Rev. Dr. Scott Couper, minister and teacher at Centre Congregational Church, United Church of Christ, who writes in his private capacity, not speaking for the church he serves.
BRATTLEBORO-Over the years, I have served on the Compassionate Brattleboro board, I have attended many Selectboard meetings, and I currently serve on the town’s Community Homelessness Strategy Team. I have also participated in Beloved Shelter Support Team meetings and visited the former 69A site.
For these reasons, I read Laura Chapman’s Viewpoint with great interest.
Chapman levels two main charges: that sectors of Brattleboro are insufficiently compassionate, despite its designation as a Compassionate Community, and that the Selectboard acted undemocratically or underhandedly in passing stricter zoning regulations for social service organizations — particularly those affecting the central business district and 69A.
I will not address the governance concerns, which are complex and technical. Instead, I will address the question of compassion.
* * *
Historically, the idea of “the common” reflects a social contract — a covenant of mutual responsibility and shared benefit. Compassion in a healthy society must extend to everyone. Those without means deserve assistance, dignity, and care. Those with means deserve safety, stability, and the expectation that the common good will be protected.
A good society requires mutual accountability, not compassion offered in only one direction. Centre Church on Main Street exemplifies this commitment.
Our faith compels us to serve those with little or nothing, and we do so extensively: supporting Groundworks, hosting Loaves & Fishes, enabling Carry Me Home, providing space for Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, subsidizing affordable child care, and contributing to numerous social-service and immigrant-support organizations, including the Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) and the Community Asylum Seekers Project (CASP). We are not afraid of the messiness of humanity, nor do we seek to hide it.
Chapman argues that the Selectboard’s zoning decision was driven by a desire to avoid “seeing” poverty — that it prioritized downtown appearance over human need. While I support the dissenting votes of Isaac Evans-Franz and Oscar Heller, I do not believe the majority’s decision necessarily reflects a lack of compassion.
The concerns surrounding 69A and similar facilities in the central business district are not merely aesthetic.
Crime is not merely an appearance; it is experienced. Trash, vandalism, discarded syringes, and public drug use are not abstractions — they require cleanup, increase costs, raise insurance rates, and create real safety risks. Tourism declines affect tax revenue, which in turn limits the town’s ability to fund social services.
My concern is not “seeing poverty,” but whether my children can safely walk downtown at night from the Latchis or the Boys & Girls Club amid jarring mental health crises and drug use.
Centre Church faces these tensions daily. We serve the poor with joy and commitment, yet we must also protect our tenants, our child care center, and our facilities. We cannot allow encampments near fuel tanks, unrestricted bathroom access that leads to vandalism, or unsafe conditions that jeopardize our ability to serve. When damage occurs, our capacity for compassion is reduced.
The same is true for the town as a whole. Public policy must hold compassion for everyone: the unhoused, yes — but also churches, businesses, tourists, taxpayers, and families.
When one group bears disproportionate costs, the social contract frays and the common good suffers.
While Jesus clearly showed a preference for the poor, he lived under an imperial system without democratic governance or public social services. In a modern democratic society, compassion must be structured through policies that balance care with responsibility so that all may flourish.
When the central business district suffers harm, Brattleboro becomes less capable of acting compassionately.
* * *
I do not believe the Selectboard members who supported the zoning changes were primarily motivated by appearances. I believe they were attempting to limit real, tangible harms that threaten the town’s long-term capacity to serve everyone well.
Dr. Rebecca Jones’s proposal to provide space for 69A offers a hopeful path forward.
Relocating the center slightly west provides a larger, more suitable, and less expensive space for services while preserving access. At the same time, it strengthens the central business district’s economic vitality, safety, and appeal. This solution honors the social contract and seeks the common good.
Compassion need not be a zero-sum game. When we seek one another’s welfare rather than privileging one group at the expense of another, we may discover that we have chosen the most compassionate path after all.
This Voices Response was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.