By Steve Pomper
No offense intended, but a majority of the Seattle City Council are morons. Okay, offense intended. Why be polite to people who consistently support anti-police policies that not only hurt cops but also their constituents? However, I will concede the narrow 5-4 vote was a pleasant surprise. Credit where credit is due for the four who voted with Republican City Attorney Ann Davison (yes, Republican) for sanity.
According to The Seattle Times, “In a 5-4 vote Tuesday, the Seattle City Council rejected a bill that would have given the city attorney the authority to prosecute drug possession and public drug use cases, following nearly three hours of public comment.” This would have brought city law, the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC), into line with state law, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), making public drug use and possession a gross misdemeanor.
Voting against it were anti-police stalwarts, Liza Herbold, Andrew Lewis, Tammy Morales, Teresa Mosqueda, and Kshama Sawant.
It’s revealing that the City Council bypassed the public safety committee meeting portion of the process, opting to go “straight to a full council vote….” This should surprise no one. Generally, the Seattle City Council has had very little respect for its cops or laws they don’t like. In this case, spineless Andrew Lewis changed his vote at the last-minute, which doomed the legislation.
During a three-hour question period, opponents commented about their fear that Davison would prosecute “festivalgoers” for “possession of party drugs…,” whatever that means. On the other side, some proponents vehemently called for a “crackdown on ‘junkies.’”
Ann Davison, Seattle’s surprise Republican winner of the 2020 election for city attorney has struggled to get permission from the Council and the courts to enforce the law and return Seattle to the fellowship of civilized societies. Even the leftist Seattle Times endorsed Davison.
Last year, I wrote an NPA article about Davison having to ask the Seattle Municipal Court’s judges for “permission” to enforce certain laws against certain people. Apparently, because of an unholy alliance between the radical leftist flaccid former city attorney, Peter “Pothead Pete” Holmes, and the even radical-er Department of Public Defense Director Anita Khandelwal, and the municipal court, Davison did not have the authority to do the job she promised the voters she would do if elected.
The Times described it as, “a collaborative effort among city attorneys, public defenders and the judges to provide a path for people to have misdemeanor charges dismissed by engaging in community services such as housing assistance, employment support and drug treatment.” Meaning, to chuck criminal accountability into the trash.
This unholy alliance of public prosecutor and defense attorney also teamed up to attack one of the only municipal court judges, Presiding Judge Ed McKenna (full disclosure: I worked with McKenna when he was a City Attorney’s Office liaison to the Seattle Police Dept. East Pct. He’s a great guy), who, oddly, wanted to apply the law. The radical left is no longer allowed to lose elections. Municipal court judges are elected, but they didn’t like that he had his own mind and judicial philosophy, based on the federal and state constitutions. He initially responded with defiance, but, sadly, eventually retired.
However, The Times reported Holmes and Khandewal (in a classic Marxian move) “asked McKenna to step away from his leadership post and to change his behavior or recuse himself from all criminal matters” . It’s the familiar Marxian think as we do and act as we say or else premise.
Some opponents disingenuously accused Davison and her supporters “of a resurgence of the war on drugs…,” attempting to falsely equate it with the controversial, primarily federal “war on drugs.” This vote to bring city law in line with state law seems like anything but a war on drugs. This is a war on crime linked to pervasive drug use, primarily in public spaces, including on public transit.
This is different. Regardless on where you stand on the drug legalization issue, you’ll notice that when the radical left pushes for it, they continually shove too far. Look at what just happened in New York City. Not only have they legalized or decriminalized some formerly illegal drugs, but they’ve pushed policies that facilitate and even encourage drug use—in the name of “saving lives.” Like installing “drug themed” vending machines that dispense Narcan and drug paraphernalia (crackpipes), which help keep addicted people mired in their addictions. Reportedly, machines are being emptied nightly.
The radical leftists who oppose stronger laws to curb drug use in public spaces offer flawed reasoning that only supports urban anarchy. One Ballard neighborhood resident opposed to the legislation warned the Council that, if passed, “this legislation will be vigorously enforced… because the city attorney has been incredibly clear she wants to enforce it.”
Duh! She’s a prosecutor. It’s right there in the name. But this city hasn’t had a prosecutor who will actually prosecute criminals for street crimes for well over a decade. Frustrated people are ready for some vigorous enforcement.
