Denver Non-Development / Civic Discussion Thread

[SirLucasTheGreat]

People are throwing around strawmen arguments quite freely around here. I feel like bunt was pretty specific in delineating the sort of offenses that should be enforced. Nobody is advocating for the broad incarceration of people for being homeless. If somebody is smoking meth in public, the laws against that should be enforced. I don't think whatever sympathies that an individual may well deserve for their unprivileged economic status should exempt them from basic laws that we enact democratically through our elected representatives. Camping bans are a more difficult subject but provided that we offer enough services and shelter, I think they are perfectly reasonable and I have no compulsion to cater to those that refuse social services and treatment.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Also, I really hate the gratuitous invocation of fascism in this context. It is like people calling Biden a communist. Just because you disagree with someone, that does not make them Hitler or Stalin. I consider myself fairly left, I would love to see all corporations convert (through incentives) to worker cooperatives with democratically elected boards. However, I really wish people on the left would use more nuanced language when having political disagreements because branding any thought to the right of Jacobin as fascist is a surefire to lose credibility.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Is it that hard to admit that you support harsh punishment? That the murmurings on the board have been about defunding homeless programs and throwing them all in jail? Is it difficult to talk calmly about how regressive prison solutions for addiction have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the issue?

Let me break this down. "Harsh" is a rather subjective and relative term. But sure, if you say so.

As for prison being "ineffective at preventing the issue." Which issue? At preventing crime? Prison solutions absolutely reduce crime - the data are bearing that out. I assume you saw that Brauchler/Morrissey (bipartisan) report last week. Violent crime is up 35% in Colorado from 2011 to last year — while rising only 3% nationwide. Justice reform is the cause of that. This is not everywhere, it is objectively worse here. (I won't bother to link to the 10 articles locally in the last week going through the number - no doubt, you will say they are biased anyways). At preventing homelessness? I don't care if prison prevents homelessness. Not the issue.

Although, I will state the obvious, that choosing to sleep on the streets is itself a crime here. If you insist on not using the shelter beds available, then that is a choice with consequences.

Originally Posted by mojiferous

And it must really sting to think that someone thinks your views on society are regressive. I mean, you've long been cranky on the board, but I didn't realize that your opinions have metastasized into something even more terrible, because you went right for the personal insult and hope for harm, because I dared to say that collectively punishing the homeless is evil. )

You clearly think the camping ban is inhumane, counterproductive, possibly even illegal. The large majority of Denverites disagree. The voters upheld the camping ban by a large margin. I am no doubt cranky. And a majority of Denverites are cranky that our laws are not being enforced.

I suppose you can have authoritarianism by popular consent... if thinking the camping ban should be enforced, or that open drug use should be enforced, makes me a Nazi, well, then Nuremberg here I come.

Originally Posted by mojiferous

The urge to punish and imprison vs rehabilitate.

To be clear, I am not interested in either punishment or rehabilitation. I am interested in law and order. Public safety. And separation of law-breakers from law abiding citizens, as I said.

I don't care if prison is punishment or the Ritz. And I don't really care if they get help or not. I just want the crazy off the streets. If we want to re-invest in mental institutions vs. jails, that's fine too. But off the streets.

Originally Posted by mojiferous

b) imprisonment is just as expensive for the tax payer, c) that imprisonment is not a long-term solution (unless you want some seriously dark change) and d) post-imprisonment homelessness and addiction rates (and therefore recidivism) is incredibly high. I mean, you're going to send those junkies to jail for what, 6 months? a couple years? What happens when they get out and have a (even longer) rap sheet? Without programs to help and funding they're going to be right back on the street, right back to harassing you and pooping on your sidewalk.

Don't care about the price. Don't care if it's a long-term solution. Don't care if it's a solution at all.

I agree folks should be able to get help while in jail. And/or folks should be able to get help before going to jail. But remaining on the streets in the meantime is not an option. If it's not help tomorrow, then it should be jail tomorrow. I'll leave it to the social geniuses to figure that out. But get them off the streets.

