The Ordinance Committee of the City of Burlington will meet again on Tuesday at 5:30 at the Fletcher Free Library, in the Community room, to discuss "quality of life issues" and the ordinance they were directed to write.
The City Attorney and the Chief of Police have agreed they already have the powers they wanted, so we can't prevent them from making the law stricter. In fact, as a result of their review of the law, they have asked to remove numerous infractions that they find to be unenforceable, and to rewrite some laws to make them clearer, and make convictions easier to get, and making the laws, arguably, more just. The police chief even argued, to bring Burlington Law into conformity with national trends among other cities ("sister cities" Houston and San Fransisco!), to increase the number of civil infractions required before transitioning to criminal code, from two (as is now the case) to three or more. This is all good.
But we need to watch the details. Jay Diaz of the ACLU has identified some issues. And there are many who are cynical enough about city politics and law enforcement to argue that this is a charade to get us to drop our guard. Therefore we must be watchful and alert. Without cynicism, I agree that we must remain vigilant. Please be at the next meeting of the Ordinance committee, to hear what the members are thinking.
So the community of the homeless and its advocates have a fight in principle, not in law, and the Ordinance committee is not the only place for us to argue these principles. Numerous advocates, including Vermonters for Criminal Justice Reform, Democratic Socialists, the ACLU, and folks on the street, have responded (to the push to give the police more power), that more power is not needed, that coercive responses are counter-productive, and that the most helpful responses provide better services.
My argument generalizes this thinking. Use of the police power is inherently destructive to the social fabric because it inserts violence into the relationship between the person being subjected to that power (with a ticket, citation or arrest) and the community the police hold the power of. There are legitimate reasons and instances to use the police power, but because of its corrosive effects, it must be used sparingly, as the last resort, after all other responses have failed. In contrast to "legal", I label these alternative methods "cultural" and "social", and in contrast to "coercive" and "corrosive", describe them as "healing". As the first resort, I advocate "Cultural and Social" responses.
Cultural and social responses to "quality of life" issues are proactive, bring respect for every individual to the conversation, and support the integrity and right of choice of every individual. They seek healing and compromise, and seek to restore members of the community who are otherwise under-resourced, alienated, and angry, to full membership in good standing. They assume that everyone is a member of the community and wishes to be a positive force for the well being of the community, and they provide resources to support that membership. Not everyone will respond to cultural and social treatments, but this is a discussion of first responses, not whether to use the police power.
The City is, like all governments, a creature of law, and that institution to which we entrust the police power. And that place that receives the police power will be the government. If it is democratic and responsive to its citizenry, if it does those things which justify its existence, the government will address their needs and express their highest interests, and will be that place where the one, entire, community gathers to take care of itself.
But it is in the natural way that people are, that when you are the legal entity with police power, that when as a leader you sought power to have an impact on people's lives, that when among the constituents you converse everyday are not the poor and disenfranchised, that when your habit everyday is to talk to powerful people, you may tend first to think of enforcement, before you think about services. You might first think "How do I get rid of these quality of life nuisances?", before you ask "What can I do differently to get a different result?" or "What are the legitimate needs of this community?". Probably, such introspection is not natural when your days are awash with the details of governing, and balancing an always over-tight budget. Our introspection might be that if the government speaks first of "correcting behavior", through enforcement, then we might wonder whether our leaders are fully mindful of their democratic responsibilities.
Every person, whether poor, angry, un-housed, mentally ill, enmeshed in criminal culture, addicted, un-lucky, disabled, gender non-conforming, is still a citizen and member of the community. Our first, proactive choice, must be to ask how to heal the relationship between that person and the community in which he or she resides, and even, "How can I improve the quality of life of those who live in poverty and scarcity?". Every democratically elected or appointed leader must ask "How can I achieve my goals without using the police power?". It will have a dollar cost, and the benefits will be measured in the quality of life that we all enjoy. (I have numerous proposals to answer this question, not posted here.)
It is our duty, as citizens, to demand cultural and social responses, that we do not allow the government, the City, to apply coercive methods before it has made a full-fledged effort to address the social and cultural issues that become "quality of life issues". You have an opportunity to remind the City of these principles Tuesday night (12/5). These meeting are lightly attended. You can have a big impact.
Then watch the City calendar at www.burlingtonvt.gov/Calendar for other meetings where they discuss the business of the people. Go to them. Be a reminder of democracy in action. Commit to attending one meeting per year, per month or per week. Whatever works for you. Our lives will improve, and you will feel more like a member of your community.