That’s because the people who elected her were “incredibly clear” about why they voted for her. In fact, both her supporters and detractors used terms like “law and order” to describe her policies. But having withdrawn Seattle from the followship of civil societies, people like that Ballard resident despise law and order for ideological and political reasons.
City Councilmember Sara Nelson, who proposed the law with Alex Pedersen, said they didn’t intend to “put more people in jail but to protect bystanders…” from being exposed to public drug use. Supporters also see the law as a tool to “urge people dealing with substance abuse into treatment.”
Davison told KUOW (NPR), “This is not a return to war on drugs. It is about how do we get individuals into treatment and how do we make our public spaces safer.”
She correctly explained, “As you go down our sidewalks and on our buses and in our parks, you can see what we’ve been doing hasn’t been working. This is a tool that we need to help people get into treatment, and to make our public spaces safer.”
Sorry, Ann. This is a reminder of the deep blue city for whom you work.
But that’s the thing with leftist moderates. Even though they’re frustrated with the crime and filth, they’re so invested in their virtue-signaling “leftism.” They refuse to understand that sometimes jail is exactly where these folks need to be.
In Eric Johnson’s remarkable documentary, Seattle is Dying; he features two addicts, one male and one female. Both adamantly believe the officers who arrested them while in their drug-addled existence, saved their lives. Enabling used to be viewed by both liberals and conservatives as a wrong approach to addiction.
Now, as with crack pipe vending machines in NYC, enabling is fully accepted by leftists and has become an official policy agenda. Why? Well, that’s another part of the argument. It involves continuing a “homeless industrial complex,” which bleeds into election politics. In other words, the radical left needs people to remain homeless and drug-addicted to exploit during elections.
How many decades must pass with radical leftist politicians promising to “end homelessness,” only to have their policies increase “homelessness,” before liberal voters realize the people they vote for want the opposite?
And no report on Seattle’s craziness would be complete without comment from its resident crazy Socialist City Councilmember, Kshama Sawant. Infamous for calling Seattle cops murderers and wanting to “take over Boeing and make buses,” about this new law, she opined, “It’s like putting the fox in charge of the hen house and then urging the fox to guard them as well.”
Wait. Literalizing the attempted metaphor, is she saying it’s like putting the police in charge of enforcing a law and then urging the police to enforce that law?
Councilwoman Sawant with other radicals celebrating blocking much needed new SPD North Precinct, which the anti-cop, loony lefties called “The Bunker.”
Let’s move on. My head hurts.
Nelson referred to the new law as a “tool,” which is something police officers can relate to. With discretion, cops use various tools to enforce the law. Take a simple traffic stop. If a violation is minor, didn’t put anyone at risk, and the driver is contrite, an officer is often inclined to give the violator a warning rather than a citation.
This is how the citation is an enforcement “tool” officers can use. If a violator, even of a minor infraction, won’t acknowledge the “bad behavior,” a ticket (fine$$$) may help to correct what could be dangerous behavior. Without this tool, (citations, fines), most people might still drive safely, but there are enough that wouldn’t, putting everyone at risk.
It’s the same for other types of lawbreakers. If there are no or few consequences for crime, most people still will not commit crimes, but the ones who will, will increase their criminal behavior when cops don’t have arrest as a “tool.” We see this in Seattle and other radical leftist cities with destructive anti-cop, anti-rule-of-law agendas and policies.
When a drug addict is caught doing drugs in a public space and is cooperative and willing to accept drug treatment, no law enforcement actions may be necessary. When police detain a drug addict suspected of a crime, who is not cooperative and refuses drug treatment, then arrest, prosecution, and incarceration with enforced drug treatment might just be the “tool” an officer needs to change (save) someone’s life.
The radical left is always talking about addressing the “root causes” of issues they pretend to want to fix. Well, public drug use is the root cause of crimes like property damage, trespassing, theft (including shoplifting), assault, robbery, and sometimes, even murder. Yet, the Seattle City Council can’t muster enough votes to address this root cause effectively.
Currently, Andrew Lewis is suffering a backlash from the downtown business owners for whom he represents. They feel backstabbed, and they’re right.
The only alternative the five city councilmembers offer is literally to do nothing about the increasing crime associated with drug use.
Correction: They don’t do nothing. That would be giving them too much credit. They make it worse.