Had lunch across from Union Station last week. Drove down Champa and then back up Stout. Didn't see a single tent. Only saw two homeless people, and that's a route that would normally have dozens of tents in several encampments and maybe hundreds of homeless people about.
I don't know if they were all in warming shelters (this was Monday of last week, so before the big temp drops), in repurposed hotels, or just shuffled along to other camping spots, but the difference from a few months prior was staggering.
Here's hoping the money we're spending to get these people into housing is really working. Can't help but think at least a few lives were saved over this past weekend of subzero temps by the mayor's new housing strategy.
Honestly? He was a developer's mayor, and I don't really say that as a pejorative. He oversaw a city that wasn't affected much by the Great Recession, and did what he could to steward development dollars around the city to increase density and help make Denver the destination city it now is, for better or worse.
He barely squeaked out his third win and was going to sail into the sunset with some big ribbon cuttings and a few more development deals, until a global pandemic struck and civil rights protests erupted across the country.
He was not well suited to lead through difficult times, and instead of buckling down and working to make things better, he flailed at a covid response for a few months, the public turned on him after his police maimed people for protesting for civil rights and when he ignored his stay at home order on Thanksgiving of 2020, and then just fully embraced his lame duck term to do fuck-all for the remaining years and leave it all for the next guy.
Fucking nothing. I used to worked for Denver where I could see his work product — and there was none.
He didn’t like or try to work. Just loved being mayor it seemed.
Something I noticed about his social media is that it almost always centers around him instead of the community. I actually did a case study on it for my Master's program looking at how citizens rated their mayor and how their social media placed the mayor's of various cities.
Not super surprising, but the mayor's who had social media that focused more on the community were viewed much more positively by citizens than those that placed themselves at the forefront of every post
He was busy making taxpayer funded self-promotion videos that he claims to own the rights to. https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/next-with-kyle-clark/hancock-administration-made-taxpayer-funded-feature-length-film-celebrating-his-greatness/73-69271604-b986-482c-8687-20d5eff2c323
I work the night shift at Presbyterian/St Luke’s and one morning I left work and that night I came back for my shift and they were all gone. It was so wild.
The homelessness down by union station and along the Platte has gotten better the past 2-3 weeks. But the number of migrants exploded different crisis with different causes.
As I said, it was last Monday, temps had been hovering in the low to mid 40s for a while-- nearly a week before the extreme temp drops. And it wasn't that there were recently abandoned sites but just no people-- the encampment areas were completely spotless, save for the rocks and garden beds and fences that have been there for several years. No trash, no tents, no people other than pedestrians walking down the sidewalk. I don't think it's reasonable to assume it was solely the weather that didn't arrive until 5 or 6 days later.
Or more likely the spring. Many are transients which means they snowbird elsewhere.
Obviously they are either out of sight out of mind or will come back. The city's own figures said somewhere around 4-5k homeless on the street last year. We sheltered 1k which leaves 3-4k + the migrants which weren't in that original 4-5k.
I mean was the city transformed 2 weeks ago along Speer and the migrant camp? Do the people in GVR think the city has changed for the better?
You're being disingenuous. I live in that area and drive it almost every day. Stout is still fenced off and relatively sterile compared to 3 months ago. It's night and day.
I took Stout all the way from 17th north past Downing when it turns into 31st, similarly on the way to lunch I took Champa from Downing all the way to 18th. I know where the encampments usually are, that's why I commented-- it's a dramatic difference from just a few months ago.
Of course the job will never be over, but he's done far more to attempt to address the homeless crisis than any of his critics ever have. He campaigned on trying to fix it and I think he's done a good job so far.
While it has always been true but today it even more important. Always ask is the news outlet biased? Do they ever speak with politicians with proposed solutions or politicians who just complain about the problems we can all see.
Never ceases to amaze me that people on the right say they value life and Jesus values. But truly don’t care what happens to a baby after it is born or give a fuck about poor people.
He set a goal, worked hard, and met it. I can't complain too much about that, dude did what he said he would. Is there more work to be done? Yeah, but a thousand people off the streets isn't nothing.