Maybe that is harsh. Or maybe it's not.

Originally Posted by mojiferous

And increasing policing is temporary as well - I have lived and worked downtown for over 20 years, and have seen a lot, and in all that time, every time the DPD gets involved and tries to solve a "problem" that problem just shifts somewhere else, usually to a neighborhood with less resources and lower incomes, and it gets worse. That isn't a solution, that's pushing the problem off on someone else.

You can't solve this with more policing.

Abolish the police, got it.

When Congress flips next year, that, right there, will be part of the reason.

Originally Posted by mojiferous

It may satisfy your urge for revenge or punishment, but it will not solve the problem. And that is also why I say it is authoritarian and fascistic. Because you aren't solving anything other than the urge to punish.

No urge to punish. Urge to enforce the law and remove those who will not abide from our presence. Give them pillow-top mattresses and cable TV, fine by me.

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Anyway, my arguments on here about this have been that homelessness and addiction are societal problems, not just Denver-related, or weed-related, or somehow the fault of whatever group or politician gets you salty at the moment, and that IF YOU WANT CHANGE we as a city need serious solutions that will require more funding and not just cracking heads. This is not just a problem for Denver. This is not costing more here than elsewhere (well, more in Denver than the suburbs). It is not 100k/person/year. It is definitely worse than it has been in a long time. And because of demographic changes it is affecting white upper middle-class people in city centers for the first time in a couple generations. And most importantly, it is not because we don't imprison enough people (seriously, we have more people in prison in this country than anywhere else in the world. Like levels nearing or surpassing Stalin's gulags.)

The problem is not just homelessness. The problem is crime. Conflating the two is convenient, but most people will not rest until the latter is solved (or they will leave Denver - or not come back - I know the state of downtown is influencing our own return-to-work calculus). The former - well, Mayor Hickenlooper promised to solve homelessness years and years ago. The problem today is not just worse, it is different.

If we Gulag our way back to exactly the way the streets of Denver felt when Hickenlooper made his promise, I think most people would consider that a win. Even if it didn't fix the problem you say needs fixing.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

I wasn't responding to you Bunt, but seriously, this is your response? Is it that hard to admit that you support harsh punishment? That the murmurings on the board have been about defunding homeless programs and throwing them all in jail? Is it difficult to talk calmly about how regressive prison solutions for addiction have been proven to be ineffective at preventing the issue? Is it that you don't want to admit that some of these comments have been lumping a group of people in together for collective punishment?

The conversation was about whether spending money on homelessness is worthwhile, and whether that funding should instead be pulled because some people are violent. I never said that violent people shouldn't be jailed, just that we shouldn't just throw everyone in jail and pull funding because you got scared a little bit.

And it must really sting to think that someone thinks your views on society are regressive. I mean, you've long been cranky on the board, but I didn't realize that your opinions have metastasized into something even more terrible, because you went right for the personal insult and hope for harm, because I dared to say that collectively punishing the homeless is evil.

And let me double down on that - punishing people for their economic status is authoritarian and fascistic. I wasn't talking about never punishing the scary juggalos that follow you home from work Bunty, I was talking about jailing them ALL because of the actions of a few. I'm not talking about ignoring assaults or violence, but of increasing police budgets and dragging them all off because a few junkies are problematic. I'm talking about the issues inherent in decreasing services while increasing punitive measures and how the urge to do so is authoritarian in nature. The urge to punish and imprison vs rehabilitate.

And most importantly I'm trying to communicate to all of you that the solution to this will have to be multi-layered and will be expensive. If you think that pulling funding for services and simply meting out punishment will make things better, you're going to be in for a rude awakening. A) threats of punishment will not prevent this behavior, b) imprisonment is just as expensive for the tax payer, c) that imprisonment is not a long-term solution (unless you want some seriously dark change) and d) post-imprisonment homelessness and addiction rates (and therefore recidivism) is incredibly high. I mean, you're going to send those junkies to jail for what, 6 months? a couple years? What happens when they get out and have a (even longer) rap sheet? Without programs to help and funding they're going to be right back on the street, right back to harassing you and pooping on your sidewalk.

