Is Greenfield a welcoming and so-called “safe city?”
That question has roiled the city’s politics for years.
Most recently, a safe city ordinance that was initially passed by the City Council on July 17 by a favorable 10-3 vote was stalled a few days later when Precinct 1 City Councilor Verne Sund submitted an eleventh-hour motion to reconsider.
Sund initially voted in favor of the measure and then backtracked after apparently receiving advice from a friend, although he wouldn’t say who.
The ordinance, which will be taken up again by the council Aug. 21, would prohibit city officials from asking about a person’s immigration status, taking law enforcement action against someone on the basis of perceived immigration status and targeting someone or discriminating against an institution that’s providing refuge to immigrants and their families.
This isn’t the first time drama has surrounded the safe city debate.
In the summer of 2017, Greenfield’s City Council voted down a similar ordinance 6-4 following a public comment session that lasted three hours. Seventy people voiced their concerns; hundreds of others held signs. The room in Greenfield High School where the decision took place was so packed that onlookers spilled outside and watched through windows.
Since it was first raised, the question has been controversial.
Leading up to the council’s vote two years ago, Mayor William Martin issued an executive order all but declaring Greenfield to be a “sanctuary city,” prohibiting local police from working with federal immigration authorities without the mayor’s permission. Had it passed, the council’s 2017 vote would have codified Martin’s order into law. Another time, the city first permitted and then reversed its decision to allow Women Rise, a local advocacy group, to display a nearly 8-foot tall “safe city” sign on Federal Street.
In following months, animosity among city councilors bubbled beneath the surface, spilling over toward the end of the year when then-At-Large Councilor Penny Ricketts was quoted as saying the debate “fractured us as a council.”
It’s obvious that many people feel passionate about this issue — as they should; immigration is an important issue both locally and nationally.
Of course, hashing out political differences in a public forum is an integral part of democracy. Without debate, there would be no progress. But this debate has circled the same ground for two years, now, with no clear outcome.
It’s time for local lawmakers to make a definitive decision and put the debate to rest once and for all — Greenfield’s constituents deserve finality.
Come Aug. 21, we hope to see the council make and then stand by a decision — no more political maneuvering; no more wavering; no more ambiguous conclusions. If that doesn’t happen, if the council’s debate continues after August’s meeting, we believe the question should be put to a binding ballot vote either at the upcoming annual November election or at a scheduled special election.
Let the people decide if the council can’t do it.