BRATTLEBORO — I write in response to questions about why I chose to vote against proposed signage intended as a public service announcement on the topic of panhandling in Brattleboro.
The idea to develop a sign came out of an informal committee that has formed itself in response to downtown concern about the issue. Frustrations have reached a tipping point, and those living and operating businesses in the downtown area wanted some action from the town about how to address the byproduct of panhandling downtown: the discomfort of some shoppers, diners, and some who generally walk downtown for business or other reasons.
Both Selectboard member David Schoales and I decided to join these meetings, as it seemed appropriate that we be involved in discussions. Other attendees included Police Chief Mike Fitzgerald, Groundworks Collaborative Executive Director Josh Davis, and various merchants, residents, and business owners, some who are members of the Downtown Business Alliance and some who are not.
The sign was intended to be a public service announcement to be hung in businesses that wanted it, and in downtown spaces such as parking lots. The hanging of the sign in public lots would cause the town and Selectboard to be formally involved.
When wordsmithing became an issue - we as the town municipality were concerned about what kind of message we were sending to all who might read it - it was decided the town staff would try to make something that the municipality and Selectboard could get behind.
I believe this sign came up as a topic at three public meetings, all with healthy amounts of public participation. The board itself had varying opinions on the sign, as should be the case in a healthy democracy. The town staff did a wonderful job of hearing all and presenting signs that were written to be compassionate and informative.
* * *
As weeks went on, I really began diving into what I felt the sign could accomplish and what it really might mean to those reading it. It began to feel less informative to me. I began to feel that the proposed text was not new information to educate, but rather to say what we already know, i.e. “If you feel threatened in life, call the police.”
It felt more of a “we know there are people here who are different and might make you uncomfortable, here's how you can deal with that” kind of message, which became unsettling to me.
The lack of movement toward actually bridging gaps and healing our community, or at least fostering good dialogue, began to prick at me. I began to wonder how those visiting our town would take this sign, and what kind of preconceptions it would form in their minds about us and about how we handle our community challenges.
I began to wonder what kind of message this sends to our young people who would read the sign about how we as adults deal with issues - and with conflict as well.
How would I feel about seeing these signs? How would those needing to ask for money feel about reading them? Would it serve to inform, or to further annoy, thus cracking any hope for mutual respect even further?
Ultimately, the sign pushed up against my own set of values and self-guidance.
* * *
I have been asked if the Selectboard as a whole voted on other short-term options. The board did not take on any new initiatives outside of those already in progress, with the most immediate being Chief Fitzgerald's task force, which has so far gone out five times to make contact with those in need.
This team consists of an officer, a social worker, and someone involved with opiate recovery, and all of them will go around downtown to open dialogue with those who have resorted to panhandling. If I misstated those involved roles, I hope someone will correct me.
I do have an idea, an evolution of something I have been already working on. I would like to work on organizing meetings among willing merchants and willing panhandlers to discuss these issues openly.
For me, the important step that has been missing in this discussion is talks that take place between the two parties who are struggling with this issue the most frequently. I believe this is the only way to make real progress. It is certainly the only way I have ever made progress. While this could be done one on one, I would be happy to work to facilitate discussions in a group setting so that they remain fair for all involved as a starting point. As I write this, one downtown merchant who has been actively involved in the discussion has expressed an interest in participating in open dialogue.
The chief's task force - which I think is stellar and has the most potential for success - and this community dialogue, are the only short-term initiatives that I can see actually serving to address the issue and open lines of respect and communication among different groups within our community.
I am always open to hearing other ideas that are responsible and holistic!
* * *
Without mutual respect, there can be no expectations. While the sign was not meant to open an us-versus-them conversation, it has.
Some of the messages I have received have been extremely disheartening and disappointing. It seems the discussion has emboldened some to be bullies either toward me, toward merchants, or toward panhandlers. This response is not helpful.
The more we go along speaking about issues only within our own echo chambers, meeting only with those who know us, are like minded, or in similar places in life, the deeper the cracks between people will become.
Division becomes unavoidable when issues are not solved in the way humans were meant to solve things: in group communications. Community discussions in an honest and respectful way, with all who are in our community, breed trust.
With trust comes respect - and accountability.