear that Alex will join this progressive bloc, and that she will always have a reasonable objection to righting our failures. She is running in the progressive lane and will likely feel beholden to that positioning.
Because letting people overdose on the street is not compassionate, the opportunity cost of dithering is too real. Above, Joy spoke clearly about her values and she won my vote.
Well said. Until a couple years ago, I strongly identified as a progressive. The disastrous policies of progressives in Seattle have pushed me toward the center. I no longer believe the progressive wing of the Council has the political courage to lead the city. They remind me of the MAGA crowd. All ideology and no common sense.
Absolutely right.
Except we’ve given almost a century towards the criminal justice solution and have yet to reap rewards… it’s sad that we spend a few years of lip service to reform in the midst of a once in a century public health crisis and that’s it…
Matt, both the state law and the city version of it have a large focus on diversion & are not like the war on drugs approach you’re alluding to. Further, the misdemeanor crime here is about using drugs in public places, not simple possession, even though possession was a felony just a few years ago. These are signs of progress toward your aims.
In Portugal, where drugs are decriminalized, it is illegal to use drugs in public. When people break that law, police will work to guide that person toward treatment. That’s a vision of what we can create here.
I don’t believe in locking people up for addiction, but I do strongly feel that society needs to help those gripped by addiction and leveraging the existing systems we have is the only way to move forward with speed that matches the crisis.
It’s true that we also need to build new systems for treatment. My point is that progressives on council had the ability to fund a much different approach with JumpStart. The truth is no one has a fleshed out, viable alternative to fund & there had been a lot of focus on “reducing stigma of homeless people”. I agree with your point about lip service. Granting money to non-profits to build affordable housing was politically easier.
We are rightly looking toward the state and city laws that were crafted through compromise. Instead of re-litigating that, I expect future council members to work to build & fund more diversion and treatment systems.
This has no funding for diversion… this is a green light to harass people addicted to dangerous drugs given to a group that is charged with protecting and serving people in Seattle, but has only recently shown that they have zero empathy, remorse, or ability to learn from their mistakes!
Ugh… definitely not only recently, that’s a typo
I’m grateful for the fact the both candidates seem more measured, willing to compromise, and less ideological than our outgoing rep. I think both candidates would do good and be an improvement.
Sealed the deal for my vote for Joy
It’s Hudson for me. You have to actually have the ability to divert and treat before saying that is the preferred option. Until there are thousands more treatment beds in place, this legislation will just be filling up jail space.
. . . and sending more people to jail will not solve the problem. . .