Opinion: Solution in homelessness debate cannot serve to invite more people to Boulder

 Many of us have been following the seemingly endless debate about how Boulder should treat the “homeless.” Unfortunately, the results of the judge’s recent decision in the lawsuit filed against the City of Boulder’s homeless policies were difficult to discern because the ruling was 35 pages long. I’m not a lawyer, but I did read it twice. Basically, the ruling was not on the substance of the issues, but on whether to dismiss the complaints. The judge dismissed two of the three complaints in full, and half of the third, leaving only the issue of homeless people’s legal ability to sleep in outdoor public spaces to be decided in the trial.

In the process of reading it, I saw an angle that might get the city the freedom to do what I think should be done — to make a real effort to provide housing and other help for people who live here in Boulder and for whatever reason have become homeless, while, at the same time, not having to provide for more and more people who have become homeless elsewhere (or have chosen to become homeless elsewhere) and then have come here because the strong efforts by both the city and local private non-profits to make being homelessness here more tolerable (or attractive).

In other words, if we do a good job of taking care of our own homeless, then we should not be penalized by having to then take care of ever-increasing numbers, just because those efforts have made Boulder more attractive.

To my reading, why the judge found one claim worthy of going to trial over was the combination of the arguments that said that these folks were “involuntarily experiencing homelessness,” that “the government cannot prosecute homeless people for sleeping in public if there is a greater number of homeless individuals in (a jurisdiction) than the number of available shelter spaces,” and that there is “the freedom of movement and the right to travel”.

But the reality is that the combination of these arguments is pretty much a guarantee that homeless people will be sleeping in our parks, etc., simply because no matter how much we do, the demand will grow to exceed the supply just because we are making that effort. 

It seems to me that these arguments made by the complainants need to be turned to support different conclusions:

1) Becoming homeless may be involuntary for some (but not all). But traveling to Boulder (once you become homeless, or to become homeless) is different.

2) And the “right to travel,” simply because it’s a “right,” means that traveling here cannot be argued to be involuntary. 

3) The formula (from Martin v. Boise, that sleeping outside cannot be criminalized if no indoor shelter is available), if allowed to be applied to people who are homeless coming to Boulder voluntarily, guarantees that the more we in Boulder do for the homeless, the worse our situation will be.

So I hope that the judge finds, given the City of Boulder’s and others’ efforts to provide housing and other services for significantly more than the number of people who have become homeless while living here, that the City of Boulder has no obligation to allow people from elsewhere to sleep in public spaces when their voluntary presence is the very reason that their number exceeds the number of available shelter spaces.

That would put the focus where I think it needs to be — that all cities need to take good care of their own. For more info, Council member Bob Yates wrote up an excellent discussion in his monthly newsletter.

Another currently hot housing topic is the proposed increase in occupancy limits and ADUs in single-family neighborhoods. Some years ago, council members Yates and Weaver did a good job of balancing availability, affordability and impacts in their ADU code revisions. But the current council “progressives” apparently think that it did not go far enough. And that the close but losing vote on the Bedrooms initiative somehow justifies densifying even further.

Here’s the problem: The “Yes” side of the Bedrooms vote clearly had elements of, “You have it, I want it,” and its companion, “I want to make more money from it.” The opinions that the council should listen to are those of the people already living in these neighborhoods, not those who want to move in and live there, or those who want to increase their rental income, like from the $1,000-per-bedroom rents I’ve heard about.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more