Bill to make homeless shelters 'drug free' receives House approval
Homeless residents pack to leave after being ordered to vacate privately-owned property south of downtown Raleigh. High rents and deposit fee requirements are making it impossible for hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans to gain access to a permanent residence. (Photo: Greg Childress)
The House approved a bill Tuesday to make homeless shelters 'drug-free zones.' Under House Bill 437, it would be a felony to manufacture, sell or deliver controlled substances in such areas and service providers would be held responsible if they 'intentionally' allow such activities within 100 feet of their properties.
HB 437 was sent to the Senate for its consideration.
Rep. Heather Rhyne (R-Lincoln) said the bill is needed because the state's homeless population is under regular threat from dealers seeking to sell them controlled substances.
'By making homeless shelters drug-free zones, we reduce the opportunity for these criminal elements to further victimize the homeless while holding operators of these facilities accountable,' said Rhyne, a bill cosponsor. 'Providing a safe and secure environment where treatment is provided and the people can get the help they need to become self-dependent is the focus of the bill.'
Rhyne noted that HB 437 also requires signs designating them as drug-free zones. She said shelters needing anonymity such as those serving victims of domestic violence would be allowed to place signs inside front entrances.
The House approved the legislation over the objection of service providers, 140 of which signed a letter opposing the bill. Rep. Julia Greenfield (D-Mecklenburg) shared part of the letter with colleagues.
'As a nurse who was always working in the trenches, I kind of believe it's important to listen to those who are working in the trenches and to take into consideration their concerns,' Greenfield said.
She said service providers support the larger intent of HB 437 to keep drug dealers away from facilities serving people experiencing homelessness. They are concerned, however, that the bill would hold service providers criminally responsible for 'intentionally allowing' drug dealing to takes place within 100 feet of their property.
Greenfield read this passage from the letter: 'This implication that service providers are the enemy in working to keep those we serve safe instead of a partner in an incredibly challenging effort to provide both welcoming and safe space is incredibly hurtful and disappointing. This work carries enough risk without the threat of a felony conviction and jail time, depending on how someone interprets 'intentionally allows.'
Service providers are also concerned about the expenses of possibly having to hire armed security and fencing off property to ensure criminal drug activity doesn't take place.
'If the General Assembly would like to work to protect those we serve, homeless service providers would welcome specialized funding to support the personal and design enhancements to improve safety on our campuses,' the service providers said in the letter to lawmakers.
Rep. Allen Chesser (R-Nash) said service providers' words 'fall flat' because the bill speaks to possession with intent to sell and deliver drugs, not simple possession.
'So, we're not sending the users, the end users to jail with this, we're targeting dealers,' Chesser said.
He said the burden will be on law enforcement officials to prove a facility is 'intentionally allowing' drug sells to take place.
'There's going to be footage. There's going to be investigations,' Chesser said. 'This isn't something that's going to be fly by night. We're trying to protect a very vulnerable population.'
Last week, Dr. Latonya Agard, executive director of the North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness, shared concerns about HB 437 during a rally at the legislature to lobby for affordable housing.
'I think this is unconscionable because it places and unfair burden on those facilities to increase security, to figure out what this means, to reestablish relationships that are trustworthy within the community,' Agard said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
AOC Viewed Positively by More Americans Than Trump and Harris—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More Americans have a positive image of progressive Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, than they do of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to new polling data. Why It Matters Ocasio-Cortez has been seen as a polarizing figure in politics and within the Democratic Party. She has drawn backlash from moderate Democrats and Republicans alike since she surged onto the national stage after an upset primary victory against a powerful incumbent Democrat in 2018. The New York progressive has embraced the Democratic socialist label, despite pushback from within her own party. Recently, she has traveled around the country holding massive rallies with progressive Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, with the duo turning out thousands—including in conservative districts and states. What to Know New polling released Friday by AtlasIntel—which has been described by election analyst Nate Silver as "top-rated," and was described as the most accurate pollster of the 2024 and 2020 elections—showed Ocasio-Cortez ranked third among politicians included in the survey, in terms of Americans who had a positive view of her. The congresswoman was also one of just three political leaders with an overall net positive image. The New York Democrat was viewed positively by 46 percent of respondents, compared to 44 percent that viewed her negatively—meaning her net positive rating was above water by 2 points. An additional 10 percent of respondents said they didn't know. Only former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama ranked higher than the congresswoman. Barack Obama was viewed positively by 53 percent compared to 43 percent who viewed him negatively. Michelle Obama was 49 percent positive and 45 percent negative. Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez was ahead of Trump and Harris, as well as Vice President JD Vance and former President Joe Biden. Trump was viewed positively by 44 percent, Vance by 42 percent, Harris by 42 percent and Biden by 37 percent. Respectively the politicians were viewed negatively by 55 percent, 56 percent, 52 percent and 55 percent. The poll included 3,469 respondents and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level. It was carried out from May 21 through May 27. Speculation has swirled in recent months about Ocasio-Cortez's political future, especially as she has rallied with Sanders across the country. Many have urged her to consider challenging Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, in the 2028 primary, while others see her as a strong Democratic presidential contender. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, waves as she enters to a full auditorium as part of the "Fighting Oligarchy" tour on April 14 in Nampa, Idaho. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, waves as she enters to a full auditorium as part of the "Fighting Oligarchy" tour on April 14 in Nampa, People Are Saying Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Fox News in April when asked about her future plans: "This moment isn't about campaigns, or elections, or about politics. It's about making sure people are protected, and we've got people that are getting locked up for exercising their First Amendment rights. We're getting 2-year-olds that are getting deported into cells in Honduras. We're getting people that are about to get kicked off of Medicaid. That, to me, is most important." D. Stephen Voss, political science professor at the University of Kentucky, previously told Newsweek via email: "AOC serves as the face of the Democratic Party for many Trump supporters who dislike national Democrats. They like to pillory her as ignorant and irresponsible." Voss continued: "At the same time, many Democrats embrace AOC as a worthy young successor to Bernie, someone who can play the role of progressive challenger in a Democratic nomination battle." Monica Crowley, a former official in the Treasury Department during the first Trump administration, told Fox News last November: "Just a word of warning to the Republicans, to my party: Do not underestimate AOC. She's young, she's vibrant, she's attractive." What Happens Next? Ocasio-Cortez's future political moves remain to be seen. For the time being, she has said she aims to focus on fighting back against the Trump administration.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump withdraws nominee to lead NASA Jared Isaacman, who has close ties with Elon Musk
Trump withdraws nominee to lead NASA Jared Isaacman, who has close ties with Elon Musk President Trump has pulled his nomination of Jared Isaacman, a billionaire commercial astronaut with close ties to Elon Musk, as NASA administrator. Show Caption Hide Caption Trump calls Elon Musk a 'fantastic guy' amid drug use allegations President Trump said he didn't know about Elon Musk's alleged drug use and backed the billionaire's cost-cutting. WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump has pulled his nomination of Jared Isaacman, a billionaire commercial astronaut with close ties to Elon Musk, as his nominee to serve as administrator of NASA. The White House confirmed the withdrawal on May 31 and said Trump will soon announce a new nominee to lead NASA. No reason was provided for parting ways with Isaacman, who led and financed private astronaut missions Polaris Dawn and Inspiration4, which was carried out by Musk's SpaceX. The withdrawal, first reported by the news website Semafor, comes after the 42-year-old Isaacman already cleared the Senate Commerce Committee in April and appeared on track for a full Senate vote. 'The Administrator of NASA will help lead humanity into space and execute President Trump's bold mission of planting the American flag on the planet Mars," White House Assistant Press Secretary Liz Huston said in a statement. "It's essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump's America First agenda, and a replacement will be announced directly by President Trump soon." More: Elon Musk's rise and fall: From Trump's chainsaw-wielding sidekick to a swift exit The move comes a day after Musk, a business partner and friend of Isaacman, left the White House after spending four months as a senior White House adviser overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk joined Trump for an Oval Office news conference to mark the end of the billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO's tenure in the White House. Conservative activist Laura Loomer, who has proven influential in many Trump decisions, raised alarm about the status of Isaacman's nomination in an X post, hours before the White House confirmed it was being withdrawn, writing, "There is reason to believe that Isaacman may be facing retaliation because of his friendship with Musk." More: Trump's pick to head NASA has been to space twice: Recapping billionaire's missions Isaacman, founder and CEO of the payment processing company Shift4 Payments, undertook his first private space venture in 2021, when he was commander and financier of the world's first all-civilian extended mission to space. In 2024, he returned to space with an all-civilian crew of amateur spacefarers with the Polaris Dawn missions, which he jointly funded with SpaceX. The Polaris Dawn mission got off the ground on Sept. 10 with the help of a Falcon 9 rocket, which propelled the crew to orbit on a SpaceX Dragon capsule from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The crew also included pilot Scott 'Kidd' Poteet and mission specialists Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon. NASA has lacked a full-time administrator since Bill Nelson, NASA administrator in the Biden administration, stepped down on Jan. 20 when Trump was inaugurated. Contributing: Eric Lagatta of USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison @joeygarrison.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Deep cuts erode the foundations of US public health system, end progress, threaten worse to come
