Even though it’s slated to end today, the politics surrounding the homeless encampment on the Greenfield Common remains intriguing.
The controversy reached another level this week when Greenfield Mayor Bill Martin announced that the Common encampment would have to be cleared by today, not for health and safety reasons, but because of Sunday’s annual “Community Harvest Supper,” which last month was issued a special permit for the use of the Common this Sunday.
“They have a permit, so any other use of that space will not be allowed,” Martin said. “So the area will have to be cleared by (this) Friday.”
The special permit was issued by the city’s Board of Licensing Commissioners, which has also granted another permit for the DPW to occupy the Common beginning on Sept. 5, which, not so coincidentally I’m sure, is one day before the annual Franklin County Fair Parade, which passes the Common.
The DPW “occupancy” is expected to last until at least Oct. 1. Martin also pointed out that the permitting policy for the Common grew out of a 2016 civil rights complaint by the American Civil Liberties Union, which wanted to ensure that free speech use of the area be equally preserved.
Consider the irony. Martin has wanted to end this for a while, but couldn’t through conventional means, so he’s using the ACLU and the Community Harvest Supper to do it for him.
I’m sure the organizers of the supper aren’t thrilled about the idea of being pawns in this public policy chess match, especially around an event that celebrates the bounty of the harvest by feeding people, for free, in a community setting where all are welcome.
Like I said, irony.
Martin said the homeless campers will be able to store their gear temporarily in the vacant First National Bank building, across the street, adding that the city is continuing to work to find adequate housing for the remaining campers, who are not going to be allowed back after Friday.
“We are working on a number of parallel paths to resolve the situation, and every one of those paths leads to a similar conclusion,” Martin said.
The mayor made his comments just minutes after a special Greenfield City Council meeting, of which the outcome will likely wind up being little more than an exercise in futility.
The special meeting was to consider “An Ordinance For The Preservation of the Common,” a measure intended to define the purpose of that space, and set certain limits for its use, most notably, banning the use of tents and sleeping bags.
The ordinance was on the agenda for last week’s August monthly meeting, but did not garner a second meeting, which led five councilors — Isaac Mass, Brickett Allis, Wanda Muzyka-Pyfrom, Verne Sund and John Lobik — to call for Tuesday’s special meeting, which was held at Town Hall and did not include a public comment section, which didn’t exactly please the few people who did show up.
Of the 13 members of the council, only eight were there — four of the aforementioned five, as well as Council Vice-President Penny Ricketts, and precinct councilors Dan Leonovich, Otis Wheeler and Doug Mayo.
It was enough for a quorum, and it was pretty obvious, based on who showed and who didn’t, that the ordinance was going to pass, and it did 5-2, after limited debate. Martin said he would have to look it over before deciding whether to sign it, but it may not matter, because the charter clearly states that ordinances and financial articles require a minimum of seven affirmative votes to go into effect.
It’s not known why the other more progressive members didn’t show. It’s possible some were on vacation or had other commitments, which is entirely understandable. But if they did purposely decide to stay away, it’s a pretty smart move. It reminded me of a “pocket veto,” which happens when a mayor or president gets a bill at the end of a legislative session, but doesn’t want to sign it, so he or she just puts it in a “pocket” until the session runs out, effectively killing it.
It’s also possible that Mass and his fellow councilors called the special meeting knowing that not everyone would be there, which would make passage more likely. It’s is also plausible that the proponents knew that they needed seven votes to pass the ordinance and that it would be challenged, which Wheeler has promised to do if Martin signs it.
If that happens, it’s not likely to be the end of the debate. Mass and Co. will almost certainly bring the ordinance back at a full meeting, at which point another vote will occur. And if it gets shot down, who do you think is going to be held accountable the next time a tent goes up there?
I hope the city is able to find housing for these citizens, but even if it does, my guess is that Greenfield will feel the residual political effects of this little social experiment long after that final tent comes down.
Chris Collins is a former staff reporter for the Recorder, and is a Greenfield native. Over the years he has continued to keep his eye on local politics from a variety of perches for different news outlets.