Written by 
Mayor Pavone asks the clerk to conduct the roll-call vote on Council President Valerie O’Halloran’s motion to approve Renton’s new drug ordinance. The ordinance passed 7-0. (Council Member Ruth Perez was in attendance virtually)
Renton City Council passed the second-and-final reading of Renton’s new drug ordinance last night, with all seven Council Members voting in support. The drug law targets possession of highly addictive “hard-drugs”, like fentanyl, meth, heroine, and stolen prescription drugs, along with the paraphernalia associated with these substances. (The law has no impact on cannabis products). The law is intended to get the user into treatment and recovery whenever possible, with the threat of jail and fines used as a deterrent to continued drug use.
The State Legislature (almost-miraculously) introduced and adopted a statewide drug law between first reading of Renton’s ordinance a week ago and Renton’s final reading last night, and the unusual circumstances left a small amount of uncertainty about what Renton Council might choose to do with their local ordinance. I had anticipated in this blog entry on Wednesday that the city attorney would make adjustments to the Renton ordinance to align it with state law and then the adjusted ordinance would be passed; and that is what happened.
The State law gives local governments authority for controlling drug paraphernalia, which is covered by the new Renton ordinance and will play an important role in keeping parks, sidewalks, and flowerbeds clear of discarded drug materials. The drug paraphernalia section in Renton’s ordinance will also make it easier to confront someone who has just smoked or injected a drug; while the drug may be gone at that point, possession of the paraphernalia would be grounds for arrest and ideally the drug user’s first step in being guided toward treatment and a sobriety.
Unlike last week’s public comment period, when two-thirds of the testimony encouraged the Council to decriminalize drugs, this week’s public testimony was provided by nine community members who all supported the new Renton drug law. There was no testimony opposed to the new law. (Decriminalization of drugs was off the table because of the new State law, but the drug paraphernalia restrictions potentially could have caused controversy). The speakers gave compelling testimony. Most were members of Renton’s business community who have witnessed much of the suffering of the drug users first-hand, and have struggled to cope with the side-effects of drug use like crime, property damage, and discarded materials.
I was one of nine members of the community who testified last night in favor of Renton’s new drug ordinance. (Six speakers spoke in the Council Chamber, and three were virtual)
The complete council meeting with all the public testimony can be viewed here.
Thank you for mentioning Ruth Perez was virtual, didn’t know that was a possibility, did that come out of the pandemic requirement? It will help in attendance if people cannot be there, just needs to make sure it isn’t abused.
That’s right Dave, new flexibility came out of the pandemic. Council policy previously allowed Council Members to phone in during very rare conditions, such as when needed to get a quorum for business that could not be delayed, or in exceptional cases that required all seven members and one was out of town. But the phone approach was not as good, since it was harder for the council member to interact than it is now with the Zoom tools available. New policy allows Council Members who are out of town to engage at the meeting, even if they are not necessary for a quorum. The drug topic was obviously important to Ruth, and that was a strong reason for her to want to attend the meeting. I’m sure she appreciated being present for the other elements of the meeting as well.
I agree members should not do it too frequently because the face-to-face communication is better than zoom, but I’m glad they can do it occasionally.
Thank you for your Blog, this morning.
We should be thankful that we’re in an election year, as it’sa time when elected officials are perhaps most acutely aware of public sentiment, which may influence their decision-making more than usual.
Ideally, we shouldn’t have to rely on election years to see our city council members make decisions that genuinely benefit Renton. We need dedicated representatives who prioritize our city and its residents, irrespective of the electoral calendar.
Valarie has proven herself to be such a partner. Throughout her tenure, she has consistently advocated for Renton, making choices that reflect the city’s interests, regardless of the political season.
Regrettably, the same cannot be said for Carmen, Ed, and Ryan. While they have undoubtedly contributed to our city in their own ways, their track record of consistent advocacy for Renton is lacking. We’ve seen instances where their decisions seem more influenced by external interests or political expediency than by what’s best for Renton.
Therefore, as we approach this election, it’s time to reflect on whether they are the most effective representatives for our city. Are they making decisions that truly benefit Renton and its residents, or are their actions more often driven by outside influences and personal political gain? Are they reliable advocates for Renton in all seasons, or only when their seats are on the line?
We deserve council members who consistently put Renton first, who remain dedicated to the city’s wellbeing even when they aren’t up for re-election. In this election, we have an opportunity to bring about that change. Let’s elect more conscientious individuals willing and committed to doing the right thing for Renton. Let’s vote for a city council that works tirelessly for our city, in every season.
Greg
Well said. We need more than fair-weather friends.
To be fair, Ed and Ryan only started going off the rails once Carmen got to them. They’ve been constantly boring until recently. Ryan was the first to go wonky with the Red Lion vote.
Not to excuse them, because if it only takes one cute face to make them lose reason then they probably should given the boot.
Did you see the loser wanting to keep public use of drugs legal? Not the best poster child for recreational drug use. You could show that to your kids to show you what drug use does to the mind.
Let’s just say they have some interesting hobbies, vis-a-vis your young children and sexualized books.
I recently spent 8 hours in the ER@ Valley
Witnessed police person get handcuffed person out of patrol car
Release handcuffs/person came into ER and waited for patrol care to leave/then exited ER. Is this what will happen to the people who need help with their drug issue? If no/then what is the plan?