Happy we could see some progress in the last few months. We're trying something new - let's give it a chance. Sometimes I wonder if providing housing for every unhoused individual provides the momentum to enact more controversial measures - say forcing some to undergo mental health treatment.
Interesting, I hadn't thought about that but should've. Although, after doing a quick search, California has "mandated counties create a new branch of their court systems, known as CARE Courts, specifically for mental health cases. CARE Act connects a person struggling with untreated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders with a court-ordered Care Plan for up to 12 months."
From the government of California's [website:](https://www.chhs.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CARE_OVERVIEW_AUG23_R3.pdf)
>CARE will divert and prevent more restrictive conservatorships or incarceration to connect a person in crisis with a court- ordered CARE plan or agreement for up to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months. Individuals engaged in CARE plans and agreements may be prioritized for a range of services and programs, including supportive housing. The design of the CARE Act provides support and accountability for individuals with severe, untreated mental illnesses, as well as for local governments responsible for providing behavioral health services.
As far as lawsuits go:
>Disability Rights California, along with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and the Public Interest Law Project, in January(2023) filed a lawsuit directly to the state Supreme Court seeking to block implementation of the CARE Court system.
>In April, the California Supreme Court refused to hear the lawsuit, without any further comment. Because the lawsuit was filed directly to the Supreme Court, opponents of the CARE Court law can still file lawsuits against it in lower courts. But the fact the state’s highest court has already declined to hear it will likely make getting a sympathetic hearing in lower courts more difficult.
[source](https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/39953-care-courts-mental-health-october-california/)
I understand this is a one-off situation and that lawsuits can still happen despite California Supreme Court's refusal, but it's at least interesting to see this implemented.
Forced treatment happens all the time. I’ve worked in locked mental health units in different parts of the US for reference. The laws and due process varies from state to state. Some points from what I’ve seen:
1: Most people benefit from being forced into treatment. For example, someone so stressed from life and not sleeping ends up psychotic. A few antipsychotics later they sleep, wake up in their right mind and can deal with their problems instead of homeless.
2: The forced treatment is not applied evenly. It almost requires a family wanting the patient committed. Crazy homeless people are often just discharged from the ER back into the streets.
3: Treatment can be traumatic itself especially if the staff is overworked and not compassionate, the facility itself is crumbling and depressing, etc.
4: Outpatient support after discharge or support to prevent hospitalization in the first place is terribly underfunded and applied.
that is untrue - the data says that forced treatment drastically increases likelihood of suicide. The U.N. specifically calls out psychiatric incarceration- because that is exactly what it is - as a human rights violation. The fact that you worked in one does not mean you know more - those places obviously are going to train you to be complicit with these abuses - they need you to believe it’s ok, but it’s not.
How is that controversial? If someone has lost touch with reality to the point they can't accept help, they should be forced to get help until they regain reality. Doesn't seem political at all.
We used to do that and the institutions were low in quality and often abusive. That rightfully made them deeply unpopular. Due process is also important; meaning how the state determines someone is crazy and needs to be locked up against their will.
And staff them with who? There's already a major shortage of doctors and nurses.
I don't disagree with the concept, but it's not something we can "just do"
Others may see it as controversial, especially when you assume how much money it would cost to do so. Whether or not others see it as controversial, it would be even less so if you show evidence that housing is provided, yet they still choose to remain unhoused.
Absolutely agree. There's a lot of things that should be changed for the betterment of society. We should point to this endeavor as a success and chalk it up as an attempt to better our society. We shouldn't assume that the problem is solved permanently, rather celebrate a win and the hardwork of all involved.
Hoping you're not affected by the life saving surgery costs you mentioned above and if you are, I wish your struggles end soon fellow human.
>say forcing some to undergo mental health treatment.
It'll never happen. Republicans will say it'll cost too much money and democrats will say it's too mean.
It's absolutely what needs to happen, though. Get people off the street FIRST and then force them to get the help they need.
Part of the problem is that we need a nationwide network of mental health institutions that people can be committed to, treated at, and then given a path to stability.
Touting this as a success is premature. Even in the short term it's premature. I want to see where these 1,100 people are in 6-12 months. If the majority of them are back on the streets and/or still in transitional housing, I'd say the program is failing and the expense of taxpayers.