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But local health officials say they now have no choice but to do a lot less of it. The Trump administration is cutting health spending on an unprecedented scale, experts say, including pulling $11 billion of direct federal support because the pandemic is over and eliminating 20,000 jobs at national health agencies that in part assist and support local public health work. It's proposing billions more be slashed. Advertisement Together, public health leaders said, the cuts are reducing the entire system to a shadow of what it once was, threatening to undermine even routine work at a time when the nation faces Advertisement The moves reflect a shift that Americans may not fully realize, away from the very idea of public health: doing the work that no individual can do alone to safeguard the population as a whole. That's one of the most critical responsibilities of government, notes James Williams, county executive in Santa Clara County, California. And it goes beyond having police and fire departments. 'It means not having babies suffering from diseases that you vanquished. It means making sure that people have access to the most accurate and up-to-date information and decisions that help their longevity,' Williams said. 'It means having a society and communities able to actually prosper, with people living healthy and full lives.' A student received a vaccination inside a mobile health unit visiting Independence High School in Charlotte, N.C., on March 19. Matt Kelley/Associated Press Keeping communities healthy saves lives — and money Just outside a Charlotte, North Carolina, high school in March, nurse Kim Cristino set out five vaccines as a 17-year-old girl in ripped jeans stepped onto a health department van. The patient barely flinched as Cristino gave her three shots in one arm and two in the other to prevent diseases including measles, diphtheria and polio. Like many other teens that morning, the girl was getting some shots years later than recommended. The clinic's appearance at Independence High School gave her a convenient way to get up to date. 'It lessens the barriers for parents who would have to be taking off from work and trying to get their kids to a provider,' Cristino said. The vaccinations also help the community around her. The teen won't come down with a life-threatening disease and the whole community is protected from outbreaks — if enough people are vaccinated. Advertisement The Mecklenburg County department, with 'Protecting and Promoting the Public's Health' emblazoned on its van, is similar to other U.S. health departments. They run programs to reduce suicides and drug overdoses, improve prenatal health and help people stop smoking. They educate people about health and test for and treat diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis. Some, including Mecklenburg, operate medical and dental clinics too. 'You come to work every day and think: What's going to be my challenge today? Sometimes it's a new disease,' said Raynard Washington, Mecklenburg's director. 'That's why having a backbone infrastructure is so important.' What they do is cost-effective, experts have found. For every Disease prevention is unseen — and ignored Critical care can be glamorous — surgeons, cardiologists and cancer doctors can pull off breathtaking medical feats to save lives at the last possible moment. Prevention work is low key. It's impossible to identify who was saved because, if it goes well, the person never knows when they've fended off a mortal threat with the invisible shield of public health. 'People don't appreciate it,' said Dr. Umair Shah, former health director for Washington state. 'Therefore, they don't invest in it.' State health departments are funded by a varying mix of federal and state tax money. Some states deliver services in a centralized way while others provide resources to local departments, which generally also get money from counties, cities or towns. Some large cities get direct federal funding for their health departments. Mecklenburg — a large department with around 1,000 workers serving 1.2 million people — has an annual budget of around $135 million, while some metro hospitals have operating expenses in the billions. About 70% of the department's budget comes from local funds, which helps fill gaps in state and federal money. But Mecklenburg is still strapped for cash and resources. Advertisement At times, employees work 12- to 14-hour days, especially during outbreaks. Nurse Carmel Jenkins recalled responding to mpox exposures at a day care center — arriving before 5:30 a.m. to alert the children's parents and working late into the evening. 'Even though there may be limited resources, we still have a service to provide,' said Jenkins, a director of clinical services for the department. 