By James Tabafunda
NORTHWEST ASIAN WEEKLY
The Seattle City Council convened a public hearing to discuss a new bill to disrupt the city’s open-air drug markets, described as operating in specific neighborhoods and times for the buying and selling of illegal drugs.
About 170 people registered to provide comments at the Aug. 13 Public Safety Committee hearing, held in the Seattle City Council chamber at City Hall.
During the 90-minute public comment period, Robert Kettle, chair of the Public Safety Committee and representative of Council District 7, emphasized the importance of hearing diverse perspectives. He said, “I think it’s important for everybody to hear each side’s voices, and I think that was accomplished today.”
The city council is considering Council Bill 120835, a legislative proposal aimed at ending drug-related crimes through the creation of two “Stay Out of Drug Area” (SODA) zones. The proposal seeks to enhance both public safety and health by designating specific public spaces known for drug-related activities as restricted spaces.
SODA Zone 1 is located in downtown Seattle, while SODA Zone 2 covers the Chinatown-International District (CID). The latter zone is defined by specific geographical boundaries, stretching from South Main Street to South Dearborn Street. Its western perimeter includes the westernmost edge of Interstate 5, encompassing all off-ramps, areas beneath the interstate, and adjacent sidewalks. On the east, the perimeter runs along Boren Avenue, continuing to Rainier Avenue South.
Background
Like many cities, Seattle has an urgent need for comprehensive strategies to address a growing drug crisis, which has prompted the proposal of Council Bill 120835. In 2023, Seattle reported 763 drug overdose deaths, nearly half of all such deaths in King County. These fatalities are concentrated in specific neighborhoods, leading to increased property crimes and violence.
Historically, the Seattle Municipal Court issued SODA orders differently, but the new bill enhances their effectiveness in ending drug-related crimes and improving public safety.
“Prior to 2010, Seattle Municipal Court (SMC) did issue SODA orders. Those were done just on a case-by-case basis, not through legislation that is proposed today,” said Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison.
These orders were challenging to enforce due to their broad geographic coverage. The proposed legislation, introduced by Davison on Aug. 1, aims to create a more structured and enforceable framework.
“It focuses on specific areas in the city where there is known, established drug-related activity. We must address the safety needs of residents, visitors, and businesses—both their employees and customers—who live, shop, and work in zones that are overburdened with illegal, dangerous, public drug use and other criminal activity.”
“These are neighborhood protection measures,” she said. “We are looking to make those neighborhoods safer and more accessible for everybody.”
“This ordinance addresses a serious gap in existing law and the persistent public drug use in our city. It is vital that illegal drug users get help.”
Under the new bill, SMC judges would have the authority to issue SODA orders to individuals charged with or convicted of misdemeanors related to drug activity. They decide if a SODA order is appropriate based on the evidence and individual circumstances. Violating these orders by entering a SODA zone would constitute a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to 364 days in jail or a $5,000 fine.
“This means that someone who has received a SODA order from a judge and knowingly violates it by going into the SODA zone could be charged with a new crime,” said Ann Gorman, member of the central staff for the Seattle City Council.
Perspectives
Mayor Bruce Harrell said on Aug. 1, “I appreciate the focus of City Attorney Davison, Council President Nelson, and Councilmember Kettle on making downtown safe and welcoming for all. As we address the public safety impacts of the fentanyl crisis, I look forward to the legislative process that I believe will inform how this proposal can complement ongoing efforts to reduce street disorder, hold those causing the most harm accountable, identify breakdowns in the health system, and help those in need access services and treatment to get well.”
“The City Auditor’s report makes clear that where you have significant public drug use, you also have a high incidence of crime. This reality has become more pronounced during the fentanyl crisis. Drug markets need to be disrupted before they claim more victims, ensnaring more people in a vicious cycle and bringing more impact to those who live, work, and visit downtown. Our community needs urgent action. I thank city leaders for their efforts on this critical issue,” said Downtown Seattle Association President and CEO Jon Scholes on Aug. 1.
