<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 am very supportive of the Hotline submitted by Rachel Friend and Matt Benjamin to pivot our Retreat in a way that will contribute to the formulation of a strategy to deal with homelessness. I am not sure that there is a single segment of the community that feels that we have done an adequate job in that respect, and the criticism that accrues to that dissatisfaction properly falls on this body. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In May of 2021 I submitted a Hotline post raising a number of questions regarding our homeless policy. To my best recollection, none were discussed or attempted to be answered at Council. Fortunately for most of my colleagues, they were not on Council at the time and were therefor not tasked with wading through that Hotline. Unfortunately for those newer members, until now. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> With a number of modifications, I am resubmitting that document, not because it cracked the code of successful homeless policy or because of the Shakespearean quality of the prose, but because many of the forthcoming questions are critical to formulating a strategy on this subject. We cannot think only tactically. Recent proposals regarding safe zones around our schools or the creation of a sanctioned campground may each be worthy of consideration, but they are essentially tactical responses to the problem; a strategy must proceed from a more fundamental basis.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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 competing needs and resources, and what we envision as success for those programs. I would therefore like to pose several 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? And in either event, how do we get our neighboring cities to help lift the load?<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, what distinctions are appropriate, if any?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 3) In a previous Council 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 is proposed? What additional programs or facilities are proposed, and what would be the capital expenditures and operating expenses for each? What would be the metric for success for additional programs? 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) We know that a small proportion of the homeless, characterized as “high utilizers,” are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of crimes in Boulder. What is the proper policy towards such individuals? Should there be a meaningful enforcement component to address persistent recidivism? If not, what do we do? If so, how to we achieve buy-in from a criminal justice system that appears to be resistant to imposing consequences on all but the most violent offenses? What is the proper balance between compassion for those less fortunate and public safety? <o:p></o:p>    <o:p></o:p>  5) 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>  6) Returning to the world of tactics, 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 some success of the Denver campgrounds. However, for such a solution to be deemed appropriate for Boulder, several 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 several 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> 7) Another suggestion has been the construction of tiny home villages to provide housing. All 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> 8) The recent proposal regarding safe zones around our schools: what are the legal ramifications?  Can it withstand the almost certain litigation from those who seem to always be eager to litigate against the City? How will it be enforced? What resources will be required? What standards will be employed in enforcing the proposed ordinance? (In New York there are parks which are off-limits to any adult not accompanied by a child. Would it be something like this?)<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. I hope that the Hotline submitted by my colleagues Rachel Friend and Matt Benjamin will initiate this process, and I can think of no better expenditure of our time at this Retreat.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>