Denver to Vote on Urban Camping

[Chico Loco]

Well, that's what they call it. The city council votes today on a proposed camping ban.

When you think of people "camping" along downtown's 16th Street Mall (which I can see from my office window), forget the image of tents, campfires, marshmallows, and camping songs.

It's more like this: Bums sleeping in the doorways of businesses, using the alleys as their bathrooms, and harassing people along the mall for money. They sleep on benches all along the mall and wherever else they can camp out. We used to call them bums, then it was the homeless, and now it's "unsheltered." I still call 'em bums.

Imagine having a business and having to step over some wino who is asleep in your doorway. Sometimes they get aggressive and get physical with the business owner.

The problem keeps getting worse while our simple-minded mayors and city council members try to figure out what to do.

Advocates for these people are claiming that the city wants to criminalize homelessness, which is completely false and stupid. Others are wondering (correctly) why the city doesn't enforce EXISTING laws against loitering, vagrancy, aggressive panhandling, littering, etc.

Even if camping is banned, the police chief said that he will only lightly enforce it. (Here, the police chief tells the mayor how it is, apparently). So a ban really won't matter much.

Regionally, at least, downtown Denver has a reputation for looking great, but having a big problem with unsavory characters and being a place to avoid. It's not getting any better.

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/c...-today-may-hit

[llamaorama]

When I was in Denver I just got used to ignoring them while walking down the 16th street mall. The only part of the central city I found to be completely unbearable was the area around the Capitol mall which was looking like some kind of hobo camp.

Western cities have got in the worst though. There must be some cultural thing in the western US where on one hand nobody seems concerned about the mounting number of people down on their luck in society, but then doesn't seem bothered if they just hang around and set up tents and piss on the sidewalk either.

[Double L]

I'm not sure on this one. On the one hand we want them off the streets. They say Denver only has 101 beds for them in shelters but they don't need beds. They need space and blankets. The Katrina evacuees housed in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Detroit and Atlanta didn't need beds. On the other hand, it can be expensive to put them all in shelters and those who simply don't want to work might take advantage of the shelters. As for the reason why there is so much homelessness in the west, I think it's higher housing prices. Housing is expensive in the west where, as we discussed in another thread, cities basically just end and there isn't as much sprawl as in the East, Midwest and South.

[Double L]

On further thought, I think we should put them in shelters. That way we can help them get jobs or get off drugs while they are in these shelters.

[brickell]

Not just shelters, but halfway houses, treatment programs, etc.
I can sympathize with their plight, but they're bad for a cities and need to go.

[bunt_q]

The ban passed the City Council tonight.

This is the important part:

Councilman Albus Brooks, who introduced the bill, read into the record new standard operating procedures for police that promise no homeless person will be arrested if shelter space is unavailable. [...] The ordinance already includes specific language that directs officers to assist the person in accessing human services or getting medical attention before considering an arrest. [Denver Police Chief] White says that before any arrest is made, an officer will need to consult with a supervisor. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...ss-camping-ban

Basically, you can't refuse shelter if it's available anymore.

The city has already extended Salvation Army's contract for 200 beds, added another 100 through a zoning waiver, and two Cap Hill churches have added beds for women, so it sounds like folks are stepping up in the interim.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by Double L

On further thought, I think we should put them in shelters. That way we can help them get jobs or get off drugs while they are in these shelters.

'Housing first' has become a more recent approach ... Portland recently opened a sort of dormitory for the homeless, with lockers and showers, 130 studio apts, a 90-bed men's shelter and I believe drug treatment and job placement/social services, all under one roof.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...clark_com.html

It's hard to pull your life together when you have to search for a place to sleep every night.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

'Housing first' has become a more recent approach ... Portland recently opened a sort of dormitory for the homeless, with lockers and showers, 130 studio apts, a 90-bed men's shelter and I believe drug treatment and job placement/social services, all under one roof.

Chicken and egg. They can't very well let you into a shelter if you won't put down the bottle/pipe either.

Apparently, one reason folks here in Denver have been choosing not to partake in shelters, even when space is available, is the set of rules that naturally accompanies shelter life. By banning camping, the thought is, people will be forced into the shelters, and I suppose forced to comply with the rules (or go to jail, where the rules are even stricter).

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Chico Loco

Well, that's what they call it. The city council votes today on a proposed camping ban.

When you think of people "camping" along downtown's 16th Street Mall (which I can see from my office window), forget the image of tents, campfires, marshmallows, and camping songs.

