The Brookings City Council met last night, and pushed through a slightly watered down ordinance to tell people what to do and how to behave, or else they would face sanctions. Mainly because they wanted to, and despite a fairly significant show of people telling them no.
This comes a couple of weeks after Barry Dunn, president of SDSU went to the Council and demanded City action because he found he couldn’t control his own students. So of course, the city needed to restrict everyone. (of course)
Brookings City Manager Paul Briseno gathered information from other states and tried to tell people how they were to behave in their own homes, and the Council started to rubber stamp it… until citizens came unglued at the last city meeting, showing up in force.
The City backed off, and regrouped, making the demands of the mandate a little less onerous, and moving the venue of the meeting to be less intimidating, passing them last night after a three hour meeting. People opposing the measure showed up and spoke about rights, they spoke about businesses suffering, and ultimately, it only swayed two councilors that rights are not less important in the face of a crisis.
In fact, the problem is that some of those disagreeing are downright patronizing about it. And what was their justification?
“I respect your right to maintain your own opinion, and to share them this evening and in other meetings,” Councilor Nick Wendell said to the public. “But in the midst of a public health crisis, I believe it’s irresponsible for us to equate those opinions with scientific evidence and fact.”
As quoted in the Argus Leader.
The problem with some councilors dismissive attitudes towards those who have been suffering for months under coronavirus restrictions and coronavirus related economic damage is that they don’t make these decisions to impose restrictions and limit people’s civil liberties in a vacuum, and for every action, there is a reaction.
When it comes to reactions, I can’t help but point out something that caught my attention with the city council in the midst of all these conversations:
(Mayor) Keith W. Corbett’s term is from May 1, 2018 – May 1, 2021 (R)
(Deputy Mayor) Patty Bacon’s term is from May 1, 2018 – May 1, 2021. (D)
(City Council) Nick Wendell’s term is from May 1, 2018 – May 1, 2021. (D)
With hundreds of city residents angry over this issue, and likely not to abate anytime soon, three of the five votes to put tougher restrictions on Brookings residents all find themselves up for election in a few months.
I’ve already heard that recruitment efforts are afoot, so we’ll see if people continue to be unhappy over the course of the coming weeks. A couple of hundred people upset about municipal overreach can be a good motivator for getting people involved in elections.
The key stats are hospitalizations and deaths. In six months, Brookings County has had eight Covid cases wind up in the hospital, and one of those died. Eight and one. That’s all before the mask mandate. I can certainly see why this is a “public health crisis.”
I know someone who works in an assisted living center who has twice had to quarantine for two weeks without pay due to false positive blood tests. This person’s doctor even wrote a note for her employer recommending they don’t use the blood tests, but instead stick only with the swabs which have made clear the blood tests were false. To say “the” key stats are hospitalizations and deaths is minimize struggles that result from other stats.
I guess those couple hundred people should just move somewhere that has real conservatives values, not that liberal hell hole they’re in now.
Aside from holding special sessions, the Council didn’t “push through” this ordinance any more or less than Brookings City Council has any other ordinance passed after a second hearing.
To say the ordinance was “slightly watered down” after two of four (and the most contentious and restrictive) amendments were stripped is misleading.
By simply stating the ordinance would “tell people what to do and how to behave”, you leave room in readers’ minds to interpret the ordinance as more broad and strict in application than it actually is, given the ordinance only tells people to wear a mask in particular settings while also providing many exemptions from that requirement. Since many opponents to the ordinance made clear they didn’t read the ordinance before last week’s and this week’s meeting, I’d say that’s rather irresponsible for a blogger who rips on others for inaccuracies.
Claiming the Council passed the ordinance “Mainly because they wanted to” oversimplifies and dismisses much of their positions, which is ironic given how much those opposed to any restrictions have repeatedly claimed they haven’t been heard when anyone could make similar claims about them given their seeming lack of acknowledging at least a couple things: 1) long term lung, heart, and brain effects medical professionals expressed witnessing from COVID-19, and 2) nobody in the Council claimed hospitalizations were the only metric that would trigger more restrictions.
Your claim citizen input swayed Brink and Collins is out of line with those two mostly opposing any restrictions, for the sake of freedom and liberty, since the beginning of this pandemic impacting Brookings, even if not in every vote.
If Wendell was patronizing in declaring respect for citizens maintaining their own opinions before “dismissing” those opinions, so too were the citizens who expressed apology and respect toward the Council before criticizing them. Maybe neither the citizens nor Wendell were patronizing.
Pat, I state all the above opinions, because I often suspect your diction and characterizations of people/events/laws/etc result from confirmation bias and/or bad faith arguments. In my opinion, you counter your own pressure on others to act with more objectivity.
They don’t call it the GOP Spin Blog for nothin.
Jebediah…
The thing about the claim of “long term lung, heart, and brain effects … from COVID-19” is that it’s been anecdotal. Have you seen hard numbers?
I made no claim as to whether such threats are real, long lasting, or even pervasive, nor would I, because I’ve had little time to dig deep into that question, so don’t know what to believe.
I was only commenting on Council opponents claiming they’ve not been heard while they themselves have repeatedly not spoken to some points made by Council members and citizens in support of restrictions. If opponents reserve the right to ignore points they don’t believe, surely they can at least understand Council members doing the same, especially considering they aren’t targets of mass commentary and questioning like are Council members.
I am baffled when the very same people fight these mask mandates and shutdowns because it “restricts their liberty” and they are “responsible adults”- then reject recreational cannabis because liberty and freedom loving adults ??? cant be trusted to make responsible decisions ???
Plenty of folks here who have spoken loudly against cannabis and are surely against a mask mandate, anyone care to educate a dummy like me?
One thing needs being noted here regardless of your political flavor. And that is when a law is passed by a duly elected board or council or legislature or congress affecting everyone under said jurisdiction in equally applied statutes to everyone, the people affected who feel, and certainly may know, that they themselves will be hurt the most by any said action absolutely need to speak out. (Get Your Person in the next election to take them out.) But declaring a defamation contest upon those who you may disagree with then becomes barbaric.
We don’t do that sh_t here! Or shouldn’t………
Care to explain what “defamation contest” you perceive in this situation?