(North or south, east or west, local conflicts of interest effectively disenfranchise folks in many communities throughout Vermont. Time for a statewide policy! – promoted by Sue Prent)
Those who say any publicity is good, might not be right this time. The new Anti-panhandler law has brought focus to Bennington from far and wide. Most of the publicity has been very negative. We need to find a way out of this quagmire.
Locally the law has generated the largest citizen protest since March 20, 2003. That protest opposed The Shock and Awe war which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
A few citizens are asking questions about a possible conflict of interest. Three members of the Select Board have connections to businesses on Main Street. Whether or not any law was broken is not the issue. There is a perception of impropriety. Select Boards represent all citizens, not only the business community.
Some citizens are circulating petitions so that the law will be the subject of a citizen vote.
Many others, have serious concerns about the impact of this law on taxes. Laws restricting free speech have been overturned all over the country. Legal battles are expensive. Will taxpayers be at risk if the law is challenged on Constitutional grounds? The ‘law-of-unintended-consequences’ might come back to haunt us sometime in the near future.
Beyond all that, there is another question. Was the law based on ‘misinformation’? Citizens, and also maybe some members of the Select Board, were given the impression that the law was necessary because the presence of pan-handlers was having a negative impact on Main Street businesses. How can that be? The front page of the October 15, 2013 issue of the Bennington Banner ran a news report about how great business was. “I’ve been here for 13 years, and this is the best Columbus Day week-end since...”, said the office manager of Evans News. Other Main Street businesses reported similar good news.
The issue right now, today, is how do we stop the bleeding and allow the healing process to begin. There is a way. Think about this: What would happen if a citizen – any citizen- made a request of the Select Board to reconsider the law and have an immediate re-vote? Could that happen without a citizen request? Suppose the Select Board on their own, made the decision to hold a re-vote. This would be a win-win-win for everyone. There is no downside to this. Consider the risk-benefit ratio. The Select Board would look good, because they would be functioning at the highest level of democratic standards. The citizens would be comforted to know that the members of the Select Board were courageous enough to either change their votes, or else they were convinced that their original votes were correct.
With the new information that is now available – the depth of citizen opposition, and the information in the October 15 issue of the Banner, the Members of the Select Board owe it to themselves to reconsider. A few votes of conscience could turn this around.
A copy of the ordinance is online.
http://www.townofbennington.or…
I’ve done a lot of work with the homeless in Vermont and in other states. And while I don’t think that this is a perfect ordinance, it’s clear that it isn’t as sweeping and as dangerous as Ms. Jackowski would lead us to believe.
facts should be referenced using links to sources used. I personally consider stories which cannot back claims made with sources can be & usually are invalid.
“Panhandling” & nor 1st amendment rights under fire are not the issues here.
In researching the issue for myself I have found that it is “aggressive panhandling” & blocking public ways, as well as harrassment which are the real issues here.
This present situation seems to have occurred around foliage when there are alot of tourists with cash on hand. Complaints from those who were patronizing businesses were brought to the select board which then decided to add amendments to an existing ordinence. So this is not something new.
http://www.benningtonbanner.co…
http://www.benningtonbanner.co…
How is any of this interfering with anyones constitutionally protescted rights:
http://www.benningtonbanner.co…
http://www.benningtonbanner.co…
Just as panhandlers or any individual wishing to speak to a fellow citizen for whatever reason has a right to do so, the individual being approached has a right to avoid the contact for whatever reason. I would like to see everyone be reasonable & recognize the rights of others, be courteous & repectful.
I do not agree with the ban on those sleeping in vehicles. The alternatives are burdensome, ridiculous & cruel as well as ignoring an uncomfortable reality — there are homeless among us who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to stay in a shelter. Leave them alone & be grateful you are not one of them. For those of us who have been in this situation, it is not an easy place to be in esp in the cold.
Rosemary clearly has an agenda, and that agenda is impacting her ability to be objective about this issue.
I was not following this issue until I read this post. To whomever posted the actual ordinance, THANK YOU. I now see why Rosemary chose not to. It does not support her claims.
After reading the ordinance, a couple of things are quite clear:
1) The ordinance does not ban panhandling. It merely sets limited restrictions upon panhandling (and certain other solicitations) that impede upon others rights. The ordinance allows panhandling in 98% of the town. It merely ensures that whatever panhandling occurs is not done so at the expense of other people’s rights – to include the right to feel unthreatened. The ordinance restricts AGGRESSIVE (real or perceived) panhandling. When one actually reads they ordinance, it becomes readily apparent that Rosemary’s position is an anti-peace position. (Put another way, a pro-aggression position.) She can not ignore that reality.
2) Threats of a major lawsuit are tremendously exaggerated. Bennington is not treading new ground. Not at all. “Unheard of” places such as the states of Hawaii and California, the cities of San Francisco; Seattle; Minneapolis; Albuquerque; Atlanta; Baltimore; Cincinnati; Dallas; Tulsa, Okla.; and Washington, D.C. have all passed anti-aggressive panhandling ordinances. And they are still on the books. I am actually quite impressed that the Selectboard was cautious enough to refrain from treading new ground. The ordinance is clearly taken from other ordinances that have passed muster. But Rosemary apparently didn’t want you to know that.