And increasing policing is temporary as well - I have lived and worked downtown for over 20 years, and have seen a lot, and in all that time, every time the DPD gets involved and tries to solve a "problem" that problem just shifts somewhere else, usually to a neighborhood with less resources and lower incomes, and it gets worse. That isn't a solution, that's pushing the problem off on someone else.

You can't solve this with more policing. It may satisfy your urge for revenge or punishment, but it will not solve the problem. And that is also why I say it is authoritarian and fascistic. Because you aren't solving anything other than the urge to punish.

Anyway, my arguments on here about this have been that homelessness and addiction are societal problems, not just Denver-related, or weed-related, or somehow the fault of whatever group or politician gets you salty at the moment, and that IF YOU WANT CHANGE we as a city need serious solutions that will require more funding and not just cracking heads. This is not just a problem for Denver. This is not costing more here than elsewhere (well, more in Denver than the suburbs). It is not 100k/person/year. It is definitely worse than it has been in a long time. And because of demographic changes it is affecting white upper middle-class people in city centers for the first time in a couple generations. And most importantly, it is not because we don't imprison enough people (seriously, we have more people in prison in this country than anywhere else in the world. Like levels nearing or surpassing Stalin's gulags.)

This is nothing but mindless equivocation, hyperbole, and strawman fallacy.

So we can't enforce laws (or have accessible sidewalks, to hell with ADA) because that would be "criminalizing economic status." If you address every question from a purely ideological standpoint, you're just as delusional as the far-right. There is no democratic or republican way to pick up the trash, but if you want to be a purely ideological creature, I'm sure you can find one. We can just make trash pick-up on an affirmative action basis, force white people to contract for their own City services, or on the flip side some Jim Crow laws to create discriminatory access to public services like trash pick-up. There are so many new and exciting ways we can circle the drain together if we want to open that can of worms. We won't even notice the tents and needles once the City resembles one giant landfill in the near future!

BTW - I know you don't want any facts that may burst your ideological bubble - but this is the study that concluded homelessness in Denver is a $502.9 million industry (whose product is always more homelessness):

https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/t...-metro-denver/

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

I wasn't responding to you Bunt, but seriously, this is your response? Is it that hard to admit that you support harsh punishment? ...

Thank you for taking the high road instead of going down the well of nastiness that everyone (including myself) has seems to have enthusiastically fallen down. I'd love to see this board spend more energy exploring solutions that actually work rather than simply venting frustrations and grasping at punitive strategies that won't actually solve the problem. This is an emotional issue, for sure, but as we've rehashed it over and over, I do hope that we can try and be more rational and empathetic.

My wife is getting her master's degree in Psychology & Neuroscience of Mental Health with a focus on addiction and I've been reading some of her course materials on the side. What's evident is that opiate addiction is not something that can be treated via imprisonment or classical Pavlovian techniques (for example, paying people to provide clean urine samples works until the minute the payments end). There are cases where a person that was 2 years sober due to being incarcerated experienced intense withdrawal symptoms the moment they crossed the fence on their way out. Simple sights, sounds, and smells are massive triggers that make addicts feel so physically ill that they are willing to throw their lives away, abandon children, and betray loved ones just to get their fix. This is something I hope to never understand firsthand. Addiction, which leads to chronic homelessness isn't a simple vice relegated to "bad people", but a sickness that can affect anyone.

As an upper-middle class white person living downtown, I too am disgusted by the trash, annoyed by the tents, and sad at the sights. However, I also want to see the problem fixed systemically, rather than swept out of my view. This is why I harp on sweeps and any kind of harsh rhetoric. It just doesn't produce the results that we all want.

EDIT: I'm all for enforcing the camping ban, sweeps, and enforcing current laws around drug use. However, the thing that I'm focused on is that it absolutely doesn't solve the underlying problems. It's like ordering a Diet Coke with your Triple-Bacon Cheeseburger. The law-and-order types on this board will be personally happy when the homeless are swept into exclusively industrial areas, but does that actually address the real issues (mental health, drug use, poverty, lack of affordable housing), or will it just continue to ensure that we have a new generation of homeless on the street for all eternity?

