City councilors in Vermont’s largest city clashed Monday night over a revised proposal to address public safety issues in the city.
On June 24th, Democratic councilors unveiled the Burlington Forward plan to address issues such as criminal accountability, the need for more emergency shelters and services and to clarify zoning laws related to a planned Overdose Prevention Center.
It was immediately panned by activists and Progressives including Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak. During their August 3 meeting, councilors sent the proposal to committees for review and a revised version was before the council Monday night.
Mayor Mulvaney-Stanak kicked off the meeting with a scathing criticism of the revised Burlington Forward plan.
"Unfortunately it retains the same fundamental problems as the original version from August. This is because the proposed strategies don’t reflect evidence and best practices. They are naïve as to the operational and legal realities. They don’t reflect what is possible with finite city staff, money and resources. And they conflict with the values that this city holds. Notably, Burlington Forward asserts that my community safety framework is ineffective without offering data or evidence to support this claim. This reflects partisanship, not collaboration.”
During public comment, thoughts were mixed. Ward 5 resident David Geddes denounced the partisanship surrounding Burlington Forward and says the plan is an attempt to address the city’s problems.
“Drug use, homelessness and disorder are affecting our downtown and public spaces and they affect all of us. We should reject the false choice between compassion and accountability. Burlington needs both. It’s not perfect but it offers a broader framework for addressing these problems with clearer priorities, stronger accountability and measurable results.”
Resident Ashley Smith opposes Burlington Forward, saying it provides no funding, increases police and was not discussed with stakeholders.
“It’s time to scrap Burlington Forward. It’s a reactionary program of law and order that the Trump administration could’ve come up with. It will harm homeless people. It will harm the city’s workers. It will harm Black and brown people.”
When the item came up late in the evening, Ward 5 Democrat Ben Traverse defended the revised plan.
“Contrary to some statements made, the original draft reflected input from public safety experts, social service leaders serving people experiencing homelessness and addiction, and many others. I am tired of week-in and week-out hearing from businesses that are vacating our downtown; hearing from community members who are no longer bringing their families and their kids downtown or to our parks or to our waterfront. I welcome collaboration, substantive alternatives and continued debate. But abandoning Burlington Forward without proposing another path other than the status quo I believe means abandoning our responsibility to this community.”
Ward 1 Progressive Carter Neubieser expressed frustration, calling the proposal partisan and political.
“This resolution took arguably one of the most charged issues in our community over the last number of years and further brought us along the path of dysfunction and divisiveness in the community. There’s so many things on a substantive level that are half-baked, not thought through. The entire proposal has not been funded and it’s nakedly political.”
Councilors voted 10 to 2 to replace the original Burlington Forward proposal with the amended version and send it to committees for further work.
A motion was also put forth to postpone further council consideration until December and in the meantime create an ad-hoc committee to review the proposal and report back to the council. Several councilors expressed dismay, including Central District Progressive Melo Grant.
“I am representing all the residents of Burlington who at the thought of yet another committee are keeling over. What exactly is this committee going to do?”
Ward 7 Democrat Evan Litwin agreed.
“Another committee, more vagueaties, and I’m in full agreement with Councilor Grant. I don’t know what this report back will bring and I don’t know what the ultimate intention is here.”
Councilors passed 9 to 3 the motion to postpone action until December 7 as an ad hoc committee assesses the plan.