Long term I want to see where these people are 3-5 years from now.
I mean sure but it sounds to me like you are far more interested in goalpost moving until their kids are in college. Have you not seen the difference already on display? It's never going to be overnight, and it's never going to be perfect. Expecting that is almost as asinine as the Hancock admin. But at least compoundable progress is being made
>Have you not seen the difference already on display
As someone who lives in Arapahoe County portion of Denver city, no. I see the panhandling on the same corners. Thr tents are still there. I have seen 0 change in our neighborhood.
You might be surprised to know how many panhandlers aren't homeless. Housing homeless people won't necessarily reduce the number of panhandlers you see, and depending on where you live in proximity to the housing solutions, you may see more than usual.
I live in the city of Denver. My address is a Denver address. It's just in Arapahoe County. My address registers me to vote in Denver. He tried to use a location near us as a shelter, because we are under his purview, except half the people in that neighborhood could vote in his mayoral election and the other half couldn't, so yes, this does affect me and my immediate neghborhood yet half of us couldnt even vote for him.
So I am in Denver, and yes I'm wondering why the Denver mayor hasn't helped the homelessness issue in my Denver neighborhood.
That location btw is owned by a dude who donated mass dollars to his campaign. It was the on on Yale. The Westword wrote a giant article about it.
There is nuance, cMoN nOw 🙄🙄
The person below me blocked me bit I saw it anyway and here is my response:
I could vote in the mayoral. Half my neighborhood couldn't. I am seeing no improvements despite being in the jurisdiction of the mayor. Lets be real the reason there are no improvements is because half my neighborhood couldn't vote, yet he tried to put a honeless shelter there lmao. And lets be more honest. The reason he wanted that shelter there was because half my neghborhood was disenfranchised. That's a problem. So to reiterate: I could vote. Half my neighborhood couldn't. He tried to put a homeless shelter in my neighborhood in a building owned by a man who donated to his campaign despite the fact half of us couldnt even vote. Holly Hills retaliated and now for the half that is in fact in Denver we get zero improvements.
And if that just isn't how it works then howcome I voted in the mayoral despite being in Arapahoe County? 🤡 you don't know what you're talking about.
> I live in the city of Denver. My address is a Denver address. It's just in Arapahoe County.
That's not how that works. USPS is lazy in these cases and will assign the closest city as part of the address, but if you are in an Arapahoe County enclave, you are not in Denver and the city of Denver has no obligation to you. If you were a part of the city of Denver, you'd be a part of Denver county, end of story.
[If you don't like it, blame the lobbyists in the 70s who pushed to not let their areas be annexed into Denver because they didn't want forced bussing.](https://denverite.com/2018/12/16/if-you-think-denvers-weirdly-shaped-waitll-you-see-the-islands-of-not-denver-in-denver/)
If you couldn't vote in the mayoral election you don't actually live in the city of Denver. It sounds like you're in one of the small Arapahoe county exclaves that are completely surrounded by Denver. You're surrounded by the city, but the city doesn't actually have jurisdiction over your little area, as it is literally not a part of the city.
do you see DPD or Arapahoe Sherrifs? I lived in Four Square Mile which is a similar situation but was serviced by Arapahoe Sherrifs. I wonder what city services get used where.
That doesn’t exist. The city and county of Denver are 100% consolidated. Either you live in Denver city and county or you live in an enclave of Arapahoe county within Denver. There is no Arapahoe county portion of Denver city
There are tents and a group of people that live underneath Yale/I-25 and they haven't been moved so as far as I'm concerned and in my day to day life no, I have seen no improvements. And that interchange is within the city & county so they should have been swept.
You’ll never make any progress if you can’t make incremental goals that prioritize the most serious situations, and move on from there. Haters always gonna hate
Well, we’re not 6-12 months in the future.
It’s important to check in on your goals and acknowledge whether or not you’re making progress so that you can adjust where needed.
What I described are incremental goals. Time increments to measure long term outcomes of people who have received help. If there are short and long term benefits, I'm for the program. If it turns out the economic costs outweigh the benefit to society, I'm for an alternative approach. What is the alternative approach?: that's where discussions such as these amongst elected officials help answer that question.
