the unhoused
Four years ago, the problem of homelessness, and the crime resulting from some members of the homeless community (known as “high utilizers”) were at the top of everyone’s concerns. Four years later, we still face many of the same problems.
But that doesn’t mean that nothing has changed. First, I believe that the community places a new emphasis on the public safety aspect of homelessness. The passage of the Safe Zones 4 Kids initiative in 2023 was an indication of that change. Similarly, the general approval in which the cleanup of the Boulder Creek Path has been viewed is another indication that Boulder does not wish to lose control over its public spaces in the effort to deal with homelessness.
Other developments have not been as fortunate. The County has cut considerable funding from its social service programs, leading to reductions in the services offered at All Roads, the City homeless shelter. Reductions in funding have also impacted critical social service organizations such as EFAA. The City’s financial condition makes it impossible for us to fill the gaps. And we are just beginning to assess the damage caused the federal government’s budget bill, which seems to take every opportunity to inflict cruelty upon those less fortunate.
In light of these conditions there is one area in which I believe we should reassess our existing policies. We can no longer pretend that we can provide a bed for all who want it, or house everyone who wishes to be housed. I wish that we could, but we lack the resources to do so, and are not likely to have such resources in the foreseeable future. As a result, we are turning away people from the All Roads shelter, and failing to provide housing for more than a small portion of the homeless community.
So here is what I would change: a few years ago, we abandoned our policy of providing a preference in beds and shelter for those with a more substantial relationship with Boulder. I believe it is time to reinstate that preference. Our obligation to those who have lived here, but have lost their homes, is greater than our obligation to those who have just arrived by bus from Ann Arbor or Madison, many of whom will soon leave. In either event we will be turning people away from the shelter, and failing to provide housing for all. Does it therefore not make sense to maximize City funds to help the members of our community, rather than indulge the fantasy that we have an unlimited ability to serve everyone who migrates here? That is the basis on which I would allocate the application of scarce resources. When we can help those who have migrated here we should (such as providing cold weather shelter to anyone who needs it), but we need to keep our eye on our first priority: to help those who actually live here.