by Nathan Boddy
At their regular meeting on Tuesday, June 15th, the Hamilton City Council adopted a last minute policy to disallow any painting upon public pavement within the city rights-of-way. Included in the motion, set forth by Councilor Jenny West, was the obligation that the City would remove, at its own expense, any decorative paint currently upon city roads. The policy effectively shut the door on a weeks-old proposal by area high school students, community businesses and volunteers, to paint a Pride-themed rainbow crosswalk at the intersection of 3rd and State, in downtown Hamilton. The new policy also means that the intersection of 4th and State, which was painted by Bike/Walk/Bitterroot less than three weeks ago, will be scrubbed of the decorative fish and water theme.
Prior to the Council adopting the prohibitive policy, they had asked City staff to assemble a ‘Paint the Pavement’ policy, which would have required applicants to undergo a series of procedural requirements in order to decorate public rights-of-way. That policy was on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting, but the new prohibition on painting of public right-of-way essentially nullified the ‘Paint the Pavement’ policy before it could be considered by the Council. Despite that nullification, however, dozens of area citizens took to the microphone to state their opinions about painting public sidewalks and crosswalks, with many of them directing their comments at the Pride crosswalk proposal.
Martin Lacey of Victor wanted the people in the room to know that he is a Christian, and that he felt a Pride crosswalk would divide people. Having confused West’s motion for a new prohibitive policy, for a ‘tabling’ of the issue, he also wanted the City Council to know that he and others would be watching.
“This is just a small remnant of what you’ll see, if this matter continues further, regarding pushing this issue of the homosexual agenda, and that’s the facts,” said Lacey.
While the majority of public comment was in favor of the new, prohibitive policy on painting of rights-of-way, multiple individuals did speak in favor of both the previous draft policy and the possibility of a Pride crosswalk that could have resulted. Mae Foresta told the Council that she believes the prohibitive policy would be trying to “sweep this under the rug,” while Kathy Dexter of Hamilton insisted that the prohibitive policy was simply a way to deny that diversity exists within the community. “This is how change is made,” she said.
Following more than an hour of public comment, during which outbursts and applause had to be gaveled down by Mayor Dominic Farrenkopf on multiple occasions, the prohibitive policy banning painting of public right-of-way passed 4-2, with only Councilors Robin Pruitt and Kristi Bielski voting against it.
Despite the passage, however, multiple citizens continued to state their views during public comment for non-agenda items. Frances Carrasco said that she was “really disappointed,” but wanted the Council to know that she would be “moving forward” with a plan that would honor marginalized people, and that she has received full support of many within the community. John Schwartz of Hamilton mused, “The metamorphosis of Jesus Christ, from a humble servant of the abject poor, to a symbol that stands for homophobia, is truly one of the strangest transformations in human history.”
The Council meeting concluded with few comments, with the exception of Councilor Pruitt, who thanked Frances Carrasco for bringing the issue of LGBTQ+ marginalization to light. “Because Frances brought this to us, I spoke with a lot of my friends in the LGBT community. I’ve had a lot of long overdue conversations. My dear friends and citizens of Hamilton have told me they don’t feel welcome in our community, and I believe them. I can’t imagine what it has been like to sit through these meetings, hearing from the public these unwelcoming statements. I would like everyone to think of ways in which we could make our community more welcome to everyone.”
Councilor West agreed with Pruitt, adding, “I want everybody to feel love in this community. There’s got to be other ways to express that love.”
Maryann Thompson says
Public spaces should remain neutral, unmarked spaces; this is “inclusive” of everyone and inoffensive to everyone, that’s a community. Group symbols represent just that, a group, not a community, whatever that group may represent. I don’t want my community “tagged” with personal graffiti. Expression is best displayed on personal property. Thank you.
Montana Farmer says
Well said