The Man Behind the Stickers
Readers of [“Sticky Situation: A Proposed Burlington Ordinance Would Let People Sue Over Hateful Graffiti and Stickers. First Amendment Lawyers Have Concerns,” November 6] are faced with a dilemma: how to reconcile the characterization of the sticker campaign as “hate,” “transphobia” and “harassment” with the actual content of the stickers. Decide for yourself.
I have been consistently clear from the outset that the goal is to encourage discussion and broaden the bandwidth of debate on this issue. People I speak with every day acknowledge that the fear of being ostracized, losing their careers, having their property vandalized, risking retaliation against their children at school, etc., silences them from speaking up for children who are indoctrinated into irreversible harm and for protecting women’s spaces and sports.
Is this the Burlington we want?
Legacy institutions and media bear much responsibility for hiding from you the true breadth and consequences of this ideology and the powerful corporations that both fund it and profit from it.
If I have to choose one news source to recommend as a comprehensive aggregator, one that is scrupulously fact-checked, it is Reduxx.
Please, step out of the echo chamber and allow yourself to reevaluate your perspective. It can be a challenge, but it is refreshing to do so.
Scroll through Reduxx. Engage in the clash of ideas. Talk to your neighbors. Write letters to the editor — and to your political representatives. Have the courage to question.
“Facts are stubborn things,” as John Adams once said.
Wishing all Burlingtonians, Vermonters and Americans the brightest, healthiest future.
Bill Oetjen
Burlington
Inappropriate Photo
What’s with the picture of confections that spell out “Suck on my boobies” when it’s an article about a bakery [“Spooky Sweets: Enosburgh-Based Mamas Kitchen Delivers Halloween Treats and Viral candies,” October 30]? Seems inappropriate to me and out of character for Seven Days. I am a Super Reader.
Susan Martin
Starksboro
Editor’s note: The story is about a bakery that embraces Halloween. The photo we chose, of cupcakes with ghosts, illustrates the owner’s permissive attitude about messages on the sweets. Says Kayla Beaudoin: “I will put whatever you want on it. I draw my line, obviously: no racism, no homophobia, nothing like that. But like, if you just want to have something spicy for your husband or your girlfriend or whatever, then that’s fine with me. I’m not judging you.”
No More Needles
[Re “Burlington City Council to Study Needle-Exchange Program,” October 30]: Needle “exchanges” were first proposed and marketed to the public as a harm-reduction strategy in which someone could swap their dirty, bloodied needles for clean ones, one for one. These policies were promoted to discourage the reuse and sharing of syringes in the interest of reducing the spread of blood-borne pathogens.
It is now obvious that these largely taxpayer-funded programs have simply devolved into giveaways in which needles are distributed by the dozens with no demand to turn in used ones. The bloodied, potentially pathogenic ones are routinely discarded in public places, where they can be inadvertently contacted by children, pets and maintenance workers. IV drug users make a conscious decision to engage in the well-known risks of their behavior, while innocent people who get stuck with an improperly discarded needle in a public place made no such choice.
With the obvious hazard of pathogen exposure to non-IV drug users, these needle distribution programs can hardly be considered harm reduction and in the interest of public health. Any continuation of such programs should mandate a one-for-one exchange to participate. Vermonters who consume alcohol or carbonated beverages must pay a deposit on containers to discourage their casual disposal. Shouldn’t we demand at least some level of duty to prevent the wanton disposal of potentially pathogenic syringes?
Richard Lachapelle
Huntington
RIP, Roxy
Thank you, Seven Days, for your article about Merrill’s Roxy Cinemas’ potential closure and the dying art of cinemas in general [“Reel Drama: As Vermont Movie Theaters Respond to a Changing Industry, Burlington May Lose Its Only Cinema,” August 21].
Movies have been a huge part of my life as a result of my parents showing me their favorite movies along with the classics like Alien and Willow to make sure I’m as cultured as I can be. I always took pride in my movie knowledge, being able to understand most references coming my way and surprising the previous generation because of it.
My first movie I saw in theaters was Tangled with my parents in the T-Rex theater at Essex Cinemas when I was 6, and I still remember it. I’ve always loved the overly strong smell of popcorn when you first walk in and the colorful carpets. The theater is an experience along with a movie, and that’s what I love about it.
I always loved looking at all the posters in the cases in front of Roxy when I would stroll along Church Street and its surrounding area. It always felt like it made Burlington more colorful and complete, which is why I’m disheartened to hear about its potential end.
I had hoped that the cinema business would recover after the world mostly healed from COVID-19, but some things you just don’t come back from, unfortunately. We loved you while you lasted, Roxy, and I wish you the best. While movie theaters may be a dying art, they’ll always feel very alive in my heart.
Gabriel Vickery
Essex
Editor’s note: Last Thursday, the owner of Merrill’s Roxy Cinemas announced the theater’s closure. Mary Ann Lickteig wrote about it in an online story headlined “Merrill’s Roxy Cinemas in Burlington to Close.”
Movie Credits
[Re “Merrill’s Roxy Cinemas in Burlington to Close,” November 8, online]: It is a sad day indeed for Burlington. I go way back with Merrill Jarvis III. I was an usher at the Strong Theatre when he was the projectionist! When Grease premiered in Vermont, Mr. J flew me and a dance partner out from Hollywood to open the film in the theaters that are now Higher Ground, then threw a huge party at the Holiday Inn.
That being said, it is scary in downtown Burlington, and the Roxy was never renovated from the day it was built. Its seats, carpets and restrooms had seen much better days. The sound leak between theaters was unbearable. God forbid you are watching a beautiful art film when next door is playing Star Wars 10! If you want folks to attend, you have to give them something for their buck.
Sean Moran
Shelburne
The Way We See It
We’ve received many letters about Paula Routly’s October 30 “From the Publisher” column about a YouTube video that panned the myriad social problems on display in downtown Burlington. “They Ruined My Hometown” was shot by Peter Santenello, a Vermont native who makes a living by focusing his GoPro around the world. His almost feature film-length video went viral and generated negative press in right-wing media outlets just before the election.
Routly’s piece, entitled “GoPro Bro,” was not intended as a denial of the problems Santenello exposed and editorialized about; Seven Days has covered them extensively. It was an attempt to explain how his approach differs from the way reporters operate at Seven Days. Fact-checking, providing context, identifying sources with their real, full names — these time-tested protocols are valuable no matter the medium and will help our community work toward solving the problems we’re documenting. So will free speech and spirited debate: That’s why we publish letters to the editor.
Related
I really do not think this letter to the editor will see the light of day, but I am sending it anyway. I was in Burlington on Friday, October 11, and was shocked to see the condition of the city. The homeless were everywhere downtown — in the little park, the alleyway behind Leunig’s Bistro & Café, and up and down Church Street. I have been vacationing in Vermont for over 10 years, and these were the worst conditions I’ve ever seen downtown. We went to dinner and quickly left, deciding we would not be returning to Burlington next year.
I live in Southern California and come to Vermont to be free of the dangerous, trashy streets, not to see the same problems we face in Los Angeles. Thankfully we spent most of our time in the small, lovely towns of Vermont, like Waitsfield and Warren. I am saddened to see this happen in my favorite travel spot.
When I arrived home, I accidentally found Peter Santenello’s video while doing some additional research on Vermont. I was surprised and glad that someone was posting about the downfall of Burlington.
Paula Routly’s article is so biased, and I can only speculate as to why. The people of Vermont should be up in arms over the Burlington situation. I shouldn’t — and they shouldn’t — be afraid to shop, dine and attend theater in downtown Burlington.
Dorothy Phillips
Upland, CA
I’ve been reading Seven Days for a couple of years now and appreciate your in-depth coverage of important topics in our state and your mostly even-handed reportage of controversial issues. I do take exception to the framing of your response in the “GoPro Bro” commentary. I watched the video online, and while it clearly showed a negative side of Burlington, for you to characterize the video and its 2 million views as “a lot more dangerous than walking at night in the Queen City” smacks of George Orwell’s 1984. Free speech is dangerous, especially to those in power, and that’s why it is so important to a free society and is the First Amendment in our U.S. Constitution. You should know better!
Barry Beauchamp
Rutland
Yes, Peter Santenello sensationalized the footage for his own gain. His videos tend to caricature the problems on the other side of the lens. “They” and “them” become the fearsome phantasms that drive the clicks and likes on his videos. That said, we cannot deny what’s occurring on the steps of the church, in the parking garage, in City Hall Park and on the streets all over the cities of Vermont. We see open drug use in his video — those aren’t staged actors. We see the degradation of the city and hear the frustration and disgust in the voices of those he interviews.
