UPDATED 4/12/26 2:53PM: To clarify that other parcels which Baitus Salaam Mosque does not own would be affected by the discontinuance of Cloverdale Street. 

When darkness comes/And pain is all around. (WMP&I and Google images)

The Springfield City Council brought fury to a procedural debate and waxed meticulous on the details of a food truck ordinance this week. During a rare Tuesday meeting, the body confronted a relatively simple agenda. The food truck bill reached its final stage, passing after a flurry of amendments. Yet, it was debate over a motion that led to shouting, threats of expulsion and accusations of censorship.

The Council had turned to a discontinuance of a street near Fort Pleasant Avenue. Because it was part of larger plans for a nearby Baitus Salaam Mosque to relocate, the councilor for the ward, Victor Davila urged a pause to consult with the neighborhood. There was a motion to committee, but City Council President Tracye Whitfield resisted Davila’s push to ask another question. It went downhill from there.

Councilors Malo Brown and Michael Fenton were absent from the meeting. Councilor Brian Santaniello participated in the meeting virtually.

The discontinuance was for Cloverdale Street. On paper, it launches up the bluff that much of the Forest Park neighborhood sits on. In fact, it’s a stub off Edgeland Street with only a property or two developed. There was little indication it would turn the calm of Tuesday’s simple agenda into troubled waters.

During reports of committee, Planning & Economic Development Committee chair Jose Delgado described a meeting with city planning officials about redeveloping northeast downtown with an eye to building as many of 1,500 housing units over time. The General Government Committee’s chair, at-large Councilor Justin Hurst, said his panel had heard concerns from residents about trailers and mobile homes parked on city streets. He indicated a new ordinance on the matter would be forthcoming.

The Council kept a proposal to change rules for public speak out in committee. It received an unremarkable revenue and expenditure report from the deputy comptroller.

Eversource received authorization to open Girard Avenue to upgrade electrical equipment for a nearby development. It likewise easily passed a secondary street sign on Dwight Street for Pastor Andrew Daniels. The item drew supporters and Daniels himself. Several councilors spoke in favor of its passage.

The Council then turned to the Cloverdale discontinuance. The mosque’s attorney, David Bartley—yes, one in the same—said the mosque and its agents had purchased land with the intention of building a larger facility with classroom and community space.

Public works chief Chris Cignoli initially presented the item. Davila inquired into whether the Forest Park Civic Association (FPCA) had been informed. (Not formally). At-large Councilor Kateri Walsh asked if this kind of item would normally go to civic associations. Cignoli suggested it was less common for discontinuances but they would receive notice as the plans go through the city review process.

Davila wanted a pause, but did not oppose the item. (still via YouTube/Focus Springfield)

Roughly then Davila made his motion to committee. There was no unanimity on that move. Walsh, for example, said it made sense to move forward given future opportunities for the FPCA to weigh in. Hurst suggested the potential value of the land was an issue, too.

A discontinuance terminates the city’s right of way. That right of way exists whether a street exists or not. Once the city discontinues the street, its land reverts to abutting landowners. Those landowners are almost exclusively the LLC associated with the mosque.

However, there are a few landlocked parcels that would no longer have access to a public way. All appear to abut other parcels that do have access to public ways. WMP&I could not immediately confirm the legal implications of this.

Bartley stepped up to explain more details of the project at one point. Davila inquired about who received the right of way’s land. Bartley suggested it was the mosque’s corporate body. Davila tried to ask anther question, but Whitfield cut him off suggesting that such questions belong in committee if his motion succeeded.

“I think we need to dispose of the vote and then if we’re going to send it to committee and ask that they go to the neighborhood councils, we let that process play out instead of doing all that now,” she said.

Davila countered that he was not ready to move on.

“Yeah, it’s going to committee. I just have my question has not fully been answered,” he replied.

The back and forth continued with Whitfield saying the answer could come with committee. She then said Davila had already spoken several times on the item. He protested he only spoke twice.

However one feels about Tuesday night, Whitfield has indicated she will hew to Council rules about the subject of debates.
(still via YouTube/Focus Springfield)

“This is your second time and now I am disposing of the item,” Whitfield countered.