So at the end of the day you have two things:
A) An ordinance that attempts to effectuate a peaceable sharing of public space; and
B) An ordinance that is neither new nor untested.
While I applaud Rosemary’s desire to help the underprivileged, I am disappointed that she is spinning the facts in order to maintain a position that is, at the end of the day, indefensible.
I get that you don’t agree with Rosemarie; I frequently do not either, but she has expressed her views pretty calmly here.
I agree that there needs to be some substantiation to the statement about conflict of interest, but, having read the link provided by Bonsai and its accompanying comments, it kind of looks as if Rosemarie is not alone in this perception. So I, for one, will be interested to read more.
Talk about “overheated.,” Mr. Rowley! Please read your comment and then Ms. Jackowski’s post once again. Which do you think comes across as overheated to the person learning about this controversy for the first time?
Realist gets all exercised about how Ms. Jackowski is “pro big box and anti-democracy” even though he/she says this is the first he/she has heard about the controversy. Where. in this diary, do you find a platform from which to leap to those two conclusions?
I think you are letting your past disagreements with Ms. Jackowski color your response to THIS particular diary.
Coming from a town with more than its fair share of conflicts of interest playing out in the subtext of City business, I find her arguments credible, although I would certainly hope that she fleshes out the relationships for us so that we can judge whether or not to agree that conflicts of interest are at play here.
Nobody supports local business more than I, but I know well how dynastic power and influence cabals can effectively ignore input from concerned members of the community who have neither the push nor the means to compete for Selectboard membership.
So, if we want Rosemarie to continue to engage calmly, perhaps we should all dial it back a little bit.
If you assume, for the sake of argument, that Rosemary’s allegations regarding the Selectboard are true, then this is an example of the power and protections of our Constitution. Rosemary should be jumping for joy, not throwing stones.
If, as Rosemary would have us believe, the Selectboard wanted to eliminate panhandlers in their entirety, they failed. They failed because of the Constitution. The could only pass an anti-aggressive ordinance, not an anti-panhandling ordinance.
I’m struggling to see how Rosemary could possibly be offended in this circumstance. Or is Rosemary the sole arbiter of who is afforded Constitutional protections? Her actions suggest she is comfortable with that proposition.
So either this is an example of rights being protected, or Rosemary’s assessment of the Selectboard was mistaken. Either way the result is inspiring.
A Google news search shows a grand total of seven articles, one of which was authored by you on VTDigger. No articles are from out of state. Whether or not the coverage is “negative” is purely subjective.
Seventy people, for those interested in actual data. It is not known how many were actually citizens of Bennington.
Actually, whether or not a law was broken is the issue. If a perception is wrong, then it has no merit and should be corrected. Some people “perceive” Obama as not having a birth certificate. Are you suggesting that he is an illegitimate President? To avoid hypocrisy you would have to take remedial action over this “concern”.
And if 5% of the voters sign, the matter will be put to a public vote. Why not let this process take its course? The law does not allow a Selectboard unilateral authority. It is subject to public override.
Rather than spread fear, you should educate them that similar ordinances have been tested and that courts have upheld those ordinances.
Your argument is centered upon a logical fallacy. Just because business is up does not mean that panhandling has no impact on business. If politicians used your logic, they would de-fund alternative energy because the earth is warmer than ever. See the problem with your way of thinking?
If there is “bleeding” (which you allege absent factual support) you stop the rhetoric and hyperbole. You acknowledge that caring people can have different opinions. You get the signatures and put the issue to a respectfully debated public vote. Before you speak, you respectfully consider both sides of the issue and maintain factual integrity.
It sounds to me that somebody is very worried about their ability to get 5% of the voters to support a public vote. Usurping a statutory process is a slippery slope. Let’s see if 5% of voters wish to have a public vote since you insist that continued publicity is negative for Bennington.
Your lengthy diary entry failed to mention any “new information”. Care to tell us what that is? If it’s the quote from Evans News, I’ve already dealt with that logical fallacy.
So could a petition signed by a mere 5% of the voters. Perhaps you should focus on that to give your argument some credibility.
In an attempt to convey a more Middle-Of-The-Road image, FOX News announced today that Vermont’s leading Anti-Secessionist, Thomas Rowley, will debut in a Commentary Spot called: “See, Us Dems Are NAZIS Too” effective Monday morning at 3:14 am. Rowley is also known for being the #1 supporter of Vermont’s corrupt Democrat Attorney General, Bill Sorrell, who hopes to become Vermont’s Governor someday and work with Rowley to prove that sugary-sweet soft drinks are not only a crime problem in Vermont, but also encourage Vermonters to consider all kinds of opinions contrary to the interests of the nation and the regular viewers of FOX News.
