A spirited band of Enfield residents set out on a mission last week to defeat a proposed shelter for domestic violence victims. They chanted. They carried signs. They did television interviews. They vowed to yell the plan down at a public hearing later this week.
But it will not even come to that. The residents on and around Charnley Road, in a true grassroots battle, prevailed days ago when the idea for the shelter was withdrawn.
But what exactly have they won?
Only this: the chance to not provide a safe, caring place for children, wives and girlfriends who have been beaten, attacked or otherwise brutalized by someone close to them.
The neighborhood, south of Main Street, apparently isn’t the place for that sort of thing.
We all say “Not in My Backyard” to one thing or another, but in Connecticut, turf wars between 169 municipalities can too often deteriorate into ugly, embarrassing charades.
Enfield’s citizens weren’t opposing a site for ex-cons or sexual offenders who, while needing rehabilitation, could be a threat. They weren’t opposing a pornography shop, as residents in Newington have understandably done, or an environmentally threatening power plant, as have shoreline towns.
No, the Enfield locals wanted to make sure that victims of crime – their own residents among them – would not be allowed to seek refuge there, and their arguments are callous.
Their neighborhood is too quiet. Their neighborhood is too residential. The Journal Inquirer newspaper quoted one resident as saying the site is just “not in the right neighborhood.” He wondered whether the victims’ abusers might come by, guess at the wrong house, and maybe get the idea to attack someone else instead, which is a theoretically possible but hardly plausible concern.
This isn’t to say that Enfield is a town of heartless folk — quite the opposite. The town already is home to one domestic violence shelter, according to Womenslaw.org. Enfield also houses many other support services including a family resource center, youth development programs, meal delivery for senior citizens and more.
So no doubt when it is their own family members who are the victims of domestic violence — a crime that touches all social strata — their own wives, sisters and children aren’t told to go and take their bumps and bruises and tears to whatever the “right neighborhood” for a shelter is.
This isn’t about caring, it’s about competition.
In saying Enfield isn’t the place for the shelter, the town is saying that some other community is, part of a constant campaign between every municipality to best its 168 neighbors, shining its own town seal while kicking dirt on another.
This plays out in fierce battles for economic development subsidies every year, in which each town and city argues that it is the next great destination site for retail, entertainment and, above all, tax dollars.
We see it whenever a large employer is looking to relocate. We see it in an education system in which regional proposals that would better integrate schools by race, class, geography, merit or any other standard are shouted down by whomever thinks their schools are the best to begin with.
Competition does breed excellence, and companies and developers looking around are no doubt offered better options because of the game of oneupsmanship between our municipalities.
But there is no excellence for domestic violence victims in Northern Connecticut today.
