<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=Windows-1252"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div class="WordSection1"> I will not be at this evening’s meeting due to illness, but I wanted to take this opportunity to express a few thoughts concerning the proposed trash ordinance to be acted upon by Council, and to respond to the Hotlines posted by Chase Cromwell, Director of Legislative Affairs, University of Boulder Student Government and my colleague, Nicole Speer.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> My first thought is that we tend to overthink everything. We have had a decades long trash problem on the Hill and now – finally – we have a proposed ordinance to deal with it. That is all. It establishes a civil violation and the issuance of a fine. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Mr. Cromwell argues that the main demographic impacted by the new ordinance will be students. Yes, it will. That is because most of the problem properties with respect to trash on the Hill are those housing students. This should not be a revelation to anyone. And there is a simple remedy for avoiding a citation: maintain your property, and do not use it as a repository for empty beer bottles. Our CU students are bright, talented  adults. This concept should not be beyond their capabilities to comprehend. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Mr. Cromwell also argues that the fact that this is a no-contact citation removes a critical community engagement element in code enforcement. This is not uncommon. When I run the intersection at Arapahoe and 28th (and I have done so), I receive a ticket. There is no engagement over the injustice of my citation.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Finally, Mr. Cromwell argues that a core outcome of this type of municipal code should be educational engagement with residents, not just a fine and compliance. No, it should not. This is not an educational program. A fine and compliance are absolutely the ultimate goals of this ordinance.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Ms. Speer’s questions are a bit harder to address. Her notion that non-punitive measures might be a substitute for the proposes ordinance are belied by decades of experience on the Hill. However, her question as to whether the demographics of potential violators match the demographics of the City at large is easier to answer: No. At least on the Hill they will largely be students who will not match the City’s demographics. Besides, is that the only basis for enforcing an ordinance? Do we cease to enforce as soon as demographic parameters have been breached? And with respect to her Question 4, is she seriously suggesting that the working group needed to include among its members those with the lived experience of littering? Really?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Again, this is not a complex issue. This is a trash issue. Existing policies were ineffective in addressing it. We have a new ordinance intended to correct the problem, which has been going on for decades. The process of drafting this ordinance was a collaborative effort with a large group of stakeholders led by Amanda Nagle. For once, could we simply act when action is required?<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>