While sensationalizing the problem in the press doesn’t foster the compassion and empathy needed to move toward a resolution for the addicted and unhoused people of Vermont, don’t forget that the problem is real, it’s impactful, and there’s no denying Burlington has changed — and not for the better.
Surely, there is still vibrancy in one of Vermont’s best-loved cities, but there’s also fear, anger and resignation. Open drug use in front of children — and in front of recovering addicts attending meetings — is unacceptable and unconscionable.
Peter called it like he saw it — his vision skews toward the gritty and negative, but he’s not a liar. He filmed reality. The firsthand accounts were real. It’s a hard truth. Vermont is known as quaint and bucolic around the world. It’s hard for all of us to face just how much that reputation is changing.
Abby Emerson
St. Albans
I have lived in Burlington since 1964 when my parents came up from New York City. I’ve seen a lot.
What I have seen lately has been rather strange. We have a mall that is a hole — for what, 10 years now? A park that is a mental ward for gunslingers. Streets that are being “worked on” for months, rather than days, and now Church Street shut to eating on.
I think we all know who is responsible for this madness, but I’m wondering how much more the people of Burlington can stand?
We used to have huge, beautiful woodpeckers in City Hall Park; a mall we could shop in and walk through on a cold day; Macy’s; and streets that took only three days to pave.
It is beyond obvious that removing the old trees did far greater damage by bringing in evil. And while certain companies might make money by covering everything in concrete, most Vermonters prefer good soil and healthy things.
Construction for construction’s sake, while it makes money for some, does not provide beauty, goodness, happiness or any of what some term “spirituality.”
I find myself wishing for the huge woodpeckers, the old mall and the sense that Burlington stood for what was right, rather than what was politically agreed to.
Wally Norton
Burlington
I appreciated Paula Routly’s send-up of Peter Santenello’s inflammatory YouTube video. Now I know the identity of the guy who was blocking traffic in the City Market, Onion River Co-op parking lot, badgering passersby (including me) for comments about Burlington’s drug crisis. It enrages me to see irresponsible, faux journalists maligning real, hardworking journalists, who know better than to make vague accusations about “them” and what “they” are doing to our city.
If there is a “they” that deserves to be held accountable, it’s opportunists and profiteers like Santenello, who view people’s hardships as a personal affront to their own prosperity and then exploit that suffering for their own fame and self-promotion. Real journalism is about more than simply getting attention; it’s about actually trying to understand a complex situation and helping others to understand it, too.
Sheila Liming
Essex Junction
This article is condescending and dismissive of Peter Santenello. It heavily questions Peter’s roots here and his right to make any judgments on Burlington; it claims he aims to “sensationalize and capitalize”; it claims his video is “more dangerous” than walking around Burlington at night.
“They,” as he said in the video, is Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George and team who catch and release a population of criminals that have a very, very devastating effect on this city and the quality of life of the residents here. Instead of talking about the legitimate reasons fewer tourists visit our city, the article essentially labels him a dumb “GoPro Bro.” All the while, you displayed three articles written by Seven Days discussing the same issues he discussed. What’s more dangerous to this city, what’s “more dangerous than walking at night in the Queen City,” is the article you wrote, wherein it criticizes someone who spoke out.
Hey, maybe I don’t want to live in a city where people are shooting up on every sidewalk in front of children, either. If that makes me a bad person, then I’m happy to be one. So, let’s all stop pretending like “This is normal and happens everywhere.” That doesn’t make any of this OK. I will not “adapt.”
Felix Gould
Burlington
Dear Peter Santenello: When you came home to visit Burlington, you filed a quick, bash-and-dash “report” on the Queen City’s problems with homelessness, drugs and crime. It’s too bad you did not take the time to learn about the great people, services and events Burlington also offers.
I especially noted your “Who would want to go to church there?” comment while showing people gathered on the steps of the First Congregational Church on South Winooski Avenue.
My answer is: “I do!” And several hundred of my friends do, too.
I don’t know if you have any religious background, but for me, Christianity boils down to the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Our neighbors need help dealing with addiction, homelessness and mental illness, as well as those who demonize them.
You see, Peter, people who are invested in a city care enough to help address its problems. I don’t know where you live, but I’ll bet your city has many of the same problems Burlington does. And I hope you are doing something there to address them.
