Echoing last week’s demonstration in Park Square, Monday night’s ordinance and rules subcommittee meeting opened with a full hour of public comment against Mayor Peter Marchetti’s “Median Safety and Pedestrian Regulation in Public Roadways” ordinance. None of the attendees who packed council chambers were there to support it. While the mayor says the move that would make standing on medians at highly trafficked intersections a civil offense is a safety measure, critics say it amounts to a war on the poor and free speech.
“Panhandling and protesting are both protected by the First Amendment," said Reverend Joel Huntington. "And in Massachusetts, panhandling is protected speech, protesting is protected speech, and they're connected in this issue, because the ordinance pushes the panhandlers out of these intersections, making them invisible, and then that causes more problems.”
Huntington spent more than 30 years as pastor of South Congregational Church in downtown Pittsfield.
“So, it doesn't make the panhandler safer," he continued. "It feels like the ordinance is really cynical a bit, because it doesn't make them safer, it makes life more risky for them because it takes away a source of income, and it pushes them more into invisibility, and it's just painful.”
Huntington also testified that the ordinance presents a threat to Pittsfielders’ ability to demonstrate in the heart of the city.
“Criminalizing homelessness and poverty- All you're going to do is make it harder for the most vulnerable people in our city to access the imaginary services everyone’s saying they could access," said Michael Hitchcock. "Those services don't currently exist. The wait lists are too long. When they do exist, having a criminal record will make it harder to access those services.”
Hitchcock is a community organizer and board director of worker empowerment nonprofit Roots & Dreams and Mustard Seeds.
“Now I've heard many times, oh, they won't have a criminal record, it's only a misdemeanor, and that's one of the many dishonest, unfair arguments on this ordinance, because when you don't pay your fine consistently, you eventually get criminal contempt of court, which is a criminal record," he told the subcommittee. "So, this is one of the many places where people are dishonestly repeating a talking point without any critical thought.”
When discussion shifted to the five-member subcommittee, it became clear that the councilors did not have faith in Marchetti’s plan.
The head of the police department’s traffic unit, Lieutenant Marc Maddalena has over 25 years of experience with the city streets. Asked point blank if there is any evidence that panhandling causes accidents, he said no.
“Panhandlers hang out at these particular areas for a reason," explained Maddalena. "That's where volume is the heaviest, that's where you’re going to get biggest bang for your buck. At the same time set, when you had that type of volume of traffic, that's where crashes occur, where a lot of cars are obviously present. To best my knowledge, there isn't any correlation between where the panhandlers hang out and the fact that there are crashes that result in that area. If you take the panhandlers away from that particular area, does that particular area, does that mean those crashes are going to dissipate or it's going to go down? And the answer is probably no.”
Ward 5’s Patrick Kavey shared his research into the fate of similar ordinances in other Massachusetts communities.
“You have Worcester, which was more aggressive than this, Lowell, which was more aggressive than this- They lost in court," said Kavey. "The number of communities that have lost in court over this issue is pretty astounding, and I'm seriously concerned that if we were to pass this, we would be sued, and then, like so many other people have said, we would rescind it. I mean, Brockton was a city that had something like this on the books, and then when other communities began to get sued, they rescinded it because they didn't want to have to deal with going to court over it.”
The one example where Kavey found a median ordinance upheld was in Framingham.
“When I spoke to the solicitor in Framingham, she had said, well, the reason it's holding up here and it potentially couldn't in another scenario is because when they passed it, they had data of different types of assault, they had data of- They actually had data linking certain pedestrian activity to accidents with cars," the councilor continued. "We don't have that data.”
Even with the traffic safety data furnished to the council, Kavey said the mayor’s ordinance was clearly addressing the wrong intersections.
“It seems like the majority of those top 20 were Linden Street and different intersections- And I get sight lines are hard, but if we were humoring this on these intersections, why wouldn't we be humoring this on those intersections since there's more crashes?” he asked.
At-large councilor Kathy Amuso felt that supporting Marchetti’s measure would fly in the face of the body’s vote just weeks ago that established Pittsfield as a sanctuary city for trans and gender diverse people.
“I don't think the time is right now to pass anything like this," she said. "We just voted unanimously for Pittsfield to be a sanctuary city, and this, to me, kind of is pulling away from what we just did. But is there a safety component to this? I think there is, but I don't think right now is a time for me to make any of your lives more difficult for what you need to do to- And what I heard tonight was really, a lot of times, it's to survive.”
The ordinance and rules subcommittee elected to file the measure on a 4 to 1 vote after an unsuccessful effort from council President Pete White to table it. White was the sole vote against filing.
Reached by WAMC Tuesday, Marchetti said he respects the democratic process. The ordinance is expected return to the full council with the recommendation to file in April.