FOX News spokesperson, David Irving–also FOX News’ HISTORY COMMENTATOR–said today: “Rowley is just the type of one-issue right-wing lib-er-al Sell-out-the-First Amendment-Dem we need here on FOX News to help Ruppert Murdoch and Wall Street and The RICH complete the NAZI takeover of the United States. As a guy who loves Hitler and knows that the JEWS made up the Holocaust, I welcome Rowley to our crew here at FOX News. In the future, I hope to form here a sort of POINT/COUNTERPOINT forum modeled after the the one made famous on Saturday Night Live in the 70s. I’ll be taking on Deborah Lipstadt, whom I’m still pissed at for beating the shit out of me in court back in that ruling from that Jew-Secessionist British judge in 2000. Bitch! Not only didn’t The Holocaust happen, but Hitler was no more mad than Napoleon. They never accused Napoleon of genocide! I’ll show her. And Rowley will be taking on this radical old Jew Bitch, Rosmarie Jackowski, who tried to subvert our war on Terrorist Israel-backed Secessionists in 2003, and then went all the way to the Vermont Supreme Court with her conspiracy lies and whackiness. Together Rowley and I will uncover the REAL CONSPIRACY–That ISRAEL and THE JEWS are behind the attempt by Dennis Steele and The Second Vermont Republic to turn America and Britain into Communist Secessionist Welfare Panhandling States, who spread Aggressive Panhandling Secessionist Revolution for the benefit of Israel and the Jews. And Racism too. Think about it. You ever see a Black Jew in Vermont? No. They’re all in Ethiopia. And they’ll all be exterminated after Israel occupies Ethiopia! I read About in The Southern Poverty Of Mind magazine If Vermont secedes from the United States, who do you think will OCCUPY Vermont? Yes, ISRAEL! And soon Israel will be occupying most of Britain, with nothing to stop them but The IRA, who will become the New Palestinians. America’s entire National Policy has been all about The Jews and Israel since 1948. That was the beginning, when The Jews took over Palestine and seceded from the British Empire. Hitler liked Britain, he just didn’t like Churchill. And if the Brits had been smart in 1940, they would have joined Hitler in taking on the Jewish Bolsheviks in 1941. And then I would have won in Court in 2000–except that I wouldn’t have needed to go to Court, because there would have been no Deborah Lipstadt. Or Rosemarie Jackowski either! And we would have also proved long ago that the First Amendment was part of the Jewish Conspiracy, written by those Founding Fathers who were ‘secretly’ Jews, to take over the world, one strip at a time, until there was nothing left but Jews and Chinese. And then go after the Chinks by opening an international chain of ‘Kosher’ Chinese Restaurants. Don’t worry, Rowley and I will explain all this further, and in even in more detail, in our new book, Jews, Pedophiles, Whackos, And Justice For Islam and Jesus. Everyone will learn that Islamic and Christian Fundamentalism are ‘uniting’ powers, rather than secessionist ones, and…Hey!..where’d everybody go?…Goddamn Secessionists! CONSPIRACY!”
Thank you, Rosemarie, for keeping us up on disturbing events from Bennington. And thank you, Sue Prent, for presenting a level-headed examination of them. And you too, stardust, for ‘sort-of’ defending Rosie, in your own way.
To Rowley, I have only this to say: I think there might also be a job for you in North Korea. No First Amendment there. Check it out. In the meantime, I will do to you what you have been doing to Rosie–Go ahead now, and DENY you’re a shill for The System. And a LIAR and a WHACKO.
Yes, you think that we ‘don’t know’ your Little Dem ploy?–To present true believers in JUSTICE (and all Vermont Third Party candidates) to be all Racist and Secessionist Whackos from New Jersey. Like that Christie dude. Yeah, them Republicans are in it with The Jews too. Make sure you and Irving put that in the book.
Just for the record: I admire all the members of the Select Board. I disagree with the new Anti-panhandler law. Those with reading comprehension can understand the difference there.
Also, the 1 or 2 mud-slingers here seem unable to follow normal rules of discussion and debate. If you have noticed, I do not engage with mud-slingers…especially when they hide behind anonymity. Are they high school girls from the ‘mean girls’ lunch table? Who are they? What are the names??? Why are you afraid to own the mud you sling?
It’s really too bad that this topic started out so off-base and went downhill from there.
There ARE interesting issues about anti-aggressive-panhandling laws. Aggressive panhandling can be a real problem, although I suspect panhandlers in any large city downtown or tourist area of India would put the Bennington beggars to shame. But the laws can be misused by enforcement officials, much as “disorderly conduct” often is misused and “vagrancy” laws were in the past.
Business owners often really want a total ban – visible poverty doesn’t exactly help promote consumerism – and have been known to encourage aggressive law enforcement tactics. The law, as actually written rather than as described by the original poster, seems well within the pale.
However, if Wal-Mart has the right to come begging tax breaks and public infrastructure, the homeless should have the right to beg for spare change.