Keeping the Paradise City a paradise must be tough work.
I mean, paradise is supposed to be perfect, right? Completely comfortable, without any cause for concern. But even in a city like Northampton, set snugly in the Pioneer Valley, undesirable people still slip through occasionally. It's the nature of a paradise that not everyone gets in, but the very act of singling out a group of people and treating them differently makes liberals uneasy.
So, what's a progressive city going to do?
Hand it to those clever folks in city hall to find a way to introduce segregation in such a way that no one needs to feel like a bigot.
Instead of proposing a law that bans poor people, they're proposing to put limits on something poor people do: panhandling.
Like I said, clever.
Of course, since the federal government has already said panhandling is protected as part of the first amendment right to free speech, enforcing such a law will require some finessing, but Police Chief Russell P. Sienkiewicz appears ready. In a June 21 story in the Daily Hampshire Gazette he said, "We aren't prohibiting panhandling. It's a protected activity. But we believe you can regulate to the point to get panhandling away from areas where people are most uncomfortable."
(Where else are you going to get a police chief worrying about your comfort but in paradise?)
To accomplish this, the proposed regulations specify all the places panhandling can't occur. Basically, everywhere downtown will be protected from possible direct encounters with the impoverished. Wisely, the crafters of the regulations kept these free speech-free zones general, defining invisible boundaries around lots of common locations—building entrances, ATMs, outdoor patios, parking lots, public parks, and public benches—so that it wouldn't appear that any particular group of people were being identified.
The only possible slip-up is their stipulating that panhandling can't happen "under a railroad pass." Since there are only three such places in town, and only one of them is a place where the poor regularly congregate, the city might be wise to find more vague language that accomplishes the same thing.
To be extra certain everyone's sense of ease is protected, the city also seeks to ban this uncomfortable form of free speech everywhere across Northampton once the sun goes down.
Some may argue that there are already laws on the books protecting us from the "aggressive" tactics these new regulations seek to protect us from, such as blocking someone's safe passage or using violence to make your point, but I'd argue you can never have enough protection from feeling ill at ease. Rather, I'd argue these laws don't go far enough to protect my peace of mind.
Often when I go to the supermarket, I get harassed by young athletes looking for cash to support their sport habits. Being a complete lay-about, on principle I never support youth sports, and being accosted by these children always makes me feel guilty, especially when they do it in front of my child, who is too young to understand my response.
Similarly, whenever I see cheerleaders offering to wash my car, I'm offended that they seem to think it's dirty. Given that the poor could easily decide to form a sports league or put on a car wash, I think it would be prudent to include these activities with the ban.
Finally, it should be pointed out that simply putting limits on panhandling might not be enough to get all the poor out of paradise and to keep Northampton breathing easy. The city might consider outlawing other behaviors typical of the poor, such as faded or non-professionally done tattoos, the consumption of malt liquor, unruly hair, and eyebrow piercings. I recognize this last one might affect more than just the poor, but it really makes me queasy when I see them."
