<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"> The debate over the manner and means by which Boulder treats its unhoused population is often conducted on an emotional level, as a choice between compassion for the unhoused versus the preservation of  public safety. The conversation is rarely conducted in terms of concrete policies and costs, and the competing needs for funding of Boulder programs. I would therefore like to pose a number of questions that might provide the basis for a more detailed and granular conversation on these issues, as I believe these to be core questions that should impact the manner in which we move forward. Those questions are as follows:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1) A very significant portion of the homeless population of Boulder County are in the city of Boulder. As an initial matter, is there any limit to the number of homeless that Boulder should be prepared to accept for its housing and other programs? If there is, what is it and why? If not, is there any limit to the financial and personnel resources we should devote to providing services to the homeless? If not, how is that possible? If so, what is it and why?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2) Most of our homeless have little connection to Boulder and have come here from other cities, particularly Denver. What, if any, nexus with Boulder should we require before providing  a full array of services to homeless individuals? Do we have the same obligation to those who have arrived yesterday as those who have been here longer? If we do, how is this sustainable over the long term? If we do not, is six months the proper waiting period? And if not, what is the proper standard and why?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 3) In our January discussion staff listed more than 20 programs in Boulder that attempt to serve the needs of the unhoused. If it is contended that they are not sufficiently robust or properly funded, what commitment of funding would be necessary? What additional programs or facilities are proposed, and what would be the capital expenditures and operating expenses for each? And if it is believed that our current programs are satisfactory, how do we serve the balance of the homeless population we are not currently reaching?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 4) Further to the previous question, if additional programs and funding are proposed, from where will such additional funding be sourced? As our police department is down 27 officers and overstretched in so many areas, the simple prescription of sourcing such funds from the police department is neither compelling nor useful, and does not represent a strategy that permits Boulder to deal with the sharp rise in crimes that this community is experiencing (and please note that the police department experienced a 7% reduction in 2020).   Alternatively, are there other programs which can/should be cut in order to fund these additional expenses? If the latter, what are the applicable programs that are candidates for reduction and by what amount should they be reduced?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 5) How do we address the statistics previously presented to us by the Police Chief that homeless individuals – equal in number to approximately 2/3 of 1% of the population, (and certainly  far less than that in terms of the individuals actually committing crimes, which appears to be a small subset of the homeless community) are currently responsible for 62% of robberies, 68% of burglaries, and 39% of aggravated assaults? What is the proper balance between compassion for those less fortunate and public safety? <o:p> </o:p>    <o:p></o:p>  6) Is there a distinction to be made between those who are homeless due to economic misfortune, those who are homeless due to mental illness or drug addiction, and those who are homeless by choice and engage in criminal activity? How do those distinctions, if made,  impact policy responses? <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 7) Other than incarceration, what alternatives are proposed to deal with meth addiction and mental illness? Is a program such as the CAHOOTS program in Eugene or the STAR program in Denver, as suggested by my colleague Aaron Brockett (HOTLINE post, January 18),  programs that would be appropriate in Boulder? What would it take, and how would it work?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 8) One of the conversations that will be upcoming will be the desirability of other potential methodologies for addressing the homeless population. A major topic of discussion surrounds sanctioned campgrounds, particularly in light of the apparent success, at least so far, of the Denver campgrounds. However, in order for such a solution to be deemed appropriate for Boulder, a number of additional questions would need to be addressed as follows:<o:p></o:p>    i) Where would it be located?<o:p></o:p>    ii) How would neighboring residential communities be protected from the adverse impacts of needles, trash and inappropriate behavior that we have seen to date in unauthorized encampments? Will there be sufficient supervision of the campsites to address those concerns?<o:p></o:p>    iii) What would it cost?<o:p></o:p>    iv) Who would fund it?<o:p></o:p>    v) Who would operate it, the City or a third party?<o:p></o:p>    vi) Who would insure it?<o:p></o:p>    vii) What would be the City’s liability for injury to those occupying the camp or for property damage to them or to third parties?<o:p></o:p>    viii) What would be the policies governing the encampment with respect to drugs and propane heaters, disposal of needles, etc. ?<o:p></o:p>    ix) If drugs are not permitted, is there any evidence that those who will not access the shelter now, based on their drug addiction or mental illness, will utilize this facility?<o:p></o:p>    x) This program has been tried elsewhere, and a number of communities that have done so have abandoned the experiment, for a variety of reasons.  What is the policy basis for now reversing ourselves? If it is the experience of the sanctioned campgrounds in Denver, what factors distinguish that experiment from others, and what factors make it applicable, or not, to Boulder?<o:p></o:p>    xi) Would the existence of an authorized campground result in any changes in enforcement with respect to those who refuse to access the facility and continue to camp illegally? If so, in what respect? If not, what is the benefit of this program on public safety concerns?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 9) Another suggestion has been the construction of tiny home villages to provide housing. All of the previous questions apply, as well as the following: what are the comparative economics of this methodology with more conventional supportive housing programs? What are the outcomes in other municipalities that have engaged in this strategy?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The questions I have identified are but a few of those relevant to any discussion of homelessness. There are, of course, more. These are complex and nuanced issues that may be open to purely emotional responses (on either side of the divide), but will not be adequately resolved in that fashion. We need to initiate a more concrete and policy-based dialogue.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>