Nora Grace-Flood photo
Goldenberg: "New Haven should not be an experiment for the state."
The Elicker administration is in the early stages of looking into medically supervised injection and drug consumption sites as a local strategy for combating opioid overdoses — while a mayoral challenger is pushing back against those tentative plans as a tactic for bashing the incumbent.
The debate over safe-use sites took a turn Monday morning as Democratic mayoral challenger Tom Goldenberg held a press conference on Church Street downtown to accuse Mayor Justin Elicker of developing a “secretive plan to open what is called a safe injection or a shoot-up site.”
Goldenberg, a former McKinsey consultant who is one of three challengers running against two-term incumbent Elicker in the Sept. 12 Democratic primary, also took a firm stance against allowing such operations in New Haven, and announced his resignation from the board of a nonprofit working with the city to research the prospect of an overdose prevention center.
Mia Cortés Castro photo
Mayor Elicker: "We’re only in an exploration phase at this point."
Elicker responded in a follow-up phone interview that he is interested in starting a safe injection program — but that his administration is far from executing any plans to open a site in the city anytime soon.
Meanwhile, leadership of Downtown Evening Soup Kitchen (DESK), the nonprofit from which Goldenberg has now separated himself, announced that they are embarking on a year-long study to decide whether DESK could be the right organization to host a safe-use site down the line — and expressed disappointment in Goldenberg’s choice “to use this issue to further his own personal political aspirations.”
Before anyone is allowed to legally shoot up in the city, Elicker said, “the first thing is to make a determination of whether or not we even believe this is a good idea for New Haven.”
The idea in question entails establishing a location where individuals suffering with substance use disorders can inject or consume drugs in the presence of medical experts and social service staff to ensure immediate response should someone overdose.
DESK has taken it upon themselves to do exploratory legwork researching the financial and legal risks of opening safe-use sites, partly given obscurities around the validity of safe-use sites under state law.
Nora Grace-Flood file photo
Outside of DESK's State Street drop-in center.
“We authorized our executive director to explore whether or not an overdose prevention center, sometimes called a ‘supervised consumption site,’ might be right for our organization, our clients, and our city,” a letter released by the nonprofit Monday afternoon reads. That message reports that DESK is working with a consulting firm, Facente Consulting, on a 12-month study to examine the efficacy and legality of such sites. It also states that the nonprofit will begin engaging in community conversations with “people who use drugs, community residents, New Haven businesses, elected officials, law enforcement and others” later this fall in tandem with that private research.
“We lost over 120 residents last year to overdoses — so far this year we’ve lost over 40,” Elicker told the Independent over the phone Monday. “This is a crisis, and what historically New Haven has done about it is not enough… Safe-use sites have been shown to reduce overdoses and reduce the impact that opioid consumption and addiction have on neighborhoods. So we’re exploring the concept, but we’re only in an exploration phase at this point.”
In a Monday press conference held outside the Elm City Bioscience Center, Goldenberg condemned any consideration of safe-use sites in the city — and referred to an email he uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request in which the city’s former social services administrator Mehul Dalal offered an outline of prospective steps for opening a harm reduction center as proof of a “secretive plan” to open a downtown shoot-up site without consulting the community.
“It lays out a comprehensive plan for establishing a safe-use site and there’s not a single mention of community input,” Goldenberg stated of that email, which Dalal described in the same message as a rough timeline sketch “to get us thinking.” Dalal’s outline, written in September, organizes potential tasks the city would have to take in order to make a safe-use site a reality, like choosing a location, identifying operational partners, and designating counsel to review any statutory barriers.
Dalal, who left his post earlier this summer to take on a policy advisor job with the state, was an outspoken supporter of safe-use sites — read here about his testimony in favor of state legislation that sought to start a safe-use pilot in Connecticut municipalities among other harm reduction initiatives. Supporters of the proposal described these so-called overdose prevention centers as life-saving interventions that recognize the reality of drug abuse and treat it like a medical problem that does not need to kill over 1,000 Connecticut residents every year. Critics worried that such centers would represent a de facto legalization of all drugs. (The bill ultimately passed but without that provision).
Goldenberg said that he resigned from the board of DESK on Monday upon learning that the nonprofit was working with the city on such a project. He said because DESK owns property on State Street, it was “a logical assumption” that the city was planning to open a downtown safe-injection site without seriously considering any public input.
In addition to calling the mayor “completely non transparent” and announcing his departure from DESK, Goldenberg said that he fundamentally opposes bringing safe-use sites, places “where people can use illegal drugs without any fear of penalty,” into New Haven.
“There’s a huge difference between a regulated methadone clinic and a space where people can bring heroin and other illegal drugs and shoot up or use,” he said. “It’s an ongoing experiment, but it’s a new controversial thing with mixed results. New Haven should not be an experiment for the state.”
He said safe-use sites would inevitably increase crime. “It’s a dangerous ideology,” he said. “People believe we are saving lives, so we’ll do so at any cost, whether we have to skirt corners and protocols or be evasive and non transparent.”
He pointed to the APT Foundation’s controversial methadone clinic on Congress Avenue as a self-congratulatory enterprise that in reality has exposed primarily Black and Brown school children and neighbors to illicit activity. He argued that On Point, a safe-use site in East Harlem, is another example of an organization that has prided itself on saving lives while those living and working nearby — some of whom he interviewed on tape during a personal visit to the site — complain of negative experiences including physical attacks from inebriated individuals.
Rather than bringing a safe-use site to downtown, he said, the city should be “investing in jobs of the future,” he said, justifying his decision to hold the press conference outside the Bioscience Center, which he described as symbolic of the kind of economic development and growth New Haven ought to keep pursuing.
Asked how he would approach the opioid epidemic if not with safe-use sites, Goldenberg said the city should pressure officials to fully fund the federal housing voucher program. He called housing insecurity a leading determinant of substance abuse.
Elicker and DESK representatives, meanwhile, urged that change must be made locally and swiftly to address a growing number of lives lost to avoidable overdoses. They said they were exploring the possibility of safe-use sites as one way to reduce harm caused by the opioid epidemic on a municipal level.
“The opioid epidemic is a crisis that requires nuanced discussion among well-intentioned, solutions-oriented participants. There should be no room for political opportunism,” the board president of DESK wrote.
“On behalf of DESK’s Board of Directors, I am disappointed that Mr. Goldenberg, a former Board member, chose to use this issue to further his own personal political aspirations.”
Click here to watch a video recording of Goldenberg’s press conference in full.
Goldenberg seems like he's trying to stay relevant in the race by stoking up NIMBY fears of a well established form of harm reduction.
It is sickening to think that lives that could be saved might be lost due to political nonsense.