Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0301 Documents Submitted at the Mtg A • _ 12/21/1 Bert Etling, Editor Ashland Daily Tidings betling@ dailytidings.com Dear Bert Here's the updated version of my writing that I spoke to you about on the phone this morning. I've written a contribution to the ongoing discussion about Ashland's "Travelers" that I hope you will publish. I suppose it's too long for a letter to the editor, but I'm hoping you'll consider it for a guest column on the subject. I've really enjoyed your new format and your commitment to providing our community a forum for discussing the issues that concern us. Thank you for that. You can reach me today, if you want, at 541 535 8314. 1 will be out of town from 12/22 through 12/30. Thanks, Robert Heilbroner 2664 Anderson Creek Road, Talent, OR 97540 ~s~ L6 \0 Living Together: Ashland and our "Travelers" I've been puzzled and increasingly uneasy about the discussion in our community in which the young people we see on our streets are being defined as a collective "other" that is a "problem" that needs to be "solved." In the twenty-two years that I have lived and raised a kid, and walked the streets of our community, I have not once been harassed or threatened or unduly imposed upon by the folks that hang out in our streets. I've very occasionally been asked for money in a non-threatening, usually good-humored, way, I've been gratefully thanked when I've contributed, and usually been given a "God bless" when I've, much more often, declined. But even this level of "intrusion" in my life is rare. More often the folks I pass in the street go about their own lives and pay me no mind. And not infrequently they contribute positively to my experience of being downtown by offering music - sometimes highly skilled and at other times commendable for its courage - or jokes and stories, with the implied request for a contribution represented by a wordless hat on the ground, or by engaging in interesting conversation, or letting me pet their dogs or, yes, their goat. If "we" succeed in making life in Ashland sufficiently uncomfortable that "them" people who expect so little by way of comfort we will be left with a sanitized community with diminished life. And we will be a paler reflection of the world we live in By saying that I appreciate the presence of these folks I do NOT mean to engage in a debate about whether they are a colorful contribution to our community, or an unsightly annoyance. "We" simply do not have a right to engage in that judgment. These people, in their diversity, exist and they are real. They are here for a wide variety of reasons that are grounded in highly individual mixes of social forces and available alternatives, personal histories and personal choices that it is not ours to judge. "Their" existence does NOT entitle "us" the home-owning, mortgage-paying, members our community - to hold a referendum on their life-style. Of course everybody else has rights too, and street people have no more right to harass, threaten, attack or otherwise harm others than anyone else. And they should be no less (or more) subject to the laws which protect us from one another. That's why we have these laws, and they should be used to provide us all the safety we deserve. We all have a right to be safe. We do not have a right to be spared the inconvenience, or the troublesome feelings that may arise in us, caused by the existence of others But when a community assembles to make laws which are explicitly aimed at solving the "problem" of a particular segment of that community, these laws are prima facie discriminatory. Laws aimed at a particular segment of society have a long and ugly place in world history, and are usually passed with a wink and a nod that they will not be used against the good citizens of the community. That is/they are designed to give police the "discretion" of applying them to the intended population as needed. This gets scary when the problem being solved is, as the Mail Tribune's editorial of December 13 argues, that some of the problematic behaviors "[do] not rise to the level of crime." If YOU don't want to have your dog's vaccination records demanded of you when you walk him/her in the streets of Ashland if YOU don't want to be denied the experience of having an intimate, nurturing relationship with a pet, if YOU don't want to be arrested the next time you are "rude"IDV~ se 'foul language," If YOU don't want to be arrested when you and a group of your friends inconvenience others by blocking the street as you gather and talk, then don't pass laws which make these behaviors illegal, on the presumption they will be applied only to others. There are reasons why not all of our misbehaviors "rise to the level of crime." Discretionary laws aimed at a particular population ARE harassment, and it's hard to believe that their purpose is not simply to make these people "go away" presumably to the streets of an inner city more appropriate for them. tl The real reason to do unto others as you would have them do unto you is not because it is the nice thing to do. It's because there IS no "other," and thus what you do unto others you actually ARE doing to yourself. If the vulnerability and instability of the "Travelers " lifestyle fills you with fear, be confirmed in the choices you've made to provide a safer and more stable life for yourself and yours, and give yourself empathy for the fact that no prparation can protect any of us from the slings and arrow of impermanence; If you s,-f the apparent freedom and lack of responsibilities of the Traveler's way of life, when you have worked so long and hard, look for ways to bring more lightness and freedom into your own life; If the poverty and vulnerability of their lives touches your heart, give them a blanket; If your offer of help is refused, admire their independence, comfort yourself for your powerlessness to help, and offer your generosity where it will be well-used. Merry Christmas, one and all. ~ru bm7000~ Hello, my nam s Peter Lavoie. live at 62 Westwood Street in Ashland. I'm concerned wit e--ordinances being proposed in agenda item 11. , I understand that these proposals are meant to address the behavioral issues on the downtown sidewalks, and in general I agree with the spirit of these proposals. The problem for me is that in attempting to address the behavioral issues, we Will disenfranchise and unfairly ostracize the most vulnerable residents of our community, the homeless. 1 can understand prohibiting solicitation at an ATM or sidewalk cafe. However, I think prohibiting solicitation at a vehicle does not have anything to do with addressing the behavioral issues downtown. As for the proposed ordinance regarding obstructing passageway, p v, again, I agree with the sprit of this proposal, but the way section C2 is written would force people to congregate closer to the storefronts rather than closer to the street, as it defines a passage way as a public sidewalk that is within 5 feet of any public street. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow people to stand and put their things closer to the street which is out of the way of the primary flow of pedestrian traffic? These specifications are hard to understand and will be difficult for people to follow in practice. ;'.i Another example, in section C 1 a and 1 b the ordinance osiat passageways of at least 6 feet wide. Well, I've gone downtown and measured the sidewalks and found places where the entire sidewalk isn't even 6' wide. - I think it might be better to designate the passage way as the 4 or 5 feet of the sidewalk closest to the store front. All these details aside, My primary concern about the ordinances is that homeless people who are not exhibiting aM bad behavior will be most adversely affected. Once an ordinance like this becomes law, it has to be enforced across the board - this includes OSF tourists congregating before a show, and Girl Scouts selling cookies. And, yes, it includes the homeless that have no other place to put their possessions except where they stop to rest on the pubic sidewalks. Once you go down the path proposed by these ordinances, we're going to lose the spirit of Ashland. Can't we find a way to address this situation more ce~mpztss o, iate# ~ ~ .