It's more like this: Bums sleeping in the doorways of businesses, using the alleys as their bathrooms, and harassing people along the mall for money. They sleep on benches all along the mall and wherever else they can camp out. We used to call them bums, then it was the homeless, and now it's "unsheltered." I still call 'em bums.

Imagine having a business and having to step over some wino who is asleep in your doorway. Sometimes they get aggressive and get physical with the business owner.

The problem keeps getting worse while our simple-minded mayors and city council members try to figure out what to do.

Advocates for these people are claiming that the city wants to criminalize homelessness, which is completely false and stupid. Others are wondering (correctly) why the city doesn't enforce EXISTING laws against loitering, vagrancy, aggressive panhandling, littering, etc.

Even if camping is banned, the police chief said that he will only lightly enforce it. (Here, the police chief tells the mayor how it is, apparently). So a ban really won't matter much.

Regionally, at least, downtown Denver has a reputation for looking great, but having a big problem with unsavory characters and being a place to avoid. It's not getting any better.

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/c...-today-may-hit

we have the same problem here in LA, and really all over California. Unfortunately, we cant do much here because the ACLU goes batshit over any legislation that affects the homeless, good or bad (they see it all as bad)

im tired of it. something needs to be done to help these sick people (either mentally or because of drugs) and something needs to be done to get them off the streets. it helps no one.

[Boquillas]

I just moved to Denver this month from San Antonio, and was struck by just how visible the homeless problem is here.

In San Antonio about 2 years ago they built Haven for Hope. It's kind of a huge shelter/rehabilitation and counseling center that deals with every aspect of homelessness-- substance abuse, mental illness, financial counseling and advice, veterans' issues, family homelessness, and it's really hardcore about the rehabilitation/reintegration aspect. A lot of the folks there go on to get jobs.

It's the largest facility of its kind in the U.S.-- 15 buildings on 37 acres, housing about 1600 homeless on a given night, and it's just east of downtown SA.

Maybe something like that is the answer for Denver.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Boquillas

I just moved to Denver this month from San Antonio, and was struck by just how visible the homeless problem is here.

In San Antonio about 2 years ago they built Haven for Hope. It's kind of a huge shelter/rehabilitation and counseling center that deals with every aspect of homelessness-- substance abuse, mental illness, financial counseling and advice, veterans' issues, family homelessness, and it's really hardcore about the rehabilitation/reintegration aspect. A lot of the folks there go on to get jobs.

It's the largest facility of its kind in the U.S.-- 15 buildings on 37 acres, housing about 1600 homeless on a given night, and it's just east of downtown SA.

Maybe something like that is the answer for Denver.

Umm, no. A concentrated homeless ghetto is not the answer. The answer is dispersed, mixed income, permanent housing, with supporting services throughout the community, that reintegrates people into the city, rather than shunts them off to some massive camp. Which, incidentally, is exactly what Denver's Road Home is doing.

Since you're new here, you should check this out: http://www.denversroadhome.org/

Besides, even if that was a good idea (it's not), the city of San Antonio comprises what, 60% of the metro population? Compared to Denver, which is less that 25% of the metro. The city would be assuming a much higher burden here if we were to build/support some sort of massive camp/rehab program for the whole metro area. We'd meed a metropolitan (probably new authority) solution...which would instantly enshrine that as a permanent entity. We want to eliminate homelessness here, not set it in stone.

Not to mention, a lot of the things you added don't need to be handled by the city. If veterans aren't being helped adequately, we need to hammer the VA, not create duplicative services. Same for mental illness, which is handled by the State DHS. And other things, like financial counseling, are better handled through other community groups. Every county also has job search programs, which can be built upon at the community level, but certainly do not need to be replaced. Even religious groups have a role to play here. Maybe the city can be a clearinghouse for information on accessing services - and the police will be, presumably, under the camping ban - but taking it all in under a single umbrella is a terrible idea.

Welcome to Denver, by the way! Make sure to join our happy family over in the Mountain West subforum. It might be about time for another meet; we've added a lot of new faces in the last 6 months or so, and most of us do know each other in the real world.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

When I was in Denver I just got used to ignoring them while walking down the 16th street mall. The only part of the central city I found to be completely unbearable was the area around the Capitol mall which was looking like some kind of hobo camp.

Western cities have got in the worst though. There must be some cultural thing in the western US where on one hand nobody seems concerned about the mounting number of people down on their luck in society, but then doesn't seem bothered if they just hang around and set up tents and piss on the sidewalk either.

All large cities obviously have a homeless element, but I think that the warmer-weather cities have the largest homeless populations. Los Angeles seems to be America's homelessness capital, but places like San Francisco, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, etc are not that far behind.

