News from Patrick Flynn

In recent weeks two more alcohol-related issues have come to the fore, universal ID checks for package liquor stores and a proposal to convert the Red Roof Inn into housing for chronic homeless inebriates.  Both have generated some concerns.

Regarding the former the aim is to ensure those who have alcohol-restricted identification, a red-striped driver’s license often issued to those convicted of DUI or other alcohol-related crimes, are prevented from purchasing alcohol.  We’ve heard from neighborhoods who think this can really help, but industry representatives are skeptical.  They figure those with alcohol-restricted IDs will either procure a second ID (possibly fake) without the red stripe or find third parties to purchase alcohol for them.  Further, they’re also concerned about liability (someone with a restriction purchases alcohol from a store – perhaps using an aforementioned second ID – gets in trouble and presents the red-striped ID to authorities) and frustrating law-abiding customers, especially tourists.

For my part, I think it’s reasonable to place any liability on the law-breaker (the person procuring alcohol despite a court-ordered restriction) and understand an amendment in the works would do just that.  As to the other concerns, which boil down to the question of whether universal ID checks will actually help address problems without excessive inconvenience, there are discussions about adding a sunset date.  That would mean the new ordinance expires unless the Assembly decided to extend it, and enforces an opportunity to review its efficacy.

The trickier issue is the Red Roof Inn.  As the news reported, this would provide housing for chronic public inebriates but not force them to quit drinking so some have already flogged the idea as subsidizing addiction (though residents would pay for their housing).   I can understand jumping to such a conclusion but doing so fails to consider a couple important facts:

1. We’re already paying – a lot – providing services to this population.  This includes police arrests or detentions, fire (ambulance) response to “man down” calls, Community Service Patrol, the sleep off center at the Anchorage Jail, a myriad non-profit services and, of course, the degradation of our parks and neighborhoods.  Implementation of “Housing First” programs in Seattle has resulted in significant savings to that city, improved the lives of those housed and helped clean up neighborhoods.
2. Beyond addiction, most members of this roughly 300-person population suffer from mental illness or other disorders that further impinge upon their ability to function normally in society.  Simply labeling them drunks and writing them off ignores reality.

Another challenge is the proposed location, Fairview, a neighborhood that correctly notes the myriad of social services already provided in that area and feels unfairly burdened compared to other areas of town.  I don’t disagree and think it would be a positive step to house this population further from some the temptations that are the source of their ills.  Fate being what it is, the owner of the Red Roof Inn apparently wants to sell to a non-profit at a below-market price, thus gaining a tax write-off, and government doesn’t have the right to interfere in a legal transaction between two private parties.

What we can do, and what I’ve been working on with one of my colleagues, is set up a conditional use permit process for this type of housing.  Expect to see that ordinance introduced on January 12, with a public hearing slated for February 16.  If it passes, and I expect it will, Fairview residents will have an opportunity to work with the housing provider to set some standards prior to their commencing operations.  And we’ll have a model for other potential locations.  We’ll see how it goes.

Regards,

Patrick