The two began speaking over each other before Davila accused Whitfield of censoring him. She rejected the claim.

“I just want to clarify the question and you within your wisdom decide that it’s time for me to shut up and you’re not going to shut me up,” Davila responded. He insisted he had a clarifying question, but the debate had collapsed into a shouting match. Whitfield called the police officer on duty to step forward, just as Councilor Hurst called for a recess. Whitfield concurred.

The mic remained on as Davila and Whitfield briefly traded barbs after the session recessed. Whitfield appeared to walk off the dais.

“She’s not omnipotent She’s not God in that the podium,” Davila said as other councilors spoke to him.

“It’s not worth it,” Ward 3 Councilor Melvin Edwards could be heard saying.

When the Council returned, a severe-sounding Whitfield said that when a motion to committee is pending, debate is limited to whether it should go to committee or not. The motion to committee then passed 10-1 with only Walsh in dissent.

From there, the rest of the meeting went swimmingly, at least by comparison.

Tina Quagliato-Sullivan, the Deputy Development Officer for Housing, Community Services and Sustainability presented a $5,123,276 grant from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development. Accompanying it was a separate $700,000 state match. Quagliato-Sullivan said the funds would pay for assessment and remediation of lead in 120 units. She added that it will address some lead remediation that had been part of Springfield’s $20 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency. The feds terminated that grant illegally last year.

The funds were accepted without dissent.

The Council accepted the city’s allocation of Chapter 90 road funding. Cignoli, the DPW head, said the $5,019,061 will help address streets with chronic problems like Parker Street.

The body approved a $300 honorarium for Housing Director Gerry McCafferty.

An order to allow the School Department to enter into a food service contract remained on ice. Cignoli said the discontinuance for Wilbraham Avenue had been withdrawn by the proponent.

The Council concluded the evening with a lengthy and technical vote-a-rama for the new food truck ordinance. The city has an ordinance for food trucks operating on city streets. This ordinance would regulate those on private property.

Click-Bruce had taken the lead on the food truck ordinance–notably his predecessor in his seat also lead on the last food truck ordinance. (still via YouTube/Focus Springfield)

Cignoli and Ward 5 Councilor Lavar Click-Bruce, the chair of the Maintenance & Development Committee, laid out the revisions they had prioritized. Among these was requiring a special permit if three or more food trucks were operating on a single parcel; distances between food trucks and adjacent structures, and a ban on operations from 11PM to 6AM. The Council added most of these unanimously.

By far, the Council spent the most time debating what kind of fee the food truck operators should pay. Click-Bruce, Ward 8 Councilor Zaida Govan, Walsh and others suggested that the fee be zero. Cignoli vehemently opposed this arguing it would undermine enforcement. He found support from Councilors Gerry Martin and Maria Perez.

Opponents of a fee emphasized the other fees the food truck proprietors had to pay, namely a peddler’s license, a fire inspection and a health inspection. On the other hand, Cignoli and others noted that food trucks’ competitors, restaurants pay multiple fees. Councilor Edwards noted that the inspections and enforcement will happen no matter what and it is not free.

“I understand from the last bud set of hearings, we’re about $3 million short on balance in the budget as we stand now. So, the thing is the money’s got to come from somewhere,” he said.

After much debate and with the Council’s 9:30PM stop time bearing down, councilors began to vote on the fee. A $250 annual fee failed 6-4 with Councilor Santaniello, who had logged off, absent. Councilors Click-Bruce, Govan, Hurst and Walsh opposed it.

The Council was about to vote on zeroing out the fee, but the amendment was changed to $125. This passed 9-1 with only Edwards in dissent. The final vote on the ordinance passed 10-0.

The brief slugfest between Davila and Whitfield was a low point of the meeting. The frustrating part is one could easily find either one to have a point, both initially and as things escalated. It will likely not reverberate too far electorally, but it could hover over the body for a time.

(WMP&I)

The debate on the food truck ordinance amendments was a bit chaotic, but it represented a better side of the Council. There were some unreal moments, but they were rare. Overall, it was a robust and fair debate where ideals met the realpolitik of running government.

More of that might ease mind and build trust—and bridges over the troubled politics that can easily consume councilors.