Update: Cambridge jumps in.
Somerville announced this morning that everybody 2 or older in Somerville will have to wear a mask "at all times in public" starting Wednesday. People will have a week's grace period to find a mask; after that, they could be subject to a stern talking to by police or a fine of up to $300.
Mayor Joe Curtatone and the Board of Health, who announced the new requirement, say it applies to both outdoor spaces and to "indoor public spaces like stores or the shared entrances of multi-unit homes." And, they emphasize, there are no exceptions for joggers and bicyclists.
The Police are committed to compassionate policing, and will seek first to educate members of the public about the face covering requirement wherever possible. As available, Officers will also carry masks to give to our most vulnerable residents such as persons experiencing homelessness or persons living with mental illness. However, after the one-week grace period, persons showing willful disregard, may be subject to a written warning or a $300 fine. Exceptions will be made for persons unable to medically tolerate a face covering.
In a robo-message to residents, Curtatone added:
I understand that this step may feel strange or burdensome. But this is necessary to help stop transmission of this disease. Not everyone who has COVID-19 shows symptoms. You can be carrying the virus and infecting others without knowing. No one wants to be the one who infected the grocery store clerk, or the bus driver, or the family out for a stroll. Wearing a face covering is one way to avoid that.
An appropriate face covering is clean and covers your nose and mouth. In a pinch, a scarf, bandana, or any clean cloth will do. You can also find information on making your own face covering under the “Prevention and Preparation” section of somervillema.gov/coronavirus.
Again, this order applies to indoor public spaces like stores or the shared entrances of multi-unit homes. It also applies to outdoor areas such as sidewalks, streets, paths, and squares. All persons including joggers and cyclists must comply.
Please remember that it is up to the Somerville Police Department, not residents, to enforce this order. The police are committed to compassionate policing and will aim to first educate violators and issue warnings. However, persons who willfully refuse to comply may be subject to a $300 fine.
Exceptions will be made for persons with certain medical conditions, and we certainly understand that some may struggle to comply, such as persons living with a mental illness or parents trying to keep masks on young children. Understanding will be shown in such cases.
More information can be found at somervillema.gov.
Thank you, Somerville. Together, we will get through this.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Have you been to Somerville recently?
By mcd
Mon, 04/27/2020 - 7:15pm
The outdoors in Somerville is not densely populated or heavily trafficked anymore, except maybe in the line outside Market Basket. However, forcing people to wear masks to walk around at a safe distance from one another outdoors will lead to more foot traffic in Cambridge, Medford, and Arlington, where the mayors don't think they're better scientists than the CDC.
They're gaining on you
By perruptor
Mon, 04/27/2020 - 10:38pm
Cambridge is requiring masks now. Are you seriously claiming that people will leave Somerville and go to Medford and Arlington so they can walk around without masks?
"face fines"
By kdragon
Mon, 04/27/2020 - 1:34pm
nice word choice :D
Should have been mandatory long ago
By anon
Mon, 04/27/2020 - 1:41pm
Wearing masks consistently and hand washing would have mitigated s shut down.
About that whole restriction of liberty argument...
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 04/27/2020 - 3:47pm
We have had on the books for centuries laws requiring us to cover our genitals when we're out in public. Sporadic pockets of eccentricity aside, there hasn't been a lot of serious opposition to those laws. In principle, a law requiring face covering should be further in the clear constitutionally or on civli liberties grounds, since there's pretty much no scientific public health argument in favor of the "cover your junk" laws, while there is (admittedly imperfect and debatable) evidence that "cover-your-mouth-and-nose" laws offer a public health benefit.
Two and a half centuries of epidemics, too
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 04/27/2020 - 4:10pm
Funny how the LIBURTY!!!!! crowd doesn't bother citing any case law? Any specific amendments? That's because this shit has been litigated out the weewah for centuries. Centuries of yellow fever, typhoid, influenza,tuberculosis, and even leprosy.
Pages
Add comment