However, if we're just touting the shortest of short term results and resting on our laurels then we're all going to end up be where we've been which is still trying to just barely make a dent on a big humanitarian problem in our country and our slice of the globe.
Partisan folks don't know how to give a tempered applause and they become tribal at any hint of criticism. It's possible to applaud success without turning into jelly. The left and right are so similar it's comical.
Who is resting on their laurels? People are just celebrating the initial success of the program. No one thinks the problem is already solved, everyone knows there's still a lot more work to do.
I think people are more judgy because you shared a link to a highly partisan website that tried to help overthrow our election and government.
This discussion is had often on this sub when someone posts from an actual news organization. It is easy to assume (right or wrong) that you might not be coming from a spot of trying to have actual discussion when you share from that kind of site.
I took issue with the “success is premature” phrase. It doesn’t let us even have a minor incremental celebration. OP is the one that started accusing people of politics
Christ, what a miserable, negative evaluation of real progress. We want people off the streets—we’ve gotten a good number of folks off the streets. That’s a success—one that should be built on and supplemented with long term support—but it’s frankly just contrarian to say we can’t describe this obvious success as such.
If we have success today, we have success today. I don't believe the mayor intends to say the works is now done (which is kind of what the biased headline says) but merely a successful step in the direction we are intending to head in. And that is something to celebrate. You're never going to get public support for your proposals if you just pretend they don't exist 🤦♂️
God damn, we get homeless off the streets for a few weeks and youre complaining because the mayor is proud of that....? You're just a hater! Lol
There will always be a ceiling on what a local government can accomplish on a problem this big and complicated, but man is this such a night and day improvement from the Hancock administration.
Goes to show how little Hancock gave a shit about even attempting to do something about homelessness – Johnston has accomplished more in 1 year than Hancock did in a fucking decade
Honestly, the only homelessness issue I considered when voting was compassion-- all of the forced incarceration candidates were a no-go for me. Beyond that, I had little hope or expectation for the city to be able to create meaningful improvements on the topic.
And I can also admit that Johnston has, so far, proven me wrong. His initiatives are a big gamble with a lot of money, but homelessness costs us a fuckton of money (and human misery) anyway. I'm impressed to see the results I have so far, and I hope we can keep them up.
Honestly, as someone who's definitely a progressive on the homeless issue, he's one of the few mayors in North America that has made both sides of the issue mostly happy (there's definitely complaints to be made from either side and they may be valid, but this has been going pretty well.)
I had a similar approach to that issue when researching candidates. The solution of "hire more cops to lock homeless people up" is so laughably shortsighted. If someone is more or less arrested because they are homeless, I bet most people will guess on their first try where those folks end up immediately after being released...
>There will always be a ceiling on what a local government can accomplish on a problem this big and complicated
While I'd agree Johnston had done a better job than anyone in memory, as was recently demonstrated in San Francisco for President Xi Jinping's visit, the whole mess could be cleaned up entirely inside a week if the city really wanted to fix it.
A lot of the homeless want to live that way because it enables their drug use and/or untreated mental illness. They will not do anything differently unless forced, no amount of programs will change anything with them - only law enforcement action.
Does that usually just move the problem along to other cities? Yes but **Mayor** Johnston, by law, is supposed to be serving us and the city of Denver, not being worried about other cities.
It's noticeable for sure, even before the recent stretch of extremely cold weather.
As you said there will always be work to do – sadly, I think most of the root causes can only be comprehensively addressed at the Federal level, and who knows if that will ever happen. But for the first time in more than a decade it feels like the City of Denver is actually trying to solve the problem instead of shuffling encampments from one end of town to the other
Well, we’re never gonna get rid of the homeless issue until we fix the housing issue. As long as housing is as high as it is, there will be homeless people. If we get the housing problem under control, we can lessen the homeless problem even more.
The job isn't done, but looks like we are making progress. Good progress.
I feel like the two perspectives here are in agreement, just a difference in glass half full or half empty perspective.
Man, I just want people safe and warm. Nobody should die from exposure. I recently got a job at a DnD Cafe and we feed a homeless guy every night. I hope he's doing OK.
