For decades, governments at the local, state, and federal levels have approached homelessness and addiction with good intentions. At this point, billions of dollars have been poured into programs, outreach efforts, and services intended to help our struggling neighbors escape the throes of addiction. But today, it is clear that what we are doing is not producing the results our communities expect or the outcomes our vulnerable friends and neighbors deserve.
Homelessness and addiction impact nearly every community across Snohomish County. Families see individuals slumped over on the sidewalk, high on the drug of the day. Business owners start their mornings chasing people away from their front stoops. First responders reverse overdoses for the same individuals multiple times in a single week. This is the reality of our homelessness and addiction crisis today.
For those who blame homelessness solely on the rising cost of housing, I would point to our most recent Point-in-Time Count. Locally, more than half of the homeless individuals surveyed self-reported drug use or mental health challenges. The actual number is likely even higher. That reality should force us to rethink our approach to this crisis. Housing alone is not enough when addiction and untreated mental illness are driving so much of what we see manifesting on our streets.
I do not believe it is compassionate to enable those who are trapped in addiction and to perpetuate their suffering. I do not believe it is compassionate to warehouse those struggling simply to eliminate an eyesore. And I do not believe it is compassionate to allow children to be constantly exposed to deadly drugs in dangerous home situations.
That is why I recently introduced a series of proposals aimed at shifting Snohomish County toward a more balanced, recovery- and accountability-focused strategy for addressing homelessness and addiction.
One proposal would prohibit “Housing First” requirements in county funding opportunities. While Housing First policy was created with good intentions, the fentanyl crisis has dramatically changed the landscape. We should not limit county funding only to programs that avoid accountability measures.
Another proposal would increase funding for behavioral health treatment facilities. Currently, only a small share of the County’s Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Fund goes toward treatment and stabilization services. Yet anyone paying attention can see the growing need for detox beds, recovery programs, and mental health treatment.
I have also proposed prohibiting the use of local taxpayer dollars to purchase and distribute drug paraphernalia. Government policy should focus on helping people break free from addiction, not facilitating continued drug use.
Finally, one ordinance would strengthen protections for children by criminalizing fentanyl exposure involving minors, similar to existing laws regarding methamphetamine exposure.
None of these proposals alone will solve the crisis overnight. But continuing the same strategies while expecting different outcomes is not working. Our community deserves policies that protect public safety, support recovery, and restore hope and dignity for those struggling with addiction. Compassion matters, but compassion without accountability is failing both the public and the people most in need of help.
Nate Nehring is an elected member of the Snohomish County Council. Nate and his wife, Savannah, are both lifelong residents of Snohomish County, where they are raising their four young children. Councilmember Nehring can be reached by email at Nate.Nehring@snoco.org.
COMMENTARY DISCLAIMER: The views and comments expressed are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the Lynnwood Times nor any of its affiliate
Author: Lynnwood Times Contributor
2 Responses
A drug addict in an apartment is still a drug addict.
These are common sense approaches Nate has offered.
First, Nate is a GOP cult member.
That said, the context Nate’s proposals
are imbeded in can be addressed. He offers no way to get folks off the street.
Refusing taxpayer dollars to service addiction is to say, let not-for-profits pay
He implies that once an addict always an addict is the mantra, but, since addiction is a disease, he denies a cure.
Because mankind is corrupt, political proposals are corrupt lacking personal accountability. If humans refuse to change, throwing more dollars at their created social problems appears to be
throwing good money after bad. No desire to change is the problem
One has to be enabled to change.
Nate does not offer a solution to that problem. As corrupt humanity refuses to admit it is corrupt, it increases the financial debt it owes itself for refusal to
Pay it back. What if indentured service were reintroduced? Payback happens?