Last week the press reacted to a memo from Bazelon that said the recommendations of the (Worcester) Mayor’s Task Force on social service siting might violate federal law. (This even made it into a Daily Kos diary, which allows you to vote on whether “The Task Force on Social Services are Fucks.”)
Worcester Magazine ran a disappointing editorial on this issue. It began:
The inflammatory issue of social service siting received a kick recently when a Washington, D.C.-based agency weighed in on local politics, saying that a recent city report potentially discriminates against people with disabilities.
The national legal advocate for people with mental disabilities [Bazelon] issued its statement at the behest of a Cambridge-based social service agency, defending the position that such agencies have a constitutional right to locate programs wherever they choose. We realize that these people have to protect their turf, but the recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on Social Service Siting were eminently reasonable — and voluntary in nature. This response fans a fire that really doesn’t need additional fuel. Their position may well be supported by the courts in many instances, but it doesn’t advance the laudable and civilized objective of staying out of the courts in the first place.
(Bazelon argues that the recommendations are not voluntary in a footnote.)
The editorial doesn’t mention the charges again till the final sentence:
This recent salvo from Washington represents a half step in the wrong direction.
It’s odd that this editorial defending the Task Force report from the Bazelon memo never engages the charges in the memo.
Continue reading “Bazelon reactions and non-reactions”