<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"> <div class="WordSection1"> At the risk of forfeiting any future invitations to the holiday parties of HAB,  I want to express my extreme disappointment in the report produced by the Housing Advisory Board and presented to this Council. Staff has presented a detailed and explicit analysis of our policies to deal with homelessness, and a set of recommendations and analyses with respect to various policies they do not believe will work, or which are beyond our financial capabilities. In contrast, HAB has made several specific recommendations – more in the nature of demands - to combat homelessness, with no supporting detail of any kind. To me, this is antithetical to the concept of providing this Council with good advice.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> HAB suggests that Council direct the implementation of various policies within the next year. Any one of these policies proposed for implementation may – or may not – have merit. None of them are analyzed in a way that would permit a decision to be made on their potential merits. Some (although hardly all) of the unanswered questions relating to HAB’s proposals are as follows:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1) Sanctioned campgrounds:<o:p></o:p>    a) Who will operate?<o:p></o:p>    b) Who will insure in order to protect the City from liability claims?<o:p></o:p>    c) Current illegal campgrounds have proven to be an environmental nightmare when they are cleaned up. How will this be avoided?<o:p></o:p>    d) Who will provide the land? <o:p></o:p>    e) What will the project cost? In a climate of fiscal crisis, what programs are suggested to be cut in order to fund this?<o:p></o:p>    f) What is the data from other cities to demonstrate that this is a desirable and best practice? <o:p></o:p>    g) What size of campground, how many individuals to be served?<o:p></o:p>    h) What criteria for entry: In Boulder for 6 months? 3 months? Open to all?  Requirements to participate in any other programs of the City?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2) Safe parking lots:<o:p></o:p>    a) Most of the questions asked above are relevant to this program as well.<o:p></o:p>    b) Who is eligible? For how long? What limitations? (e.g., if someone shows up with a $40,000 Mercedes Sprint, should they be receiving free parking?)<o:p></o:p>    c) What structure is contemplated: A program run by the City, by a non-profit or by a religious institution? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? In a time of financial difficulty for the City, what are the contemplated funding sources?<o:p></o:p>    d) This idea seems to have some potential if it were thought through, but we need to know so much more including the following: What are the demographics for the vehicle-housed homeless? What percentage are from Boulder vs. from other locations? What percentage are high users of the justice system?<o:p></o:p>    e) HAB member Judy Nogg has forwarded to me some of her concerns with the staff presentation as well as a detailed article on safe parking programs entitled “Hidden in Plain Sight”, an advocacy piece in support of these types of programs. The article contains some interesting ideas (such as a safe parking lot restricted to single women and women with children),  but even the authors of this piece acknowledge that “The only real solution to address vehicle residency is an exit to housing.” The analysis of the staff report prepared by Ms. Nogg, as well as the content of this article should have come from HAB.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 3) Tiny home villages: Where to begin? Many of the previous questions apply. What are the costs and economics of this proposal? Where will the funding come from? The entire point of HAB is to analyze whether this program has merit, what are the benefits and pitfalls, what is the experience of other cities, etc., etc..  Simply listing it as a desired component of our homeless policy is a demand without content. If HAB believes that staff’s recommendation not to move forward on tiny homes is misplaced, and that such a program has merit, go out and prove it. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 4) Conversion of hotels and office space to affordable housing: a laudable goal, but does anyone on HAB have any concern about the economic feasibility of doing so? What are the lease rates necessary to make the proposition workable? What would be the anticipated conversion costs? What entity would undertake the conversion? Has there been any dialogue with hotel owners and office landlords? What would they require, both in terms of financial issues, as well as operating issues?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 5) Explore creative alternative finance options to augment existing resources. Great idea; why not undertake this assignment and present it to Council? This would be the essence of fulfilling an advisory role that would have a positive impact. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> There is, of course, much more, but the foregoing provides the essence of my argument. HAB has not provided us with considered, actionable advice regarding Boulder’s homeless policies, has not contributed to a better understanding of homelessness in Boulder or articulated new policies that can be implemented by this Council. Again, some of these proposed policies may have merit. Or not. We do not presently know.  But the document presented to us does not permit us to make that determination, and that is a failure to properly advise this Council. <o:p></o:p>    <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>