One final thought: The next time you visit Burlington, I hope you will visit any of the downtown churches to see how much they care about all of our residents. Or reach out to me, and I’ll be glad to introduce you to First Church and show you how people here care about solutions, not bashing others.
John Floyd
South Burlington
I read Paula Routly’s article “GoPro Bro” not long after watching Peter Santenello’s video, “They Ruined My Hometown,” and I’m confused about her objections. She makes a distinction between “real journalism” (ostensibly her paper) and the “sensational” reporting of Santenello. I enjoy both, and I don’t see a lot of difference between them.
Routly states that Santenello has “sensationalized and capitalized” on Burlington’s problems. Yet she references several Seven Days articles that illustrate the same problems.
Routly goes on to describe Santenello as “out to make a buck and score political points.” Are those things wrong? Seven Days is owned by a for-profit corporation, but it’s not OK for a “GoPro Bro” to make money? Anyone who’s read Seven Days should have a pretty good idea of the paper’s political orientation. Doesn’t Santenello have the same rights to express his beliefs as Routly does?
Maybe Routly’s objection is that Santenello’s medium is YouTube, and therefore he’s not a real journalist. To me, his selfie-stroll down Church Street was relatively innocuous. The residents and business owners interviewed came across as reasonable people with legitimate concerns, telling their stories. Isn’t that real journalism?
Routly’s main objection seems to be that she fears that right-wing media will be able to spin coverage of Burlington’s problems to their advantage. Maybe the focus should be more on how we can address these problems, rather than trying to hide them. Maybe we can consider how some policies may have impacted the situation.
David Quinlan
Milton
The irony of the video designed to highlight Burlington’s problems is that it features, among other people, a so-called recovering ex-drug addict who runs a pot dispensary in the city complaining about the community’s drug problems.
True story.
Let me repeat: A so-called reformed drug addict selling pot in Burlington complains about drug problems in Vermont’s largest city on a video produced to highlight the city’s drug and crime issues.
Can’t make it up, folks.
Hats off to Seven Days for bringing attention to a hack job.
Ted Cohen
Burlington
I found the tone of “GoPro Bro” a little hard to understand. You seemed almost offended that Peter Santenello had the nerve to tell the truth about what is happening to our beautiful city. If the truth is not exposed, nothing can be done to fix problems. It’s as though it’s politically incorrect to talk about real-life problems that are happening in this town. I thought journalists had the job to report, not to silence?
I am glad that Santenello published this video. What is it going to take to get some change? The problems are being ignored and perhaps even encouraged by the office of Burlington Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak. She seems very concerned about the rights of the drug addicts and the homeless and not so much about the rights of the taxpayer to quiet and enjoyment of their lives.
I am quite concerned about her plans to open a safe space for people to shoot up their drugs. Things have gone downhill so quickly. I think this will only encourage drug use in Burlington. Our politicians should be encouraged to address the terrible conditions, not encouraged to continue ignoring them.
Carol Brown
Burlington
I am writing in response to the editorial by Paula Routly regarding Peter Santenello’s video documenting the disturbing conditions in Burlington. I am not acquainted with Santenello, nor am I familiar with his work — however, after reading Routly’s editorial and subsequently viewing the video, I am compelled to write. Routly seemed more intent on denigrating Santenello than confirming the facts he exposed. This seems to follow a pattern by progressive thinkers to confront and demean the messenger rather than rebuke the underlying policies that have wrought the current conditions.
The video did not begin to illustrate the depth of decline and the severe deterioration throughout the area. The conditions I encountered last month were extreme and distressing — homeless people living in the park, sleeping on the sidewalks, accosting passersby; I witnessed egregious behavior by drug-addicted persons and found filthy, unsafe conditions.
Upon my return home, I wrote to the governor (and received a “rote” staff response) and the mayor (no response), urging them to undertake immediate measures to correct these deplorable, perilous conditions.
Rather than disparaging Santenello, I urge Seven Days to support policies that will return the city to its previous luster. If not, visitors will no longer bring their supporting dollars, businesses will continue to close, and residents will flee.
As it is, we have determined that we will not be visiting Burlington again — until and unless the city is restored and once again made safe and inviting.
Cynthia Casey
Orinda, CA
Related Stories
This article appears in The Winter Preview Issue 2024.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!