Council - this week and for the 3. time over 7 months - is dealing with a panhandling bylaw-or-not - and while ordinarily one might say get on with it already: still not having arrived at a definitive conclusion is a good thing!
A good thing what with never before these Councillors - or any before them in my experience - having been as well-prepared and thoughtful while openly expressing themselves. As all did with respectful acceptance of each other's opinions within a functioning unit and those possibly effected by their decision.
1. Time
After the proposed bylaw's first appearance - 1. & 2. Readings without a burp, last October - this blog points out its problematic authorship, lack of substantiating documentation and inconsistencies within the text of the bylaw's Request for Decision.
The need for it seems manufactured.
The blog also poses the never-before question: When will we start talking with instead of at/about these people the bylaw is supposed to manage? handle? contain?
2. Time
The following month Council - nudged into realizing their unpreparedness for the topic thus far - decides to connect with various community groups, businesses, citizens for input before giving the proposal its 3. Reading. What with very few panhandlers on Baker at this time of the year, it is decided to put the bylaw on ice until spring of 2016.
Business Input
can't make the meeting tomorrow. i as a business owner for 20 years on baker st we don't want panhandling or busking in front of my store ever, it is not what i want people to have to walk through to get into my shop . it should be contained somewhere out of everyone's way . perhaps another town ?.
Jeff Grosch
The Sacred Ride
213b Baker Street
A request for public participation soon leads to forming the Street Culture Collaborative, a group to look at just that: street culture - with panhandling only one expression of a much larger pernicious problem. And the need to connect compassionately and respectfully with the vulnerable affected by pervasive socio-economic difficulties: the lack of affordable housing and support-systems across the board.
After initial exploration - constructive goals have been set by the Collaborative.
3. Time
With a 4 to 3 vote the bylaw passes this week through its 3. Reading but will not be adopted for at least another month. Adoption is not a foregone conclusion - Councillors can still change their minds/votes, and they express that here.
For an exhaustive rundown of this Council Meeting go to
Panhandling bylaw passes third reading
Nelson Star, May 4, 2016
Anytime
Seeing that the untouchables all look alike - with real people avoiding even just visual contact - it is easy to lump them all together: they're all drug-addicts; they're all homeless; they're all mentals; they're all panhandlers - they're all to be feared.
Yet few of them actually are panhandlers, and they certainly are not aggressive. Clearly - panhandling is not a threat to anyone (except business-interests!).
We already have the Safe Streets Act - with its consumer-focused restrictions. Hardly applicable to Smallishtown to begin with: largely duplicating the Act for only a small segment of the untouchables with this bylaw is punitive - no matter how much real people protest of course it isn't!
While it lists where panhandling is not allowed - just about everywhere - leaving little space to actually make a bit of spare-change. Forcing those who want to stay within the imposed limits to panhandle in close proximity to each other - competing for quarters!
Even though - at the same time - Mayor Kozak acknowledges that some spots are more profitable than others (will they still be permissible?), and that panhandling is the only means some of them have to get by! So what gives here!
VERB: Loiter
For some reason they discourage loitering outside the store, but encourage it inside.
Wiktionary
Which pretty much says it all. It has at last been determined that a surprisingly large number of locals have no home. Being homeless probably means they have little money. So Baker may be the outside-loiterers' social life, entertainment, news-network - their distracting buzz.
Local coffee-houses - of which we have zillions - are packed at all times with inside-loiterers for their social life, entertainment, news-network - their distracting buzz.
If the outside-loiterers had a welcoming place to go to - working on their tan in the park won't cut it - they surely would. Having the mayor approve of this bylaw - which she does - is not a welcoming gesture by City Hall. Neither is having the so-called Cottonwood Park Public Performance & Market Building designed specifically to keep the untouchable public out! Announced as such by the mayor. Although even homeless loiterers have to sleep somewhere. But some of the public are just too public!
Inviting the untouchables to hang on the grass, under the trees in front of City Hall would be a welcoming gesture, indeed! Toilet facilities and everything! How about it! No?
(Councillor) Purcell said she wants to put the bylaw off for a year to give the Street Culture Collaborative time to do its work. They have great ideas on how to address the issues from a comprehensive community-based non-punitive response.
They already have one of their points in place with the mental health first-aid training, and they are hiring a coordinator to be in place by September. We should give them a chance to have that out-reach and change the culture.
Same Star write-up
This - instead of unproductively focus on just a small segment. Also - the needlessness of this bylaw is bound to cause anger among all untouchables - thus possible confrontations with bylaw officers. While we haven't had any so far and possibly won't without the bylaw's fences.
A positive outcome of this process - regardless of the bylaw's adoption or not - is the manifesting hands-on awareness of the enormity of problems facing many among us.
And - of course - Council becoming a pro-active unit!
Although the panhandling-issue in Council this week is prominently announced in the Star - there is next to no turn-out for it in Council Chambers.
So much for inside-loiterers' concerns around panhandling!
favim.com
trafficking635.com
No comments:
Post a Comment