Do we have a right to sit on benches downtown? There’s some controversy about that issue, but it appears that the bench supporters are winning — for now, at least.
For me, and apparently for some others, this came out of the blue. One day most of the metal benches downtown were gone. Town officials had removed them — whether permanently or temporarily wasn’t clear. Many people I knew were talking about it, and on June 25 there was a long discussion of it in a Town Council meeting.
Apparently, the controversy wasn’t as sudden as it appeared. Downtown merchants had complained about homeless people misbehaving. Some blamed the benches. It was too easy for the “undesirables” to sit or lie down. But of course, removing benches also punishes the “desirables.”
And which one am I? I have a favorite bench downtown. I like to sit there and do nothing for no reason. But my bench was gone.
Several citizens at the town meeting criticized the bench removal. Town Manager Alex Brown explained that the removal was based on business complaints. Brown and Councilor Guadalupe Cano said complaints had decreased since removing the benches.
We all know that homeless people are a problem in two ways. First, they make us feel guilty. We feel we should help them, but we don’t know what to do. Some assistance ends up making things worse. Second, some homeless people create real interruptions for businesses and customers. My business near downtown is one of many that has had problems.
But that’s not the end of the story. Shortly after the metal benches disappeared, new wooden benches started appearing. Ten new benches were created with no input from town officials. Gabe Farley and Matt Freeburn, two young people who liked benches, did the work after an anonymous donor gave them $500 for materials.
Farley said he had been thinking about benches even before the controversy. His benches are based on a design by Aldo Leopold, the environmentalist responsible for creating the Gila Wilderness 100 years ago. Leopold designed benches so you could sit in them forward or backward and use the back as a prop for binoculars.
Farley said he wasn’t addressing the homeless problem one way or another, and he doesn’t care who sits on the benches.
“I think it’s a human right, actually, to be able to sit,” he said. But that leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The sidewalks belong to the town, which could remove the wooden benches for the same reasons it removed the metal ones. But no wooden benches have been removed.
It’s a little worrisome that town officials removed the old benches without consulting the council. Next, Farley and Freeburn installed new benches without consulting the council. The council didn’t seem to mind not having a role.
So who’s right and who’s in charge? Is this over, or just starting? I see both sides, but I’m with the bench-makers.
_______
I usually don’t respond to criticism of my column. I’ve had my say. Critics have their say. Leave it at that. But perhaps I’ll make an exception on Michael Mathieu’s comments on my column about the Grateful Living cannabis store. I don’t mind his criticism of me, but I do object to his charges against town and state officials.
He accused the mayor of violating the Open Meetings Act by talking with me. It would be a violation if I talked to three members of the council in an informal meeting, but you’re supposed to talk to the mayor or your councilor one-on-one if you have questions or problems. Mathieu should try it.
He also complained about warrantless investigations. An enforcement agency such as Cannabis Control doesn’t need a warrant to buy a product in a public store. If you’re selling what you say you’re selling, you should have no problem with that.
Mathieu also criticized me for suggesting that they might be selling hemp sprayed with Delta 8-THC oil. I accept this criticism. Apparently some stores do this, but I have no evidence that Grateful Living does. He said Grateful Living is selling legal cannabis, certified by the USDA to have less than 0.3 percent Delta 9-THC. I predicted that the state investigation might confirm that.
So perhaps Grateful Living is doing what he claims: Selling “the entourage effect over high THC content alone.” In other words, the product would be like nonalcoholic beer — it won’t get you stoned. Or maybe it will. Mathieu was a little vague on that point.
So take his advice: “We invite the community to engage with us directly.” That’s the only way for people who like the psychoactive effects of cannabis to compare the products and atmosphere of Grateful Living to licensed cannabis stores.