'We don't mind going above and beyond to be able to do that.' Chaos in Washington puts 'lives at risk' In March, the Trump administration pulled $11 billion from state and local health departments without warning under the leadership of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist and public health critic. The cuts abruptly ended COVID-era grants, which had also been approved for non-COVID work including vaccination and disease detection, tracking and testing. A week later, thousands of people were laid off at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many had worked closely with state and local health departments to provide information, grants and other support. The sudden, one-two punch delivered a serious blow to the system, public health leaders said in interviews, court filings and public testimony. Related : A Kennedy spokesman said in an email that America remains unhealthy compared with other developed nations and HHS is reorganizing what he said were 'broken systems' and reprioritizing resources to 'centralize programs and functions that will improve our service to the American people.' Advertisement 'These cuts are not about abandoning public health — they're about reforming it,' spokesman Andrew Nixon said, adding: 'We reject the implication that HHS has turned its back on urgent health threats.' HHS justified the grant cancellations by saying the money was for COVID and the pandemic is over. But most of the cuts were in areas that are especially important given today's health threats. The biggest chunk, more than $8.9 billion, involved epidemiology and laboratory capacity related to infectious diseases, while another $2 billion was related to immunizations. In some places, the cuts are on hold due to a federal judge's order in a lawsuit by states. But elsewhere, cuts are continuing. In Mecklenburg, for example, 11 community health workers lost their jobs, meaning less outreach to groups like the Hispanic community. All eight employees dedicated to the mobile vaccine program were laid off. In Columbus, Ohio — one of several communities in Republican-led states suing over the cuts — the health department had to lay off nine disease intervention specialists. This left it operating at 25% capacity in its disease tracing and investigation work just as it prepared to address a measles outbreak. Kansas City, Missouri, will not be able to do its own testing for infectious diseases because the cut came just as the city was about to buy $500,000 worth of equipment. And Nashville had to end a program offering free flu and COVID tests and cancel plans to buy a van to deliver vaccinations. The cities complained the cuts had created 'severe budget uncertainty' and forced them to redirect their limited resources 'to respond to the resulting chaos.' CDC staff cuts are also having a ripple effect on state and local departments. Children who are deaf or hard of hearing will no longer benefit from an early intervention program run by states after everyone who worked on the program at CDC was laid off. The team in the Office on Smoking and Health, which funds state tobacco hotlines that help people quit, was let go. Advertisement So was the CDC team that worked to reduce drownings, partly through funding low-cost swimming lessons in local communities. Drownings kill 4,000 people a year in the U.S. 'The experts who know the things that can be done to help prevent the No. 1 cause of death from children ages 1 to 4 have been eliminated,' Connecticut state health commissioner Dr. Manisha Juthani told a Democratic congressional hearing in April, referring to drownings. She said the abrupt and disorganized nature of the cuts leaves her department scrambling as officials try to understand what is being cut and to close important programs on the federal government's impractical timelines. 'The current uncertainty puts lives at risk,' she said. Public health funding is going bust — and about to get worse The new cuts are especially damaging because health departments are funded differently than other government agencies meant to protect the public: Funding pours in during emergencies and slows to a relative trickle when they subside. Mecklenburg's Washington notes the contrast with fire departments, which are kept ready at all times, not scrambling to find firefighters and fire trucks when houses are already burning. With health departments, 'there's a long-established pattern of boom-and-bust funding,' said Dr. Steven Stack, Kentucky's public health commissioner and past president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Related : A temporary surge of money during the pandemic allowed some health departments to expand and strengthen programs. In Alabama, the influx of COVID money allowed the state to reopen a health department in largely rural Coosa County that closed a decade ago due to a lack of money. In California's Santa Clara County, a COVID-era lab grant paved the way for a new science branch with nearly 50 positions. But by early this year, most of that money had disappeared, along with other COVID-era grants across the nation — 'We're facing funding cliff after funding cliff after funding cliff,' said Dr. Sara Cody, Santa Clara County's health director. 'What really worries me is I felt that we had finally built the infrastructure in the public health department. ... We were still pretty trim, but we weren't just, like, bones.' In Chicago, one-time COVID grants made up 51% of the health department budget, and their ending will push staff numbers below the pre-pandemic level of 588 — slowing responses to outbreaks and forcing officials to scale back food safety, violence prevention and other programs. In Mecklenburg, the department lost 180 employees as COVID funds dried up. It also lost a wastewater monitoring partnership with the University of North Carolina at Charlotte that helped the county react quickly to changing COVID variants and could have also been used to detect The cuts are not over. The Trump administration has proposed cutting billions more from CDC's budget, enough to cut the agency's spending in half. CDC sends about 80 percent of its budget to states and local communities. Michael Eby, director of clinical services in Mecklenburg, said the relentless cuts to the system leave departments unable to respond to new pandemics and old diseases returning across the United States. 'Without the appropriate funding, we can't properly address these threats,' he said. 'We're at risk of them getting out of control and really causing a lot of damage and death to individuals that we could have saved, that we could have protected.' Ungar reported from Charlotte and Louisville, Kentucky, and Smith reported from Providence, Rhode Island. Associated Press reporters Mary Conlon in Washington and Kenya Hunter in Atlanta contributed to this report.
