As more businesses begin to reopen under the governor's phased reopening plan, questions have been raised regarding which agencies have the authority to enforce public health orders.
NSPR's Andre Byik recently spoke with Chico Vice Mayor Alex Brown to discuss enforcement as well as other items addressed at Tuesday's City Council meeting, including exploring possible options to bring students back to Chico State in the fall. Here are highlights from their conversation. You can listen to the full interview at the top of the page.
Interview Highlights
On how the reopening is going so far
I think it's a balancing act when you are talking about a virus that oftentimes people can't see, and also accelerating the rate that folks are going to be engaging socially. While I do have faith in businesses to operate according to the guidelines and rules that have been set out, obviously every step we take before we're out of the woods with this virus has the potential to put more people at risk. Obviously, according to today's numbers, cases have gone up since we have started to make this transition. And to me that's concerning, and indicates that there is risk to moving forward in this way.
On things she’s watching for as the city continues to reopen
I'm paying very close attention to public health guidance and to the data that we have locally, and whether those numbers are changing. If they're changing for the better, or additional cases aren't recorded, while testing remains steady, then I'm going to feel a lot more reassured that the city of Chico is doing things right, and the county of Butte is doing things right. But if those numbers go up, as we have already seen in the past couple of days, then I would like to see us scale back and make sure that we're prioritizing keeping our community safe and making sure that we don't go through another cycle of closure of businesses somewhere down the road.
On why she asked about enforcement issues at the council meeting
I have been hearing pretty consistently, mostly through the media, that the city has a different approach to enforcement than the county, than the state, and that those things weren't necessarily in sync. And so in spite of asking questions to try to really get to the heart of the matter, both publicly and in private meetings with city staff, I hadn't felt like that question was adequately answered. And because I was confused, my assumption was the public is probably confused as well. So at the meeting I had asked, you know, what does enforcement look like, and hearing that the city's feeling like their hands are tied in terms of the ability to enforce. And what sort of tools do we have if the state doesn't or can't intervene in a situation that is dangerous for our community?
On whether the answers she received were adequate
I was happier with the answer that I received at the council meeting than I have been with the answers I've received in other forums. But I can't say that I'm fully clear. My understanding from city staff is that most businesses are in compliance and we haven't had to take an enforcement approach. Obviously, that's ideal. But the more and more that these businesses open up, and that certain businesses are allowed to open and others are not and that there's very specific guidelines for each individual industry — there's a lot of room for mistakes to be made. And while I trust people's attempts, if those mistakes lead to an increase in cases that's a big problem. So locally, my feeling is that we do need to be sure we know what we can do, and that the public needs to be sure what we can do in order to move forward if these issues come up. Many people saw and reported that outside of alcohol and food establishments, there were long lines, or people were not socially distancing, they weren't wearing masks, and there's a fine line there. If the establishment doesn't have any control over what happens outside of that business, then where does the city intervene to make sure that people are being safe? I don't know that I have an answer to that question. And that's incredibly concerning to me, frankly.
On whether leaving enforcement up to the state is satisfactory
I think I would like to see things done differently. The language or the metaphor that was used last night at the council meeting was about a hammer, and that we don't want to bring down the hammer on people. Well I understand that. Nobody wants to punish other people for not being in compliance with regulations. But I think that the hands-off approach that at least is being communicated, and that I feel was communicated last night, I don't think it sends a strong message to our community that we're taking this seriously. And I don't think it sends a strong message to our community that, if the state is unable or if something happens that puts our community at risk that we're going to be there to protect our citizens. Obviously, an enforcement approach is the last possible option, but if we're not willing to go there, then I don't feel reassured that as we reopen, we're doing the best we can to keep people safe.
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. Click the “play” button to listen to the entire interview.
