Residents and town officials clash over tone and facts after town meeting; disability advocates call out ableist language

Speakers at the May 20 Town of Danvers Select Board meeting pressed local leaders to address both policy questions about housing development and what several described as harmful rhetoric in public forums.

Amy Velasquez, a town meeting member and member of the Accessibility Commission, said remarks made by another town meeting speaker the previous evening amounted to “ableist and xenophobic rhetoric.” Velasquez said the comments framed people moving into town — including residents of group homes and other supported housing — as “bad people” and “a threat” and warned the rhetoric could harm disabled residents and the community’s ability to welcome newcomers. “I stood before this board just a few months ago after the assault perpetrated by youth on 1 of our disabled community members,” Velasquez said. “To allow comments like Mr. Bean’s to go unchecked is not in their best interest.”

Several other speakers urged substantive follow‑up on the concerns raised at town meeting over growth, housing density and zoning wording. Joanne Ragucci, a town meeting member, thanked petitioners who brought citizen petitions and suggested the Select Board form a citizens committee of town meeting members to discuss zoning concerns and seek neutral ground. Mark Zubarek, a longtime resident and former selectman, urged the board to analyze the topics raised at town meeting and relay the analysis back to residents.

Lisa Silva, chair of the Danvers Housing Authority and vice chair of the Affordable Housing Trust, corrected several factual points cited during town meeting debate about a project known as Maple Square. Silva said Maple Square was not built under MBTA zoning and that it includes 28 units at 80 percent of area median income — figures she said had been misstated during the citizen petitions discussion. “Let’s use the correct numbers,” Silva said, adding the units’ rents range from about $2,000 to $2,650, not $3,000.

Other speakers said the town should modernize voting at town meeting — suggesting electronic clickers to record votes — and asked the Select Board and new town manager to create or reinstate a welcome program for new residents.

Select Board members responded with a mix of apology, clarification and calls for data‑driven follow up. One Select Board member apologized for language he acknowledged had sounded insensitive in public remarks. The board directed the town manager to consider next steps and noted several follow‑up options: a review of zoning and petition wording by the planning board; exploring electronic voting tools for town meeting (with a request to gather prior research and cost estimates); and working with the developer of Maple Square on outreach to attract compatible ground‑floor businesses.

Speakers repeatedly distinguished between policy concerns — traffic, density, affordability and municipal services — and the tone of public discourse. Multiple speakers urged civility while pressing for concrete, evidence‑based responses to residents’ concerns.