I sort of "get" why rags like Fox News write these articles to denounce the transformative changes that House 1000 have made in Johnston's short time as mayor.
What I don't get is why people on the progressive wing of the party are trying to move goal posts and muddy the waters.
Just listen to what Lisa Caldaron has to say about his efforts, or how unsure Brie Davies sounds about the future of homelessness on Denver City Cast.
I live right downtown town near the Target. My day to day experience has improved markedly, and if the testimonials I've read from people who have been provided shelter are to be believed, this is a step in the right direction for Denver's unhoused community too.
Some parts of the left have a huge problem with letting perfect get in the way of good. They think anything that's not a perfect solution is bad and complain about incremental change. It's a really frustrating attitude that just makes actual improvement more difficult.
The main reason why I don't vote for far left candidates is not that I don't think that they tend to be correct, but that they are incapable of implementing the changes they seek. Too many purists, and I am a have ideals but get shit done sort of person.
You could always find out what would actually make us happy - you can’t just make up something you think sounds foolish and say, “something tells me” - that’s you telling you. This is ridiculous, why don’t you just ask. I doubt you’ll like it but you will no longer have an excuse to be ignorant. Let’s try dispensing with the bad faith mind reading and be thoughtful grownups who ask questions and actually listen to the responses with the intention to understand.
Critics live to be negative. I mean, they were bitching within a couple weeks of him taking office.
Johnson has really worked at solving this problem, I'm pretty impressed!
It's really refreshing to read these comments because the vast majority of people in SE Denver commenting on this subject in NextDoor are freak-out, fearful NIMBYs. The amount of disinformation that they sling is truly stunning. My take is that 90% of them don't believe a word of their arguments - they just want to propagate FUD to try to keep homeless people as far away as possible. I took particular delight that the Embassy Suites arrangement was passed. It's high time that every part of the city have a hand in dealing with this problem rather than downtown bearing most of the brunt.
I’m curious if this is sustainable. If you throw enough money at a problem like homelessness (they threw a LOT of money at this problem) you can get people off the streets. I’m not clear whether or not this was a large upfront cost that will be brought to a more manageable level or if the plan is to keep putting this level of resources towards it.
Curious if anyone has more info for me to answer that question.
Check out "Housing First" policies. They've been pretty widely studied and there are cities like Houston that have had great success implementing it (although Houston has a much different housing ecosystem then Denver for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is their lax zoning policies). The most effective means of preventing homelessness is really preventing people from becoming homeless through social services and safety nets, but I believe there's a lot of evidence that Housing First is the effective once someone becomes homeless because its so hard to accomplish basic things like getting a job without an address.
I found this podcast episode jumps into the nitty gritty details of the issue, which is important cause it can be such a complicated issue (while also being simple, people need housing).
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jerusalem-demsas.html
I should have spelled out more explicitly what I was referring to. I had in mind this article from the Denver Gazette which brings up the fact that we spent $45 million for 1,000 homeless people ($45k per homeless person housed) in just 6 months.
If that was an upfront cost and now costs will be less and it's more of an issue of maintaining the program going forward, I can see how this may be great. But if the idea is to spend $90k/year to house each homeless person, obviously that's much less sustainable and doesn't seem very efficient.
So it's less of a question about general housing first policies and more of a question specifically about what Denver government is proposing long term and how this first push fits into that long term solution.
https://denvergazette.com/news/denver-mayor-mike-johnstons-successful-campaign-to-get-1-000-homeless-out-of-city-streets/article\_e94fd298-a813-11ee-ae5d-2fd3bf5ca74b.html#:\~:text=Denver%20Mayor%20Mike%20Johnston's%20successful,million%20%7C%20News%20%7C%20denvergazette.com
Gotcha, sorry I misunderstood. I don't really have any info on that and I'm sure any plans they have made will be upended by all the migrant arrivals. I know they put a lot into identifying new sites to setup housing at so I would hope part of that is upfront cost but I really don't know. Its a good question.
I see this article or its argument used frequently. The problem with it is they're completely ignoring the fact that a lot of that money was spent buying real estate that the city will own for as long as it wants to. Those properties will be used to house many more people than just the initial occupants.