The City Attorney and the Chief of Police have agreed they already have the powers they wanted, so we can't prevent them from making the law stricter. In fact, as a result of their review of the law, they have asked to remove numerous infractions that they find to be unenforceable, and to rewrite some laws to make them clearer, and make convictions easier to get, and making the laws, arguably, more just. The police chief even argued, to bring Burlington Law into conformity with national trends among other cities ("sister cities" Houston and San Fransisco!), to increase the number of civil infractions required before transitioning to criminal code, from two (as is now the case) to three or more. This is all good.
But we need to watch the details. Jay Diaz of the ACLU has identified some issues. And there are many who are cynical enough about city politics and law enforcement to argue that this is a charade to get us to drop our guard. Therefore we must be watchful and alert. Without cynicism, I agree that we must remain vigilant. Please be at the next meeting of the Ordinance committee, to hear what the members are thinking.
So the community of the homeless and its advocates have a fight in principle, not in law, and the Ordinance committee is not the only place for us to argue these principles. Numerous advocates, including Vermonters for Criminal Justice Reform, Democratic Socialists, the ACLU, and folks on the street, have responded (to the push to give the police more power), that more power is not needed, that coercive responses are counter-productive, and that the most helpful responses provide better services.
My argument generalizes this thinking. Use of the police power is inherently destructive to the social fabric because it inserts violence into the relationship between the person being subjected to that power (with a ticket, citation or arrest) and the community the police hold the power of. There are legitimate reasons and instances to use the police power, but because of its corrosive effects, it must be used sparingly, as the last resort, after all other responses have failed. In contrast to "legal", I label these alternative methods "cultural" and "social", and in contrast to "coercive" and "corrosive", describe them as "healing". As the first resort, I advocate "Cultural and Social" responses.
Cultural and social responses to "quality of life" issues are proactive, bring respect for every individual to the conversation, and support the integrity and right of choice of every individual. They seek healing and compromise, and seek to restore members of the community who are otherwise under-resourced, alienated, and angry, to full membership in good standing. They assume that everyone is a member of the community and wishes to be a positive force for the well being of the community, and they provide resources to support that membership. Not everyone will respond to cultural and social treatments, but this is a discussion of first responses, not whether to use the police power.
The City is, like all governments, a creature of law, and that institution to which we entrust the police power. And that place that receives the police power will be the government. If it is democratic and responsive to its citizenry, if it does those things which justify its existence, the government will address their needs and express their highest interests, and will be that place where the one, entire, community gathers to take care of itself.
But it is in the natural way that people are, that when you are the legal entity with police power, that when as a leader you sought power to have an impact on people's lives, that when among the constituents you converse everyday are not the poor and disenfranchised, that when your habit everyday is to talk to powerful people, you may tend first to think of enforcement, before you think about services. You might first think "How do I get rid of these quality of life nuisances?", before you ask "What can I do differently to get a different result?" or "What are the legitimate needs of this community?". Probably, such introspection is not natural when your days are awash with the details of governing, and balancing an always over-tight budget. Our introspection might be that if the government speaks first of "correcting behavior", through enforcement, then we might wonder whether our leaders are fully mindful of their democratic responsibilities.
Every person, whether poor, angry, un-housed, mentally ill, enmeshed in criminal culture, addicted, un-lucky, disabled, gender non-conforming, is still a citizen and member of the community. Our first, proactive choice, must be to ask how to heal the relationship between that person and the community in which he or she resides, and even, "How can I improve the quality of life of those who live in poverty and scarcity?". Every democratically elected or appointed leader must ask "How can I achieve my goals without using the police power?". It will have a dollar cost, and the benefits will be measured in the quality of life that we all enjoy. (I have numerous proposals to answer this question, not posted here.)
It is our duty, as citizens, to demand cultural and social responses, that we do not allow the government, the City, to apply coercive methods before it has made a full-fledged effort to address the social and cultural issues that become "quality of life issues". You have an opportunity to remind the City of these principles Tuesday night (12/5). These meeting are lightly attended. You can have a big impact.
Then watch the City calendar at www.burlingtonvt.gov/Calendar for other meetings where they discuss the business of the people. Go to them. Be a reminder of democracy in action. Commit to attending one meeting per year, per month or per week. Whatever works for you. Our lives will improve, and you will feel more like a member of your community.
No comments:
Post a Comment