Seeing that this is Local Government Awareness Week: all attentively following the gestation-process of the proposed local panhandling-bylaw would seem appropriate.
As in general would be attending Council Meetings; personally expressing opinions in Committees of the Whole (COW) and connecting through messages with Mayor Kozak, CAO Kevin Cormack and City Council. With copies to all!
Pro-active in all matters civic!
Following is a presentation made to the COW, 16 May, 2015 - here with added depth(-charges). Its premise: This bylaw is tailor-made for/by a special-interests group. It has nothing to do with panhandling as such but everything with cleansing Nelson of untouchables - the whole unsightly lot of them!
While it would be impossible to push through a bylaw forbidding all untouchables on "our" streets - democracy, human rights, etc. - it is doable to fashion a punitive panhandling-bylaw for a few and demonize all in/by the process.
This follows post
Loitering Over Coffee
6 May, 2016
directly.
NPD
Although this bylaw supposedly is requested by the Nelson Police Department (NPD) and Bylaw Officers - but not the Bylaw Enforcement Department as such under then Deputy Chief Burkart - at its introduction to Council no documentation whatsoever is provided to substantiate the need for such bylaw. A letter concerning it is not submitted by Chief Holland until about 6 weeks after the requested (by whom, really?) introduction - this without the Nelson Police Board's input.
Information on 24 incidents in 2015 under the Safe Streets Act - while broken down into levels of severity - does not mention any cases of panhandling or aggressive panhandling. Making talk about a needed aggressive-panhandling bylaw spurious - in view of the small number of actual panhandlers we do have to begin with.
NDCC
The Nelson & District Chamber of Commerce's (NDCC) Board of Directors last summer adopts a resolution in favor of an "aggressive panhandling bylaw that would regulate behavior and also where the panhandling could take place, but not make it illegal."
The NDCC laying down the law of the streets!
A survey run by the Chamber - targeting its downtown-business members for support of such bylaw - curiously results in a "not large sample size" of 22 respondents of whom about 16 are in favor.
BUT!
This survey is indirectly contradicted in the
LETTER: Address panhandling through creative means
Nelson Star, 25 Nov, 2015
Here Mari Plamondon - owner of Wait's News, corner of Baker/Ward - writes about a meeting of the Downtown Business Association, Oct. 2015: "The topic of discussion was the proposed panhandling bylaw...... I was hesitant to attend for I was concerned that my ideas may not be shared by others. I was pleasantly surprised that in a room of close to 40 people, only 3 spoke in favor of the bylaw."
Presumably (many/most) members of this association are members of the NDCC as well. So what's with this survey!?
BCCLA
A BC Civil Liberties Association letter to the Mayor's Office reads:
"The BC Civil Liberties Association has a number of concerns about the contents of the bylaw, its necessity and its legality. We urge you not to pass this bylaw and to invest instead in measures that will address the root causes of poverty and homelessness, including mental-health support and affordable housing."
The BCCLA clearly broadens the focus, with panhandling one symptom only. As does our Street Culture Collaborative and those members of City Council opposed to this bylaw.
My informal survey of panhandling on Baker - Mon, May 9 to Sun, May 15, all around mid-day - finds: Mon-1; Tue-2: Wed-3: Thu-2: Fri-1; Sat-1; Sun-2.
The total is 12, but as one individual is there on 6 days: the number of different panhandlers actually is only 7 in one week. None aggressive; none obstructing anyone/anything.
Neither City Staff, nor the NPD or the NDCC have ever run a formal, detailed on-the-ground survey on the actual number of active panhandlers specifically at any given time.
It is hypocritical to - on one hand - say: they have no income, so panhandling is the only option some have, while - on the other hand - prepare to cut down drastically on place/time where/when they may be allowed to panhandle. Also - bemoaning homelessness while deliberately designing the new Cottonwood Market in a way to make sleeping there impossible for those without a bed to go to! And announcing that publicly!
This proposed bylaw is not about panhandlers in attack-mode but shop-till-you-drop without visual irritants.
It is self-serving and inhumane!
queapredemoshoy.com
cettebelle.com
printerest.com
walkerart.com
mariopationoartist.wordpress.com
theneoncart.com
No comments:
Post a Comment