Should Fresno City Hall get a picket fence, or a moat? Better, none of the above

The Fresno City Council faces many challenges in the governance of our large city. Maintenance of infrastructure, solutions for poverty, development of affordable housing, the management of public safety and social services — all require funding from limited financial resources available for those needs.

So when $250,000 of taxpayer money was allotted for a fence to “protect” just a handful of people, we decided to offer our stylistic advice. Because, well, fence optics.

As an architectural feature the style of a fence sends a message. What are the Fresno Council’s options?

▪ Perhaps a picket fence. Small, tidy, usually augmented with flowering shrubs, and always welcoming. Nah, that doesn’t seem to be the message the council wants to send.

▪ Okay then, a split-rail fence. An appropriate nod to our agrarian roots. Meh, easy on the eye but not enough security.

▪ How about chain-link? Effective, simple, relatively inexpensive, easily decorated, graffiti immune. Ugh, too pedestrian.

▪ Wrought Iron! Enough gravitas for the importance of the council members. Sturdy, often attractive, but very costly and offers no more protection than any of the other fences.

▪ A moat?

In fact, all of these fences (moats, too) are an illusion of security. They are liar fences. For our $250,000 the council should demand an honest fence. A real barrier. A fence made of barbed wire and concrete; a tall fence, one that does not let light in. A fence that communicates the actual message the council is sending. A message the council already implies when they schedule their meetings at times convenient for them but inconvenient to their constituents: “We are not accessible.” “We are separate from you.”

Indeed, the council’s recent focus on heightened and costly security measures for themselves (i.e. trying to allow random armed people into the building, installation of security checkpoints, yet even more on-site officers on the city payroll, and, yes, fences), does nothing to address the real dangers we — their constituents— have hired them to resolve. Dangers inherent in widespread poverty, broken infrastructure, racial segregation, chronic health disparities, poor air quality. . . Their focus on security does nothing to alleviate these problems. It is a policy failure.

These days the word security is sacred. The fence, and the rationale given by some of the council members to proceed with its construction, is blindly accepted. Because when one invokes “security” as the reason for a policy decision or for money spent, it is not questioned.

But what is really going on here? Why would the council want to “protect” just a few and risk the safety of all the other employees? This makes no sense. Could it be because this fence is not about security? Is it a $250,000 Disney fastpass that allows council members and charter employees (whomever they are) to bypass the inconvenience of the council-imposed security checkpoint?

Can’t council members be scary? Shouldn’t they be checked? Can’t they stand in line with the rest of us? We understand the “hardships” that Fresno City Council members face, what with rushing back from meetings with developers, constituents, and photo-ops, but that is their job. Note to Council members: we are all rushing to and fro. We all have jobs, families to care for, parking tickets to pay. Why should you get preferential treatment? And why should we pay for it?

Already we paid for a fancy dais that raises your seats over the council chambers where the rest of us sit beneath you. We were forced to pay for that damn “In God We Trust” sign you can’t even see but we are forced to stare at while listening to you discuss criminalizing homelessness. You want a royal separate entrance? Raise funds. Buy it yourself. How about a bake sale? Or a (Let-Them-Eat) cake walk?