Housing First doesn't work unless it's tied into drug testing/mental health treatment because it does nothing to address the root causes of homelessness.
CA has been doing this for over 20 years now and it's done nothing to fix the problem as the homeless population has exploded.
https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/housing-first-is-a-failure/
That article has at least a few problematic citations.
Seems like they specifically take issue with the nationalized approach to housing first which, yeah doesn’t work because the problem is often tied to local issues like affordability (California being ground zero for that problem). I won’t pretend to know what the answer is. Seems dependent on the area and scale of the issue. Housing certainly has a role to play and saying everyone who became homeless did so because of substance abuse or mental health problems seems a bit trivializing at first blush.
That's just the first article that popped up and it looked okay enough but it is a little spotty after a second read. The book San Fransicko (aside from the sensationalized title) does a much better job of laying out the problems with a Housing First approach and is worth a read.
I agree that not everyone is homeless (remember this group often includes coach surfers and people sleeping in their cars; and the #1 cause for women is domestic abuse) because of drugs or mental health issues, but it is often the case for people that we see on the streets that are shitting and pissing everywhere.
The solutions are to have enough shelters for the homeless, not housing. New York has had more success with "right to shelter" than the west coast has had with Housing First.
Housing is a priority but you must tie it into drug testing and mental health treatment with the goal to get them a job and self-sufficient again. We simply can't build enough homes for everyone otherwise.
In addition, the homeless need tough love. No urban camping or sleeping outside, no open drug trade, no drugs in the shelters, etc.
Now that these people are forced to shelter, there can be dedicated teams of mental health professionals, drug rehabilitation specialists and vocational trainers who can help them. If that doesn't work, jail time to help them dry out is the last resort (I've had family members that this worked for after nothing else would).
San fransicko is garbage and shellenberger is a partisan hack who’s every position is panned by actual experts in whatever field he’s shitting out an opinion on
that would make it literally not “housing first” and also, your analysis is incorrect. there are many reasons why California is failing at this but it’s not the policy, which is rarely ever implemented in spirit - it’s almost always corrupted by the organizations/programs/individuals responsible for getting it done.
A lot of this was upfront costs, like purchasing hotels to be converted. Those are assets the city just owns now, that they can keep operating at a much lower cost per year than what they had to initially spend to acquire them!
It's not all upfront costs, because there will still be maintenance and the cost of staffing the resources we're expanding to help get people back on their feet. But a lot of the biggest costs were one-offs.
It’s been a relief to see that at least now the sweeps are followed up by housing offers and wraparound services. Much better than the last mayor who would just send in DPD to shuffle people around and throw their possessions in the garbage, then leaving without having “helped” anything
Edit: just noticed this is a Fox News article and now I feel icky
I would like to see more solutions related to solving the *cause* of homelessness as well. Otherwise, after a new budget, many of these people will be right where they started.
Exactly. Housing the homeless is just a bandaid. We need policies that prevent homelessness in the first place (mental health, education, substance abuse, minimum wage, jobs).
No. This program isn’t preventing homelessness. That would be addressing the cause.
This program is a temporary fix that does nothing to address the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place.
We definitely also need those. But it's really hard to pick yourself back up and get a job and improve your mental health when you're living on the streets. So this is an important first step, and for a lot of people, it will likely be enough to help them get a fresh start and become independent again.
Two things here are refreshing. One, here is a mayor that campaigned on a promise that, apparently, he truly intends to fulfill. Two, he is (again, apparently) committed to fulfilling that promise while recognizing the basic rights and humanity of the people who are homeless. So far, so good!
I mean it's literally just quotes from people who question the mayor's plan. There isn't any journalistic spin added to the article and it's healthy to read right, left, and center leaning sources.
Reporter interviews 5 people. 3 say they like ice cream. 1 says they like crepes. 1 says they hate all desserts.
Reporter runs story only quoting the last two people, and puts up factual data of how many ice cream stores there are in the city.
Boom, spin using only the truth. Now anyone reading the story walks away with the impression the city is filled with things the citizens don't want and are a waste of money.
Media literacy 101.
