by Guest Writer | Sep 15, 2024 | City
There is an ongoing debate about whether or not to fully fund our public library, and a wide range of reasons have been proposed as to why the library’s funding should remain as the voters intended. I wanted to speak toward my own primary reason for 1) voting to support the library levy, and 2) why I continue to support fully funding the library.
First, my background. I moved to Great Falls in 2020 to complete my internship for my counseling degree, and currently I am a licensed professional counselor working in outpatient mental health. My wife and I rented for a year and then bought a house north of downtown. We became involved in volunteering and advocating for our unhoused neighbors in Great Falls.
With other like minded individuals, we founded Housed Great Falls, a grassroots nonprofit dedicated toward the long-term goal of building a transitional tiny house community for the unhoused. We soon discovered an immediate need that we could step into to provide warmth and safety that was not getting fully met in our community. It will come as a shock to no one who has lived here for more than a year, that our winters are brutal, but it might shock people to know that many people are still on the street year-round in Great Falls.
The Rescue Mission offers emergency cold weather services on days below freezing, officially opening their doors at 10 PM (though on particularly cold days they have opened earlier). Their restrictions are typically lower for this cold weather emergency service, and “most” unhoused people can receive this service. However, what we had found was that between the times that places like the Library and St. Vincent De Paul Angel Room closed, and when the Mission opened, people were still exposed to dangerous temperatures for periods of time that can still do a world of harm to a body. We organized cold-weather drop-in to fill this gap, hosted at the United Methodist Church and, then this past winter, at First English/Helping Hands; providing a hot meal and a safe, warm location between 5:30-9:30 PM on below freezing nights.
What we found was that, in general, when people were warm, safe, and fed, they were cooperative, polite, and grateful. We had few negative interactions with a demographic that many people find “scary” or “dangerous.” We had perhaps four calls to emergency services over a winter of being open 70 nights. Consider the number of calls that would have been made if people were not there. When people were offered a safe and accepting space to exist, they were not someplace else trespassing, drinking, panhandling, stealing, etc… They, and the community as a whole, were SAFER.
This brings me back to the Library. The Library is a safe, warm, and accepting location. It is not a shelter or warming center, nor should it be, but it is a PUBLIC SPACE that is open to ANYONE who can give basic respect to the others around them. The Library providing this public space for people IS part of our public safety. When people, particularly the unhoused, are at the Library they are by default NOT doing the things that the public complains about them doing.
My general experience, both from working in mental health and volunteering with the unhoused, is that, when people are given respect and dignity, they respond in a positive manner. There are exceptions of course, but this has seemed to be just that, the exception. Our experience running the cold weather drop-in for two winters now showed this; a “rough” and “dangerous” population was calm and respectful, because they were treated how we would want to be treated.
I voted primarily for the Library levy so that they could extend their hours to be open every day of the week, and later each day; in large part so that community members with nowhere else to go would have a safe and warm location to be. But the library benefits so many more people than just the unhoused or downtrodden; though I think there we see the largest impacts. But even if it only impacted them, it still has a positive impact on my life. And I strongly believe that treating people with dignity and respect, and helping them to meet their basic needs, will always be a better long term option than fining, arresting, and jailing them; not to mention being far less expensive.
The idea of public safety based solely on more police is a fantasy, and an Orwellian one at that. Public safety might very well involve police and jails (perhaps in smaller quantities than we have now), but it also involves solving the issues at the root of the problem. Simply hiring more police and building more jails deals with the symptoms, but not the root cause of the problem. While the Library is also not a silver bullet, it does reach closer to the root cause of achieving a more lasting and holistic safety for our community.
–Michael Yegerlehner
by Guest Writer | Sep 14, 2024 | Elections
In November 2023, Republican U.S.Senate candidate Tim Sheehy made disparaging and racist comments about Native Americans. His statements are not only offensive but perpetuate a harmful stereotype that I have encountered throughout my life. Native Americans comprise 6.6% of Montanans, likely higher due to significant undercounting. Now, we have a Senate candidate adding to the discrimination by making such hurtful comments about this minority group.
As an enrolled member of the Chippewa-Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy, I find Sheehy’s remarks inaccurate and deeply hurtful. They reflect a long history of racial stereotypes that justify ongoing discrimination and neglect. His comments ignore the historical context of colonization and forced assimilation that have led to the current struggles faced by many Native Americans. There is no acknowledgment of the generational trauma that these systemic issues have created.
Does Mr. Sheehy believe that substance use problems are unique to Native Americans? Does he recognize that these issues are linked to systemic inequalities that contribute to health disparities? His statements suggest a troubling lack of understanding of these fundamental issues. Substance use problems are not confined by race or ethnicity; they are public health concerns that affect people universally. Mr. Sheehy’s comments reflect a profound ignorance of the systemic factors exacerbating these problems.
Instead of disparagingly labeling Native Americans as “drunk Indians at 8:00 am,” Mr. Sheehy should find out what many of us are doing at that time. He can find me training for the New York City Marathon or working.
Mr. Sheehy must take responsibility for his words. Public figures must recognize the impact of their statements and understand that their words have real power. I urge Mr. Sheehy to educate himself about historical trauma and Native cultures. Such knowledge would enrich his perspective and contribute to a more respectful and informed discourse.