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Drugs are a large component of it. Send them to rehab if necessary. The issue with meth and fentanyl is that they are synthetic and do not require international trafficking. Makes it harder to really cut off supply. Whatever answer there is to the solution, it surely can't be let people smoke meth in the RTD bus terminal bathroom nor should that be tolerated as a matter of public health let alone criminal justice.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

People are throwing around strawmen arguments quite freely around here. I feel like bunt was pretty specific in delineating the sort of offenses that should be enforced. Nobody is advocating for the broad incarceration of people for being homeless. If somebody is smoking meth in public, the laws against that should be enforced. I don't think whatever sympathies that an individual may well deserve for their unprivileged economic status should exempt them from basic laws that we enact democratically through our elected representatives. Camping bans are a more difficult subject but provided that we offer enough services and shelter, I think they are perfectly reasonable and I have no compulsion to cater to those that refuse social services and treatment.

Yeah, this.

What's the point of funding and providing all the housing and services in the world, if we're also going to allow urban camping and unsheltered/service-resistent homelessness to fester and blanket the city?

We are ALL for funding housing and services for those who need it. In fact, it's out of this mission, that we don't want juggalo camps to establish a Seattle-style Autonomous Zone and shield themselves under the same guise, and we also can't step up for every city that spends less than we do. Kansas City needs to take care of Kansas City's problem (heroin-addicted juggalos). Really the Federal government needs to own this chronic homelessness mess because five cities stepping up isn't cutting it, and the Feds also created it in so many different ways. Everything is systemically screwed up but that's no excuse to take a dump on my porch. Sorry not sorry. Screw that and screw anyone who keeps defending anything and everything that a homeless person may ever do. YOU are the problem.

We could build a fu*king subway system, upzone the whole city, double the airport, fix every underperforming school, and have a new park in every Inverted L neighborhood for the cost of this disaster. Instead I now vote against every bond measure because it's just going to go to some carpetbagger MSW's from Berkeley who are going to lecture us on how mean and privileged we are for wanting a nice city.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

As an upper-middle class white person living downtown, I too am disgusted by the trash, annoyed by the tents, and sad at the sights. However, I also want to see the problem fixed systemically, rather than swept out of my view. This is why I harp on sweeps and any kind of harsh rhetoric. It just doesn't produce the results that we all want.

I think the sweeps do produce the results that we want. We don't want tent cities, shantytowns, drug addicts using in public, people in crisis screaming into the air, etc. The sweeps reinforce that none of these things should be a semi-permanent, let alone permanent presence. If there weren't other solutions I'd be more sympathetic to the position that they are inhumane, but the conditions that the majority of the chronically homeless are living in are already inhumane.

When the camping ban was enacted we were spending $50M of city money annually on the issue. Since then we've added an additional $100M annually for affordable housing, homeless services, and mental health. There are new shelters, day shelters, STAR teams (why there isn't a team stationed at Union Station 24/7 is maddening), transitional/supportive housing etc. now available with a total restructuring of the bureaucracy to deliver these services. In 2022 we will be spending $270M on these issues- that's a shit-ton of funding from which which we need to see a markedly demonstrative and measurable improvement in the homeless situation. If $1.5 BILLION over a decade isn't enough, then what is?

All that money enabling a ton of services is a nice carrot. But the issue also requires a stick that's been made less effective due to some of the criminal justice and police reforms over the last couple of years. I don't think voters envisioned violent offenders being released on PR bonds and police lacking the ability charge and hold people for assault and theft when they supported these measures. We didn't ask for a suspension in the enforcement of our laws- rather that the law is applied in a more equitable and just fashion. What's going on right now isn't that.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think the sweeps do produce the results that we want. We don't want tent cities, shantytowns, drug addicts using in public, people in crisis screaming into the air, etc. The sweeps reinforce that none of these things should be a semi-permanent, let alone permanent presence. If there weren't other solutions I'd be more sympathetic to the position that they are inhumane, but the conditions that the majority of the chronically homeless are living in are already inhumane.

