Residents, businesses and service providers split over proposed 'Stay Out of Drug Areas' ordinance

Dozens of residents, business owners and social service providers testified Tuesday at the Kent City Council meeting about a proposed Stay Out of Drug Areas ordinance, often called SODA, with speakers sharply divided over whether it would improve downtown safety or make people in crisis harder to help.

Supporters of the ordinance, including property owners and small-business operators who spoke during the public-comment period, said visible drug use and related problems have worsened in recent months and are driving customers away. “I have seen more and more people just wandering around and sleeping in our alcoves…It isn't good for Kent,” said Pat Crockett, a property owner on First Avenue North and Meeker Street. Business owners described regular break-ins, theft, drug paraphernalia and overdoses outside storefronts and said those incidents harm employees, customers and revenues.

Opponents — including service providers, peer-support program staff and some people with lived experience — said SODA would be punitive and counterproductive. “SODA zones are not an effective tool to reduce overdoses,” said Monica Mendoza Caughton, a Kent homeowner and legal professional, calling the approach “expensive” and likely to increase arrests without addressing addiction or housing. Sarah Andrews, program director at a peer-support organization that serves people facing mental-health challenges and substance use, said criminalizing visible poverty makes people avoid areas where services are offered and cited research showing housing-first strategies reduce jail time and health-care use.

Why it matters: Council members heard competing framings of public safety and public health. Supporters urged a measure that would give law enforcement and the court system additional tools to clear drug activity from downtown corridors; opponents urged investment in treatment, outreach, shelter and nonpolice response models.

What council members said: Council member Fincher, addressing some opponents’ concerns, said the city’s draft ordinance is not designed to “bar people from the services area.” He said the SODA provision would operate only after a judicial process and that a judge could permit continued access to services such as meals or shelter. “People are not going to be locked up for getting on or off the bus,” Fincher said, urging that SODA be viewed as “one more tool” alongside funding for housing and other services.

Evidence and proposals cited: Speakers on both sides referenced local observations and national studies. Opponents pointed to published research they said shows exclusion zones do not reduce overdoses or long-term harms and urged alternatives: expansion of medications for opioid-use disorder, more methadone access, co-responder outreach teams, navigation centers, rapid rehousing and funding for nonprofits providing wraparound services. Several service providers noted Kent currently has a single methadone clinic with limited hours.

Outstanding procedural status: The public-comment period on Tuesday generated weeks of testimony but the council did not take a final vote on the draft ordinance during the meeting. Council members signaled they are weighing public safety concerns alongside public-health and legal considerations; one council member said the city’s proposal differs from other municipalities and limits the geographic scope of any SODA zones.

Community context and next steps: Testimony showed broad concern about public safety in downtown Kent — especially Meeker Street, First Avenue and the alleys adjacent to businesses — and strong disagreement about whether criminalization or increased services should be the primary response. Several speakers urged a collaborative regional response and more funding for housing, treatment and outreach. Council members did not announce a formal timeline for next steps during the April 1 meeting.

Ending: The council heard repeated calls to balance business-owner safety and public-health goals. Speakers urged the council to either adopt SODA with clear protections for service access or to reject it and redirect funds toward treatment and housing. The council’s next substantive action on the draft ordinance was not scheduled during the meeting.