-Barbara Bessette
by Helena Lovick | Sep 4, 2024 | Abortions Rights
On the first night of the 2024 Democratic National Convention, women took the stage to share their devastating experiences of abortion access in America.
Hadley Duvall, a 22-year-old who became pregnant as a child after she was raped by her stepfather, has called for exceptions to Kentucky’s abortion ban for sexual assault survivors.
“At age 12, I took my first pregnancy test, and it was positive,” Duvall told the DNC crowd. “That was the first time I was ever told, ‘You have options.’ I can’t imagine not having a choice, but today, that’s the reality for many women and girls across the country because of Donald Trump’s abortion bans.”
Kaitlyn Joshua spoke about being denied miscarriage treatment when she was pregnant with her second child. “Two emergency rooms sent me away. Because of Louisiana’s abortion ban, no one would confirm that I was miscarrying,” she said.
Appearing alongside her husband, Zurawski said delayed pregnancy care threatened her life. “Every time I share our story, my heart breaks for the baby girl we wanted so desperately, for the doctors and nurses who couldn’t help me deliver safely, for Josh who feared he’d lose me too,” she said.
This is post-Roe America.
How are we doing in Montana?
In Montana, abortion access remains legal. But our GOP majority legislature is filled with extremists that work hand in hand with our Republican Governor. These anti-abortion creeps want to control women so badly. The Montana GOP has repeatedly put the squeeze on our rights with invasive anti-choice bill after bill. As we mentioned in an earlier blog post, our excellent State Constitution and impartial State Supreme Court continue to work in our favor. Even though it costs Montana taxpayers ridiculous sums of money to defend the unconstitutional bills passed by the legislature, for now Montana courts continue to impartially and fairly interpret our State Constitution and throw out these unconstitutional laws (see here and here).
But what if our court is overtaken by right-wing wing extremists?
Dark money groups and our right-wing right wing extremist legislators are working tirelessly to undermine and infiltrate our court with justices that will approve their unconstitutional laws. In reality, we are one bad election away from losing our rights.
Vote Yes on CI-128 to Protect Our Rights
The risk to our rights based on a bad election cycle is why I support CI-128. This constitutional initiative would amend our State Constitution to preserve Montanans rights to abortion care. You can see the ballot language below. As the Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights group supporting and informing citizens about this constitutional initiative have stated “decisions around pregnancy are deeply personal and should be made between us, our families, and our health care providers. Not the government. Voting “Yes” ensures that right.”
by Helena Lovick | Sep 2, 2024 | Elections
Great Falls, Montana
The news is spreading that the City of Great Falls has proposed removal of 7 mills over a 5 year term of city funding from the Great Falls Public Library, resulting in a 27% reduction in the library’s operating budget (approx. $842,800/year). Consequently, the voter approved, newly implemented expanded hours and services will be dramatically reduced.
People are understandably starting to get pissed at this plan to undermine the will of the voters when we just voted to fund our library more. After the Electric posted this accurate news story on the situation (here), our mayor Cory Reeves tried to jump out and derail the growing criticism. Here is the misleading post he put on his Facebook page on September 1st.
How dumb do you think we are Cory?
While the city is considering “to end the city subsidy of 7 mills and redirect those funds back to public safety”…”this does NOT mean we are considering removing or reducing the mills that voters recently passed”. OH FUCKING REALLY? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WITH THIS BULLSHIT? That is effectively taking away funds that the voters just allocated to the library and you fucking know it Cory.
Oh, oh it’s totally separate money and we’re going to take that money from the library but not touch the money for the library the voters just put in place. So fucking what if you don’t take the mills we *just* voted for. If you’re taking library funding from somewhere else, you are still taking library funding when the voters just voted to fund the library more! That’s some mealy-mouthed, misleading dog shit.
How did we get here?
In June 2023, Great Falls voted to pass a library levy to help fund expanded services at our public library. The library levy added about $1.2 million to the library budget and increased the annual tax on $200,000 home by approximately $40.50 (news story here). In November 2023, fewer than 40% of Great Falls voters supported a hefty public safety levy request, which would have raised property taxes on a $200,000 home by $280.11 a year, and increased funding for the city’s fire, law enforcement and municipal court system by $13.7 million annually.
And our City Commission has been freaking out ever since.
Does our City Commission “fully support” our library?
We wrote about the City Commission’s shitty work to install a book banner on the library board back in October 2023. Despite the vast majority of community members speaking against the appointment of Noelle Johnson, the commission proceeded to appoint her anyway. And then, despite another majority of community members requesting the commission appoint a member who actually likes public libraries and wishes them to succeed, the Great Falls City Commission appointed her for an even longer term in June 2024. All this after Noelle Johnson’s presence on the board was characterized as “a disruptive force that complicates board work.” (As reported in the Great Falls Tribune here). So much for the will of the voters.
But what about public safety?
Yes, public safety is very important. We all want our city to have the resources to balance safety and our freedoms.
But the voters rejected the City’s request for so much money for public safety. Maybe if the City repackaged it in smaller bites it would be successful. But this is about our library. Voters voted to help our library. Public safety and our public library funding are two separate issues and the voters spoke on how they want them handled for now. The Great Falls City Commission needs to stop undermining our library and look at other solutions to uphold the will of the voters.
Let your voice be heard!
If you want to do something about the situation, you can contact our City Commission. Let them know as voting city residents. How would you like the commission to approach the dilemma of city funding, while still honoring the will of the people?