When the camping ban was enacted we were spending $50M of city money annually on the issue. Since then we've added an additional $100M annually for affordable housing, homeless services, and mental health. There are new shelters, day shelters, STAR teams, transitional/supportive housing etc. now available with a total restructuring of the bureaucracy to deliver these services. In 2022 we will be spending $270M on these issues- that's a shit-ton of funding from which which we need to see a markedly demonstrative and measurable improvement in the homeless situation. If $1.5 BILLION over a decade isn't enough, then what is?

All that money enabling a ton of services is a nice carrot. But the issue also requires a stick that's been made less effective due to some of the criminal justice and police reforms over the last couple of years. I don't think voters envisioned violent offenders being released on PR bonds and police lacking the ability charge and hold people for assault and theft when they supported these measures. We didn't ask for a suspension in the enforcement of our laws- rather that the law is applied in a more equitable and just fashion. What's going on right now isn't that.

Thank you for more calmly and eloquently stating what I've been trying to get across.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. We pay enough hundreds of millions of dollars on this issue. Don't grow the issue, blame us, take away our sense of safety and community, and then make us fix it all again.

I've always liked Hancock but his administration (and more specifically this Council and the political climate) have thrown accountability out the window. Also Paul Pazen is trying his best, he is NOT the problem, but he and his police force are in the eye of the storm.

The thing about accountability is you can never permanently eliminate it, and there will be a reckoning for all of this someday soon. People who actually live, work, and vote here are getting fed-up. Accountability is going to be a beautiful thing because we pay too much and care too much for Denver to not be a great place.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Also, has there ever been a ballot measure proposing a tax increase for spending on homeless services that the voters of Denver have ever voted down? I surely have never voted no and I don't recall any such spending increase being defeated. The voters have spared no generosity in throwing money at the issue. Just thinking about those laughable comments about Denver being a conservative city as if the voters here have ever met a tax increase they didn't like (minus the Hancock Arena).

[TakeFive]

Word on the street is that your Nuremberg performance was well received

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I suppose you can have authoritarianism by popular consent... if thinking the camping ban should be enforced, or that open drug use should be enforced, makes me a Nazi, well, then Nuremberg here I come.

BTW, that may have been your best post in a long time. I miss your cranky.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Although, I will state the obvious, that choosing to sleep on the streets is itself a crime here. If you insist on not using the shelter beds available, then that is a choice with consequences.

What would it take to sue the city for not enforcing its own laws? I know that each officer can make a choice to ticket someone for speeding, or other minor offenses, but it's clearly unfair. If somebody parks on my street for more than 2 hours, they get a ticket. If I park on the sidewalk, block a driveway, park in the tree lawn, or any number of violations, I will get a ticket. Why can't one sue the city for this lopsided enforcement that is clearly meant to punish the unfortunate few that have a reliable income?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

What would it take to sue the city for not enforcing its own laws? I know that each officer can make a choice to ticket someone for speeding, or other minor offenses, but it's clearly unfair. If somebody parks on my street for more than 2 hours, they get a ticket. If I park on the sidewalk, block a driveway, park in the tree lawn, or any number of violations, I will get a ticket. Why can't one sue the city for this lopsided enforcement that is clearly meant to punish the unfortunate few that have a reliable income?

Helpful: https://denvergazette.com/news/gover...bbb52802e.html

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Not sure where you've been the last year but in Denver and especially on this board you CAN and most WANT to do this. You can say they are ALL deserving of jail time and being rounded up and insult them all with no consequence.... because they "aren't a protected class" lol.

You live in a performatively liberal, but in all reality pretty conservative city (drug laws and pretty museums aside). Thank all the gods imaginary and also imaginary that this board (along with friends/family there) showed me that before I continued too many efforts to move back.

I agree 100% - Denver has really become something different than it used to be - it's becoming more like Boulder: performatively liberal but really secretly worried more about money and protecting the monied classes than anything else. People paying lip service to being worried about housing prices but really enjoying the increase in equity and (I have heard this from people's mouths) happy about the fact that it is driving out some of the more "undesirable elements". In West Denver this usually means anyone living on the edge of poverty - the family with "too many kids and not enough money to support them", the people in the projects, the older guy who has a weird collection of junk in his yard. The "new" Denverites are the people who put BLM signs in their front yard and then involve the cops in everything, expecting the DPD to resolve any issue with their neighbors that they don't have the guts to do themselves. It's all talk and no desire to actually do anything.

It's kind of the same with this forum, to be honest - I appreciate the development news and have been on here for almost two decades, so it's a part of my daily routine to check in, but there is a lot of surface talk about urbanism and development undercut by a distinct suburban-old-man vibe - the city is too dirty! I don't agree with my neighbors so they are the worst thing ever! High rises for others but not for me! And then the occasional insanely aggressive "I spend too much time on reddit" style argument thread ("strawmen! muh discourse!"). It feels like a bunch of people who moved into the city but don't actually understand what a city is or have any desire to find out what it means to live with lots of people in a small area. They want NY without the grime, think Paris is just full of dog shit, can't wait until London is nothing but empty high rise condos owned by Russians, and imagine Tokyo is nothing but neon shopping. There have been threads fretting about the homeless and crime and trash and traffic and the cost of transit and I will be honest all of them carry the distinctive stink of a bunch of people who are really urban "tourists".

Because here's the thing: I have lived and worked in downtown Denver for over 25 years. I have had seen it all - I've been threatened, got in fights, I've had guns pulled, knives flashed, seen stabbings and a (thankfully small) handful of shootings. I frequented the 15th St. Tavern and Bar Bar and went to parties and shows in warehouses and abandoned buildings that are now multi-million-dollar lofts. I've seen lives destroyed by addiction and befriended people riding trains.

And I have also actually spoken to the people working on homelessness and addiction - administrators at DHA, people with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless and Metro Caring, bureaucrats with the city and the state. I sit on a non-profit board and have connections to a lot of people deeply invested in working towards solutions for homelessness, addiction, housing inequality, and educational issues.

I have been in discussions with city officials and the DPD about many of these things, and let me tell you - most of you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You are fretting and bitching and proposing solutions that are known not to work and then patting yourselves on the back and calling yourselves geniuses.

Here's a few things:

Firstly, I actually support the camping ban with some major caveats - I don't want people camping in front of my house anymore than anyone else, there are multiple safety and health issues that are involved, and a lot of the people I have talked to in the organizations above feel somewhat similarly. The city needs a legal basis to manage what amount to shanty towns and it fills in some gaps in how trespassing and squatting are approached. THAT BEING SAID - there are two issues: 1) it should be accompanied by a comprehensive approach to housing - those people living in tents are not doing so because they just loooooove sleeping on the side of the road without sanitation and water and electricity. and 2) it was handed to DPD to be used a punitive solution to "homelessness"...

And that leads to the issue that all of you want to talk about - the effectiveness of "punishment". Because you all wank on about how "Violent crime is up 35%" and "there will be a reckoning for all of this" and whine about how "police [are] lacking the ability charge and hold people for assault and theft" and threaten that you'll all welcome Nuremberg if it means you get your precious suburban-style safety back. But here's the thing - I can smell the stink of your sources - the poorly-sourced op-eds and police union hit pieces, the Chamber of Commerce-sponsored anxiety, the reddit threads and alt-right planted talking points. The truth is much muddier. For example some of that increase in violent crime was because of lockdown and WFH-related domestic incidents, some was because CRIME IS STILL AT HISTORIC LOWS and an increase of 35% is still waaaay below what it was 20 years ago (remember how I have said I have lived in the city for a long time, well thanks for being a tourist and coming in and then freaking out the first time something goes slightly sideways, now pack your lily white bags and go back to the suburbs where you can feel safe)

Anyway - the reason I responded in the first place, and the reason you all have your panties twisted, is because you think the cops aren't aggressive enough in prosecuting junkies and the homeless, that punishments aren't harsh enough, and that fixing both of those things will make it "better". And I am here to (once again) tell you that it doesn't work like that. Firstly, you should actually speak to someone at the DPD. And I don't mean go up to one of the cops on the mall and start bitching about how unsafe you feel and how you wish the wimpy lefties in Denver would just let them start shooting all the undesirables, I mean actually speak to one on a friendly, conversational basis. If you don't know anyone in law enforcement I can introduce you to people in DPD, Aurora, Jeffco, or Douglas County and we can have this conversation together.

SO - here's the thing - we still live in a society of laws, and (thankfully) live in a system that has some checks and balances and one of those is that the police are only enforcing the law and they still have to produce evidence for the state to bring charges against someone and are not supposed to just make judgement of their own and punish a suspected criminal. And I know you want to assume those crazy junkies and aggressive homeless people are un-people and dumb and that you are the smartest cookie on the block, but let me assure you that most of them know the ins and outs of the legal system too.

Why am I going on about this? Because if you actually talk to the f'ing cops instead of reading some newspaper headline you would realize that they can only do so much - they do patrol and do talk to and check in on and arrest junkies and homeless people. For example, the cops in West Denver know a lot of the local "troublemakers" and know their families or history and I have actually seen them intercede on their behalf to try to solve a problem without sending someone to jail. They also know that anyone living a little outside the law keeps a good eye on them and when they concentrate patrols on one area to "clean it up" the visible crime stops or moves somewhere else. Enforcement is an ever-changing battle and the cops have a hard time doing anything about the people you are most worried about

I mean, perhaps most surprisingly, most junkies and dealers know the felony line for possession! And they will skirt right underneath it OR they will be using prescription drugs, which are just a headache to try to prosecute unless they're obviously dealing. You could change the possession laws (again) for a whole lot of drugs but you do NOT want to do that, because you will catch a whooole lot of people in the system that do not deserve to be there and are much closer to yourself than you want to know.

And public intoxication? Well that's an easy one, but it doesn't carry much of a punishment and requires calling paramedics or detox to haul them off before they go to jail (giving everyone else on the block time to scoot while the cops wait for detox) And once they're in jail the punishment is fairly light, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THAT EITHER. If you want to enhance sentencing for public intoxication, have at it Carrie Nation, but it will have lots of consequences.

So then there is assault - and this is an easy one to punish, IF you can prove it and IF an assault actually happens. The crusty kids and crazy junkies know that they can intimidate and yell and do everything right up to touching you and nothing will happen. Even if they do hit you and beat you up, unless it is truly egregious and you are near death, the punishment is still fairly light (no weapons and you're only bruised? it's third degree misdemeanor assault, they might get off with a fine). AND YOU DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE THAT - because it will affect you. Can you imagine if ANY assault were a felony? You get in a tussle with some dude outside of a bar and ooops! now you're going to prison and have a felony on your record.

Now, if they're threatening you, you might be able to charge them with menacing. But once again, it's a class 3 misdemeanor and a slap on the wrist unless they have a weapon. And once again (broken record here) you don't want to change that because you will experience the consequences.

I think the theme here is that unless you want these punishments applied to yourself, or you want to designate the poor as a different class of people, you have to deal with the system as it exists now. And I may consider that system may be oppressive and unfair, but despite that IT STILL does not have the consequences you think it does. The cops can't always arrest or charge someone. And if they do, that person might go away for a couple of months at most, but most will be back out on the streets within a couple days or weeks. And then they come back and maybe the cops arrest them again and the cycle continues endlessly, but without ever attempting to help the person. And so there are still homeless people and still junkies out on the streets and NOTHING IS BEING DONE.

And that is the rub and the point of my ranting - sure, those homeless people are annoying and the junkies are scary, but without going full fash you aren't going to get the results you think you are. You think that you want criminal justice system solutions for something and don't realize that to get the results massive authoritarian change would have to happen. You want to see people face consequences and don't want to experience any of those consequences yourself. So therefore, your only choice is fascism. Authoritarian policing. I'm sorry to have to explain it in a longwinded thread no one will probably read, but it's the truth. The cops are doing what they can within their set limits (THAT YOU WANT TO PRESERVE) and without lacing up your jackboots you aren't going to get a different result. We need to approach homelessness from multiple angles - fund housing, fund addiction counseling and mental health, fund job training and social services at levels higher than now in addition to any punitive action you want to take, because otherwise it will fail.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Helpful: https://denvergazette.com/news/gover...bbb52802e.html

I know this failed. But what about a class-action lawsuit? I guess all it takes in money and someone willing to start it. I can only imagine how the person who starts it would be demonized by people who stand even farther left than myself.

[mojiferous]

Oh and I forgot the most important part of the camping ban, section c: "No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation, make an arrest or otherwise enforce this section against any person unless..." which is probably the part you most want to change, because you want arrests. But once again, unless you make a major change, the arrested person will be right back out on the street in no time, just without their belongings. You could make that a felony and just throw people away, but once again, you would want to make enforcement and penalties selectively, blah blah fascism, etc. etc.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Oh and I forgot the most important part of the camping ban, section c: "No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation, make an arrest or otherwise enforce this section against any person unless..." which is probably the part you most want to change, because you want arrests. But once again, unless you make a major change, the arrested person will be right back out on the street in no time, just without their belongings. You could make that a felony and just throw people away, but once again, you would want to make enforcement and penalties selectively, blah blah fascism, etc. etc.

TL;DR

Most of us are pragmatists so propaganda is not our gig. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Only in America

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Oh and I forgot the most important part of the camping ban, section ............, etc. etc.

Forget the camping ban then. Enforce all the other laws they are breaking. Drug use in public, drug possession, open containers, illegal parking, blocking the right of way, obstructing traffic, possession of stolen property, littering, etc...! And once they have a reason to search them, they'll probably find more things to charge them with. Open fire? Expired tags? No tags?
And don't claim that they aren't all criminals. Most of the people in the big camps have committed at least one of these offenses, if not all. The camps are nothing but drug dealing (and drug making) shitholes that should be set on fire instead of cleaned up. Yes, remove the people before setting it aflame.

[gopokes21]

The funny thing is 85% of Denverites probably support how the City is slowly, and strategically, increasing camping ban enforcement as we emerge from Covid.

1. Invest in housing and services
2. Encourage humane solutions
3. Clean up encampments
4. Keep investing in housing and services
5. Crack down on drug camps and autonomous zones so people don't come here from other states

We just need #5 and we're there. I read a news article that the city had some big initiative to house 200+ people on the streets in one month. Every month should be like that.

[SnyderBock]

AI-assisted description: Mojiferous
Mojiferous J. Colossus is the pseudonym of Joe Flores, a normal human man with a completely normal sense of humor. He lurks in the dark corners of Denver, Colorado creating art and music for an audience that doesn't mind peculiarities, noise, and weirdness. These people accept his existence but they may not understand the difference between normal human beings, the "new" consciousness from outer space, and the mysterious underground shadow people.
https://www.mojiferous.com/

In theory, homelessness could be eradicated with a Universal Basic Income (adjusted annually for vost of living index of city) combined with services to house and provide care for people with substance abuse or serious mental health needs.

You could live in peace with security of Income to cover essential living costs and free to work as few hours as you want. Or no job and just create art and live poor but happy with no fear of losing a roof over your head.

This will free up the economy to replace human jobs with robotics, automation and AI. The federal government will need to replace lost income tax revenue, with a new annual robotics and automation tax on companies. Companies would pay this hefty tax in place of labor expenses. If this tax were finely tuned to be equal to what using human labor would cost, it would be an incentive for some companies to maintain some human employment. This will create just enough jobs, for the part of the population that still wants to work to earn above the livable Universal Basic Income wage.