I also think that there is a huge amount of concern for the homeless in these cities, just judging by the sheer number of organizations and websites geared toward this issue. I know it's in the news quite often in Atlanta, so there is a great deal of concern (if not for the actual people, at least for the problems it causes and for the reputation of the city).

[Boquillas]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Umm, no. A concentrated homeless ghetto is not the answer. The answer is dispersed, mixed income, permanent housing, with supporting services throughout the community, that reintegrates people into the city, rather than shunts them off to some massive camp. Which, incidentally, is exactly what Denver's Road Home is doing.

Since you're new here, you should check this out: http://www.denversroadhome.org/

Besides, even if that was a good idea (it's not), the city of San Antonio comprises what, 60% of the metro population? Compared to Denver, which is less that 25% of the metro. The city would be assuming a much higher burden here if we were to build/support some sort of massive camp/rehab program for the whole metro area. We'd meed a metropolitan (probably new authority) solution...which would instantly enshrine that as a permanent entity. We want to eliminate homelessness here, not set it in stone.

Not to mention, a lot of the things you added don't need to be handled by the city. If veterans aren't being helped adequately, we need to hammer the VA, not create duplicative services. Same for mental illness, which is handled by the State DHS. And other things, like financial counseling, are better handled through other community groups. Every county also has job search programs, which can be built upon at the community level, but certainly do not need to be replaced. Even religious groups have a role to play here. Maybe the city can be a clearinghouse for information on accessing services - and the police will be, presumably, under the camping ban - but taking it all in under a single umbrella is a terrible idea.

Welcome to Denver, by the way! Make sure to join our happy family over in the Mountain West subforum. It might be about time for another meet; we've added a lot of new faces in the last 6 months or so, and most of us do know each other in the real world.

Thanks for the welcome!

I won't pretend I know whether or not San Antonio's idea is a good one, but it's not a camp/ghetto by any stretch of the imagination (the homeless aren't being shunted there--if anything, it's hard to get in), and the services aren't all administered by the city. I think their idea is to collect diverse services and agencies and put them in one spot. The VA is right there, on the campus, as well as religious organizations, the SA housing authority, etc. http://www.havenforhope.org/new/partners.aspx

San Antonio has some mixed-income housing around the city, and, obviously, has nowhere near the scale of a homeless problem as Denver. But they are certainly thinking about the problem.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

They can't very well let you into a shelter if you won't put down the bottle/pipe either.

This place doesn't require sobriety -- that way they can provide access to the most vulnerable homeless and hopefully reduce harm they do to themselves with a more stable environment. City commissioner Nick Fish: "I ultimately think it's counterproductive to say we won't house you unless you play by a certain set of rules when we know some people can't get there. I think the evidence shows that by stabilizing someone's life, we have a better chance of changing their life, and we can't reach people when they're on the streets."

[texcolo]

Originally Posted by Boquillas

I just moved to Denver this month from San Antonio, and was struck by just how visible the homeless problem is here.

In San Antonio about 2 years ago they built Haven for Hope. It's kind of a huge shelter/rehabilitation and counseling center that deals with every aspect of homelessness-- substance abuse, mental illness, financial counseling and advice, veterans' issues, family homelessness, and it's really hardcore about the rehabilitation/reintegration aspect. A lot of the folks there go on to get jobs.

It's the largest facility of its kind in the U.S.-- 15 buildings on 37 acres, housing about 1600 homeless on a given night, and it's just east of downtown SA.

Maybe something like that is the answer for Denver.

So, when are we going to see killer drawings of downtown Denver and it's environs?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

This place doesn't require sobriety -- that way they can provide access to the most vulnerable homeless and hopefully reduce harm they do to themselves with a more stable environment. City commissioner Nick Fish: "I ultimately think it's counterproductive to say we won't house you unless you play by a certain set of rules when we know some people can't get there. I think the evidence shows that by stabilizing someone's life, we have a better chance of changing their life, and we can't reach people when they're on the streets."

This may sound crass, but jail seems an easier, cheaper, and more effective alternative to housing folks in this category than trying to build accommodations in for every possible addiction and malady in our emergency shelter programs. If you can't play by the rules for 8 hours to have a roof over your head at night, then you can be dealt with by the system best-equipped (and best-funded) to deal with those sorts of problems.

Homeless shelters are meant to solve, first and foremost, the problem of lack of shelter.

Mental illness is best dealt with my the mental health system. Addiction is best dealt with through addiction programs, the health care system, and/or the correctional system. I do not feel we need to solve all of these problems simultaneously, nor do I think the shelter programs (largely run by charities) are the best place to do that.