BRATTLEBORO-Peter Elwell’s commentary singled out Liz McLoughlin for doing exactly what a Brattleboro Selectboard member is elected to do: study the issues, understand the challenges facing our town, and work with others to craft responsible solutions. Liz has devoted years to this work, and Brattleboro is better for it.
She has been forthright about the strain placed on our community by the disproportionate number of unhoused Vermonters sheltered in local motels. Rather than turning away from the problem, she has supported the collaborative approaches adopted by the Selectboard — One Brattleboro and the Downtown Safety Action Team — which bring first responders and nonprofit service providers together.
Critics may object to this partnership, but many residents can see that these efforts are helping individuals in crisis while reducing conflict on our streets. As Liz often notes, economic development depends on a foundation of safety and stability.
Yet for taking principled positions, Liz is attacked not on policy but on a personal level. These personal accusations are unfounded, corrosive to public discourse, and disrespectful of the office she holds.
Calling her a bully is not only inaccurate; it echoes a familiar tactic used to discourage women from speaking firmly or holding views that others may disagree with. The message such attacks send is clear: step out of line, and you will be targeted. This kind of virtue signaling has taken an unfortunate turn.
Liz McLoughlin should be recognized for her steady support of Brattleboro’s public safety initiatives and for the economic vitality that can grow from them. She has earned the community’s trust, and she deserves the opportunity to continue this work.
Re-electing her to the Selectboard will allow her to keep advancing strategies that are already making a difference for Brattleboro.
Scott Lear
Brattleboro
This letter to the editor 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.