Pro-SODA zones
Supporters of the bill say that these zones are vital for maintaining public safety and preserving public spaces. They also argue that SODA zones will help law enforcement in reclaiming areas that have been taken over by illegal drug use and crime.
Collin Madden, a Seattle property manager and co-founding partner of GEM Real Estate Partners, stated during the hearing, “I think I speak for the vast majority of Seattle residents are in favor of SODA and SOAP (Stay Out of Areas of Prostitution) and other similar anti-vagrancy and anti-loitering laws.”
Potential legal challenges
SODA zones are established under state law (Chapter 10.66 of the Revised Code of Washington) and many city ordinances. While Washington state courts have generally upheld the legality of SODA orders, ensuring they are defined and clearly understood by affected individuals, these zones continue to spark debate.
The primary legal challenges associated with SODA zones involve civil liberties and due process rights. Critics argue that these ordinances can violate individuals’ rights, particularly the right to travel freely. Although the Washington state courts have ruled that state law does not unconstitutionally violate a person’s due process, as shown in State v. McBride (1994), critics cite the potential for vague restrictions. Such restrictions could result in discriminatory enforcement and unfair treatment, especially marginalized groups. Civil liberties advocates emphasize the need for specific and narrowly tailored restrictions to prevent potential violations of constitutional rights.
Potential social impact
Critics also cite that these SODA ordinances could disproportionately affect marginalized communities and infringe on civil liberties, raising concerns about community safety and justice. These communities often include ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, and those with limited access to legal resources. Historically, these groups have faced harsher treatment by the criminal justice system, and the introduction of SODA zones could make these disparities worse.
They also share concerns that SODA ordinances may infringe on such basic rights, such as the right to travel freely. Washington state courts ruled that state law does not unconstitutionally restrict a person’s right to travel, also shown in State v. McBride (1994).
Enforcing SODA Zones
At the Public Safety Committee hearing, Seattle Police Department Assistant Chief Tom Mahaffey acknowledged the need to change enforcement policies if the legislation is passed. “We have a policy related to enforcing SODA zones that’s well over a decade old,” he said. “That would have to be revised to give direction to our officers on how that enforcement would work.”
Mahaffey emphasized the department’s commitment to keeping track of the effectiveness of its strategies, adding that ongoing assessments are done in collaboration with community members. “We’re always evaluating our strategies and how they’re working,” he said. “We do that in conjunction with our own internal data, but also in conversations that happen at the precinct level with constituents.”
“Those areas about how these strategies we are deploying are actually working, are they effective and are they having the intended impact? And we’re always, as you know, constantly evaluating how we’re doing internally.”
Wide use of SODA zones
The concept of SODA zones is not new to Seattle or other cities in Washington state. Similar laws are already in effect in Monroe, Auburn, Arlington, Marysville, Everett, Tacoma, and Pierce County. These zones are designed to combat drug-related activities and enhance public safety by restricting access to areas where such activities are taking place.
Seattle’s reintroduction of SODA zones reflects a larger trend in municipal governance, where cities are increasingly carrying out targeted strategies to manage complex social issues. Council Bill 120835 includes a requirement for annual reporting on the effectiveness of these zones, which will help guide future policy decisions and analyze their impact. As Seattle moves forward with this proposal, it aims to refine the use of SODA zones to create safer public spaces and address the obstacles created by drug-related crimes.
The Public Safety Committee is expected to hold further discussions and plans to vote on the bill, including any proposed amendments, on Sept.ember 10. Council Bill 120835 could then be voted on by the City Council on September 17.
If adopted, this ordinance adds a new Chapter 12A.21 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
To watch the Public Safety Committee video, go to www.seattlechannel.org/videos?videoid=x158885.
James Tabafunda can be reached at newstips@nwasianweekly.com.