Gathering around the campfire for a little chat about last night’s Lowell City Council meeting, specifically the passage of a new ordinance banning camping on public grounds (bring your own marshmallows):

-For sheer entertainment value, the November 12, 2024 council gathering goes down as an “all-timer.” Fiery public comments, city councilors fighting back against the public, jeering from the cheap seats and multiple ejections by umpire, I mean, Mayor Danny Rourke…last night had it all. The only thing keeping it out of the top spot in my rankings is the lack of suspense as to how the vote would turn out (it ended up 8-1 in favor) and the lack of councilors going after each other. Still, an A+ meeting in my entertainment book.

-Well before City Clerk Michael Geary called roll, the outcome was obvious. Would the presence of Sokhary Chau and Paul Ratha Yem at the meeting have provided a little company for Wayne Jenness on “No” island? While Yem was unavailable for comment, Chau tells me he would have voted “Yes” if illness didn’t cause him to miss the session.

“As a city councilor dedicated to the well-being of Lowell, I support this ordinance because it is a necessary step toward promoting public health, safety, and welfare for all residents, including our most vulnerable populations,” Chau wrote via text. “This ordinance is not intended to criminalize homelessness but rather to address the serious risks associated with unsanctioned camping on public property while connecting individuals to supportive services and housing options.”

-Councilor Erik Gitschier was at his combative best, refusing to give in to the public “shaming” and calling out the hypocrisy of certain speakers, particularly the usual UMass Lowell suspects. This time, the activist professors even brought along reinforcements from the classroom, as a few student speakers made their council floor debut to scold Lowell’s leadership.

To the higher ed contingent, might I recommend sparking up a crack pipe and defecating or engaging in sex on a campus athletic field in broad daylight? How long you think it would be before your presence on campus would forever be banned, let alone result in the loss of your future paychecks, benefits, scholarships and dorm rooms?

-Honorable mention goes to Councilor Rita Mercier, who triggered the activists by uttering the words many of us have been thinking; “why don’t you take one of them in?” Much like the deafening silence when Governor Healey asked for volunteers to house migrants in an effort to alleviate that crisis, I doubt there’ll be any activity among the activists on this particular front, either. Alas, while charity starts at home, for the most vocal and judgmental it apparently starts at someone else’s home.

-There was another funny moment when a resident in opposition to the ordinance gave a hearty “amen” to close out his words. Whereas earlier speakers got rousing ovations at the conclusion of their soliloquies, this guy was met with muted validation. Apparently, most of these activists don’t stand in solidarity with God.

-Can’t help thinking that some of the angst on display last night was left over from the previous Tuesday night, November 5th.

-“I’m a student” shouted someone off camera when Gitschier wondered where the concern was for the students dodging used needles and feces in their schoolyard. I would like to think a college aged student able to gain admission to a world-class university like UMass-Lowell would be able to logically deduce the councilor was referring to the 14,000 K-12 public school students, the vast majority of who are under 15 years old. Then again, after hearing the college student speeches, I’m wondering if logic and deductive reasoning are only taught in graduate level courses.

-Lastly, and this is important because either the activists fail to realize this or they’re too disingenuous to admit it, but the entire discussion around this issue over the last couple of years isn’t about homelessness. It’s about vagrancy. Each and every councilor and city official has made that distinction repeatedly. (again, that deductive reasoning thing pops up)

Individuals in Lowell who are homeless due to unfortunate circumstances are able to access resources when necessary. Lowell doesn’t turn a blind eye to people in that situation; not the city’s government, its non-profits or its residents. Gitschier pointed it out again last night; Lowell, more so than any other community, has dedicated millions to combat the issue of homelessness, including ARPA money.

The problem is vagrancy and those who are unwilling to abide by certain, basic rules. Specifically, no drugs allowed. It is the cardinal rule of any effective, supportive housing and treatment facility. NO DRUGS.

The reason is simple; it jeopardizes the recovery, well-being and safety of those trying to get their life in order and dig out of the tragic circumstances that often land them in this position. You cannot ask a person in recovery to be in the presence of someone openly using. It’s not only unfair to those in recovery, it’s also unfair to those with children and those escaping abusive relationships.

At its core, this is the issue Lowell has been struggling with. How do we help those in need, when many of those in need are unwilling to seek help, or incapable of doing so?

I won’t pretend to know the answer, but I do know it’s unfair to expect Lowell’s City Government to solve it. The answer lies at the state, and more likely, the federal level. Assuming there is an answer, which I’m not sure of, since it’s an issue that’s plagued the world since the days Jesus walked the earth.

Oops, sorry. There I go invoking religion again.

These are my thoughts…what are yours? Share them in the comments section or on our Facebook and X profiles.