Below is a letter (plus additional thoughts) sent to Rona Park, Nelson Community Services, also overseeing the Nelson Street Culture Collaborative. The latter supporting people possibly disenfranchised and (uncomfortably to some) visible downtown.
This discomfort - fear actually - people experience when in closer proximity of the undesirables in itself is more of a problem than are the undesired.
LETTER:
52 Reasons
While the recent Chamber of Commerce (NDCC)-generated item in the Star - signed by "52 downtown businesses" - lists a number of issues: what seems to have stuck in readers' minds is panhandling. What with ever spiraling assumptions/assertions: all those dressed, acting/connecting with each other a certain way/in specific places downtown obviously are drug-addicted, mental, homeless - panhandlers.
To the point of one commenter writing that in one day he was accosted downtown 6 times by panhandlers and just can't bear going there any longer.
Right!
Bottom-line: Letters like this feed into the perception - once again - that downtown thus tourism are going to the dogs, only because of hordes of aggressive panhandlers roaming Baker.
All the Wrongs
While these businesses individually may relate to any number of the NDCC letter's issues, not all 52 - here lumped together on all of them - have a problem with panhandling.
In her letter to the Star, 25 Nov, 2015, Mary Plemondon (a woman of experience - she owns Wait's News) says about a meeting of the Downtown Business Association: "I was pleasantly surprised that in a room of close to 40 people, only 3 spoke in favor of this (panhandling) bylaw."
It is also necessary to differentiate between panhandlers and those panhandling. While all undesirables by now conveniently are called panhandlers - only few of them do panhandle. And not in groups!
The proposed bylaw lists where undesirables mustn't panhandle - like near banks. Actually only referring to a single bank - the CIBC. Nobody hangs out at the others. Kevin Cormack, CAO, had the amenities across from the CIBC torn down - without Council's approval - leaving only one bench. The lack of seating resulted in the undesirables clustering more tightly under/close to the tree there - closer to/on CIBC steps. Cormack's self-promoting move to rid the area of undesirables backfired!
They didn't leave!
So let's pretend they're there specifically to panhandle and put it in the bylaw!
See if that'll do it - do them!
Law & Order?
This blog looked at some of its too simplistically focused points before the panhandling-bylaw's Third Reading, which directly led to Council deciding to look at "street people" more attentively (in tandem with relevant local groups), the bylaw being put on hold and the Street Culture Collaborative forming.
When the Chamber's board - not the general membership! - devised their "resolution" for an "aggressive panhandling bylaw" - to promptly be followed by City Staff (using the NYPD as cover) proposing it, with Council asleep at the wheel: neither the NDCC, nor City Staff or the NYPD had (ever) collected any data on the (average, seasonal, etc.) numbers of our actual! panhandlers.
Clearly - a non-issue!
In fact - City Staff's Request for Decision to Council was not based on any written documentation whatsoever substantiating a need for such bylaw. And Council didn't demand it - didn't question the origin of this bylaw-proposal, with its vague anecdotal content!
While Wayne Holland, previous NYPD Chief, then was and the NDCC/City Staff all along have been fearmongering about our untouchables!
Hugs for Spare Change
An informal survey I ran at the time - presented to Council in a Committee of the Whole - found that within 7 days, around midday, there were 12 actual panhandlers on Baker. But because one of them was in her spot every day: the number of individual panhandlers - none aggressive! - was actually only 6 within that week.
This year I don't see much panhandling on Baker either. On a recent good-weather Saturday - while I was toing-and-froing in the downtown-core for about 2 hours - there wasn't any.
The Street Culture Collaborative - with its insightful work so far - for balance might also engage the general public. As in exploring with them that their fear of otherness may make them exaggerate and not see clearly that while we don't have a panhandling problem as such - we do have a discrimination-problem all the way to City Hall.
Hugging trees is easy for Nelson - hugging untouchables not so much. Especially the ones who don't look so nice and don't buy stuff from downtown businesses.
Out Damned Spot!
Tourists still come: after all - there is no place in BC without ever increasing numbers of the disenfranchised. And tourists know this.
But the NDCC and City Staff must stop blaming a segment of our population for their cronies making never-enough money and instead produce creative initiatives to market Nelson-as-is.
To be considered: if they should manage to cleanse Nelson of all undesirables - the goal now and always! - and then find and must acknowledge those clearly weren't the problem - then what?!
It is this hysteria-stoking which actually may start keeping tourists away.
Not the so-called panhandlers!
Take a deep breath, Nelsonites: While we need to compassionately attend to the problems facing all our vulnerable - the only threat they pose is to your comfort-zone.
You are being manipulated into believing otherwise!
Downtown almost every day for years, I have never felt/been threatened by anyone.
Image Credits:
CP/Bruno Baurin
Arnaud Alves
Pixabay
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
Tom Thomson, NDCC
tom@discovernelson.com
Rona Park
rpark@servicesfyi.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment