Thread by @shayshinecastle

Moving on to tonight's public hearing: Banning tents on public property.

Presentation:
documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

This is part of larger effort to stop unsheltered people from living in public places, including with increased removal of homeless camps. It was last discussed May 11 as part of annual homeless update.
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1392280…

How the city's camping ban works right now is that it requires "activities of daily living" before cops can consider it violated, so they can't remove tents that aren't being lived/slept in overnight.

The city has argued that it makes it more difficult to remove camps before they get established.

If council passes this tent ban (incredibly likely), cops can ticket ppl as soon as tents are set up, or even as they're being set up.

Also part of tonight: Disallowing propane tanks without a permit. These are often used to keep people warm or, the city says, to make meth. (I'm not all that familiar with meth production, so I can't weigh in on that)

There were some propane tank explosions over the past year, and fires, which caused this issue to be elevated.

Oh, also propane tanks are used to make food. And, according to staff, pot butter and, one time, a flame thrower.

They're also a common form of currency among the unhoused, according to city attorney Sandra Llanes.

1 tank would be allowed (under 20 lbs) with a park permit
Multiple would also be allowed with special event permit

RE: tent ban - shade structures exempt
“a structure such as an umbrella or awning that provides overhead covering or weather protection but not designed for overnight use or privacy and cannot be fully enclosed.”

Shade structures still banned between sundown and sunrise (no sun)

I love when the city undercuts itself inadvertently, like when it said this in notes: “Since 2016, there have been a growing number of encampments in city public spaces”

Boulder's camping ban went into effect in 2016. dailycamera.com/2016/09/03/bou…

So, clearly not working.

Of course, important to note that homelessness has increased nationally since that time, and housing costs have increased exponentially — the biggest driver of homelessness.

The council majority has argued that we just need more and better enforcement of the camping ban and *that's* why it hasn't worked in 5 years.

Experts on homelessness, of course, disagree. They unilaterally condemn criminalization of homelessness and find that it only exacerbates homelessness bc it displaces ppl, moves them around, subjects them to cops and courts, etc.

Anyway, Boulder is doing an 18-month "trial" of aggressive removals, plus this new tent ban, to see if it will work this time.

Joseph asked about the propane tank ban, and whether possession should be illegal. Why not just use?

Carey Weinheimer from BPD: "Possession is going to be much easier for us to enforce than use." We don't always catch them using the tanks, and empty tanks can be a hazard.

Joseph: I'm still concerned that possession is too strict.

"I'm just a council member who's not really at the front lines, but someone just having a propane tank and someone using it, to me it seems like two different things," Joseph says.

Joseph asks about penalities
Llanes: All municipal violations are subject to up to $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

(Actually $2,650 after council upped the max penalties tonight.)

Swetlik: Is that per propane tank? So if they had 10, they'd get 900 days in jail?
Llanes: I believe we would just charge the one count.

Important to note that Boulder's courts often don't charge fines to indigent and low-income residents. They do have some good diversion.

But still. Ppl can and do end up in jail and/or owing $$.

Swetlik: Are those the same penalties for the tent ban?
Llanes: Yes.

A lot of time, when we have new laws, we do education ahead of time, Llanes says. Officers have discretion to issue citation or not.

Swetlik: I know the max penalty is $1K or 90 days in jail, but what are the actual penalties being handed down?

Llanes: It would be unusual to have any jail time associated with something like this. It would more likely be a fine or some other type of penalty.

Swetlik: So it would prob be fair to say this isn't going to get encampments off the street, since we aren't going to jail people.

Llanes: Right. ... The intent is to regulate. If people don't comply, the option would be to confiscate the tent.

"Arrest is always an option or a possibility if things escalate and get out of hand," Llanes says.

Swetlik: So this isn't going to get ppl off the streets? And into jails?

Weinheimer: Often when we remove camps, ppl move 150 ft away and set up their tent during the daytime, which is perfectly legal.

"The intent behind this ordinance is to make a level playing field between open space outside city limits" (where tents are never allowed) and city parks (where tents are currently allowed during the day), Weinheimer says.

Friend: Have other cities done this? Have their been legal challenges?
Llanes: Not on something like this. Challenges are mostly to camping bans.

Friend: Our current camping ban requires certain days of notice before being removed. How does this new tent ban work? What are the notices involved?

Great question. Hadn't thought of that.

Llanes: We provide 72 hours of written notice now before removing camps. But then also a verbal notice if people are present. When we return, we have outreach ppl to connect them with services. "Then the cleanup begins."

Weinheimer: We always start with verbal warnings. If that doesn't work, we do a summons. If that doesn't work, then we can seize the tent.

This aligns with open space. There is no requirement for notice. They can be cited on sight.

So if I understand correctly, Boulder is basically removing the requirement to give 72 hours notice to remove tents/camps...?

That's a much bigger deal than I thought it was, in that case.

Denver courts just required cops to give longer notice before removals. So this might be problematic.

Friend asking that now.

Llanes: Those cases were for larger encampments, which require much more notice, but what we're talking about here is a tent. So I don't think that standard applies.

Friend: So we're not worried about legal challenges?
Llanes: Not at this point.

8 ppl signed up for public comment. First 3 are anti-homeless folks.

Elaine Dannemiller, who earlier spoke about crime. (Boulder's starting to go down from the pandemic, except for property crime)

She supports this tent ban.

"Our creek and public spaces have become unsafe. Public parks are not meant to be pop-up subdivisions or shelters for everyone who comes to Boulder with no lodging."

Shari Hack also supports.

"It will allow the police to adequately do their job instead of us tying their hands where a tent-dweller can just move or get a 72-hr notice."

"Illegal campers" — also known as unsheltered individuals — "have been running amok in Boulder for way too long," Hack says. "The residents of Boulder, we're sick and tired of being sick and tired of this situation."

"We are begging you, please do something. We don't want to end up like San Francisco. ... We are a compassionate community, but enabling ppl to camp outside, pollute, human defecation everywhere, polluting the environment... it's just insane."

Hack says she sees pictures on NextDoor. "I don't even go... I can't go" on the bike paths, Pearl Street.

I was on the paths and Pearl Street today. Very busy and full of people.

Chris Centeno: "The camping ban really can't be enforced tonight. It's basically a game of whack-a-mole."

Centeno lamenting "activists" that provide food, tents, etc. to unhoused people and share "anti-police messages."

Barbara Appel: We need to be compassionate in treating homelessness. Given them tents and allowing them to remain unhoused is unethical and not helpful.

Would like to point out that not allowing ppl to live/sleep somewhere is not the same as providing them housing or helping. This ordinance does nothing to provide help or services... again, experts say camping ban keeps ppl homeless longer.

This argument really chaps my ass the most. "We're doing the compassionate thing." Bish, you are literally doing the ONE THING all experts say is THE WORST.

Cannot state that strongly enough. I've spent a year researching this. I even called, at Mayor Weaver's suggestion, the National League of Cities to get "the other side" on camping bans.

The other side being that camping bans are somehow OK.

The NLC sent me 20+ pages of reports about the importance of investing in services and housing. Not one endorsement of / evidence for camping bans.

And suggesting that ppl who are against camping bans somehow want to keep ppl on the streets is so freaking disingenuous. They want ppl to get housed and help! Which they cannot do if they are being displaced!

On that, both "sides" are in agreement: They don't want ppl living on the streets. That's literally the one thing they agree on! Don't get it twisted.

Wallach: Encampments have been an environmental disaster. Tents and propane tanks on public lands really cannot be part of that answer.

"We need to return our public spaces to the citizens and residents of Boulder," Wallach says. He's supporting this ordinance. No shit.

Young attempts to forestall anymore discussion by moving to pass this ordinance. It will have to be done on emergency vote, bc this is a first reading. I think that requires 6 votes (super majority) but I'm not sure.

Wallach seconds.

Weaver confirming this needs 6 votes to pass. What happens if we get 5, he asks?

It will simply go to second reading, which means it will take a bit longer to go into effect. 30 days, I think.

Affect? I think I used the wrong one.

Gah, idk. I'm tired.

Swetlik: Most of us are not intrested in ppl camping by the creek. But fundamentally, I'm not sure this is going to change that. We can pass all the laws we want that have no effect but to give someone a summons, and they'll return to life with even less than they had...

... plus an arrest record that is not going to help them get back into society. Every law we pass is a further chance for ppl not to be reintegrated into society."

Swetlik: By our police dept own words, it sounded like all it's going to do is maybe have ppl owe a fine, go to jail for a few days and be right back on the street where they were. It doesn't sound like much of a solution.

"I don't want to set the public up to think it's going to make a difference, bc I don't think it will," Swetlik says.

Literally every expert agrees. The only difference it makes is to make it worse.

Young talking about the emails council gets from ppl who are "exhausted by this."

"It may not solve the problem, but it is a step we can take to address the problem."

It's a regional problem, and I do hope our regional efforts to address this (homelessness) "start to bear fruit soon," Young says.

Friend: We do a lot of good things on homelessness in this city, and I think that gets lost in these conversations.

I think ppl decide if you're a good person based on whether or not you support a ban. It's not that simple.

I don't favor criminalizing the mere act of sleeping or existing if you are a person who is unhoused. Punitive measures have the potential to chase ppl to smaller mountain towns, where they have less resources to get support, Friend says.

We have gaps in our system, Friend says. People are going to be unsheltered. This is not a strategic step without us adding to housing and fixing the gaps in our system.

"We looked hard at the no without looking at the additional yes-es that are needed," Friend says.

Brockett is going to support this tent ban.

"But make no mistake, it's not goign to solve any problems around homelessness. The same # of ppl are going to be homeless as before."

Ppl should be able to take a nap in the park, but using a tent is essentially taking that space and removing it from the public, Brockett says.

"Tonight we've got an additional rule, but we have to keep looking at all the pieces of the puzzle," Brockett says.

Joseph: When would enforcement start if we pass this tonight on emergency?
Llanes: Immediately.
Joseph: Do we have signs in parks informing ppl of the propane tank ban?
Llanes: There are no signs required.

Joseph: These fines could really send someone into further poverty. Is there a way of reducing those fines?

Just as a reminder, council earlier tonight *increased* the max potential fine for all municipal violations. (I mean, it hasn't been increased since the 80s, but still)

It feels like she didn't read the packet or is aware of what she voted on earlier tonight.

Joseph: I don't think I could vote for this tonight. I'm sure you're going to get the 6 votes to pass by emergency. People wouldn't know whether we have this law... it would be enforced right away. I can't support that tonight.

They will still have 6 votes, since Brockett is supporting.

Swetlik, Friend and Joseph likely dissenting.

Weaver: Health and safety are our responsibility, first and foremost.

"Tents are a taking of public space ... establishing themselves as the de facto owner of that space."

Weaver reversing the logic of those arguing against this: Letting someone set up a tent doesn't add services or housing, or help ppl, he says.

Plus, Weaver adds, our courts system is set up to divert unhoused people and connect them with services.

Wallach: Nobody in any jurisdiction has come up with great solutions to this problem (homelessness).

Not true.

Two Wallach sighs in the past minute alone.

This is not the end of the road, Wallach says. We will continue to work on homelessness.

Brockett: Can we give legislative direction that cops first educate rather than ticket? In case folks aren't aware of the new law?

(Trust me, they aren't. I read the damn packet and still didn't understand how big of a change this was.)

Llanes says yes, council can give that direction.

Brockett: It's important to me that this not result in immediate confiscation of tents. That may be the only shelter they have.

Weinheimer: "Confiscating a tent will be our last resort. With someone refusing to leave, that would probably be the next logical step."

We typically get compliance after 72-hr notice. It's been very rare we have to physically arrest someone for not leaving, Weinheimer says.

And if we confiscate the tent, it will be kept as evidence.

Brockett: So it will be retrievable?
Weinheimer: Yes.

Swetlik, Friend, Joseph vote no. As predicted.

Everyone else votes for it. It passes.

So this goes immediately into effect. Tents no longer allowed on public property in the city and, if I'm understanding correctly, does not require 72-hr notice. Ppl can be removed immediately. Well, their tents, anyway.

I feel like I dropped the ball on this one. I didn't remember about the notice or realize that would change. In that case, it's a much bigger deal. I should have covered it better. I'm sorry.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.