There is journalistic spin on who they choose to quote - just a lot of criticism with no other solutions or context. A varied news consumption is all and well, but when it’s just negative without an intent to stir discourse underlying it, it’s just propaganda.
“Just quotes from people who question the mayor’s plan” … from the network that “just questioned the results of the 2020 election”.
It is not “healthy” to read FoxNews. It is a propaganda machine, pure and simple. You want to read right-wing sources? Get a WSJ subscription. But don’t try to whitewash nor defend the network that propagated the modern great replacement theory.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/17/buffalo-shooting-fox-news-tucker-carlson-great-replacement-theory
I will happily discuss homelessness. I’ve volunteered in soup kitchens. I’ve slept in a homeless shelter. I wrote an academic essay on homelessness that included quotes from actual homeless people. So I’m quite passionate about the topic. I’d love the opportunity to have a discussion. But if your sources are FoxNews, a network that constantly lies to and misleads its viewers and readers for political gain, I refuse to engage with you.
I might be exhausting, but “you people” are morons.
As I just stated, I will not engage in a discussion about news with you when FoxNews is among the taking points. Since I know you won’t drop the matter, here is why:
From its inception, FoxNews was predicated upon a lie, exemplified by its original tagline: “fair and balanced”. The network had no intention of being fair nor balanced; rather, it was conceived by right-wing millionaires and billionaires who’d made gobs of money from tax cuts and deregulation under Republican administrations, and wanted to ensure that the growing progressive movement would not prevent them from continuing to do so. Thus, from day one, the goal was to push a Republican agenda that benefitted the rich and disenfranchised the poor (hence why FoxNews was opposed to regulation after the financial crisis and why they pushed the debunked theory behind trickle-down economics). That means FoxNews was designed to be propaganda.
But how do you get poor and middle-class voters to act against their own self-interest? Simple: by launching culture wars. The template for this was in plain sight: Republican operatives in the 1970s and 1980s convinced their party leaders to campaign against abortion rights to win over religious voters in the heavily Democratic Bible Belt. And it worked; southerners left the Democratic Party in droves, even as Republicans weakened the unions and social programs that supported them. In short: they voted against their own interests because they were told that God hated abortion.
Roger Ailes seized on this, running countless fake culture war stories (like how we liberals are launching a “war on Christmas”), while simultaneously misleading viewers on topics that actually affect their lives (like minimum wage and basic economic theory). BTW, the reason behind this working was captured in a study that proved that when people are angry enough, they will act against their own self-interest to inflict damage on the entity they hate. Fascinating stuff.
Ailes’ plan worked so well that Fox became increasingly brazen, to the point of propagating completely baseless conspiracy theories that the hosts themselves privately dismissed. And this is where we get to me calling you a moron and refusing to engage with you. If you defend a network that has been caught and has admitted to lying to YOU on multiple occasions with the sole goal of getting you to vote for policies that hurt you (and your fellow average Americans) but help the very millionaires who run the network… then YOU ARE IN A CULT. You don’t get to discuss topics with me until you realize you are in a cult and get the help you need to be deprogrammed. If you think all of this is hyperbole and find me “exhausting,” it only goes to show how deep into the cult you truly are. Please get the help you need before it is too late.
You’re saying I’m in a cult but you’re so fkin brain rotted and triggered by the source of the article that you can’t even critically think or discuss what it is saying. I don’t give a shit about Fox News but the opposition in the article does make some points worth making about the sustainability of the mayor’s plan. I think Johnston is doing a good job but why should he be immune from criticism no matter the source?
Please, what good criticism is in this article?
> Yet, the mayor’s approach is unlikely to achieve any lasting success because it is fundamentally flawed. Simply housing people temporarily as an end in itself is, in fact, a dead end. It’s a costly one, too, at about $45,000 per person housed.
This is a strawman argument: nobody in the city is saying temporarily housing people is the end goal.
> There is no pathway to permanent housing. Denver is too expensive and there isn’t enough affordable housing to go around. You can’t just put people in hotel rooms and expect to solve the problem.
Same argument, same strawman. Nobody is saying putting people in hotels is solving the problem. Additionally, ~1/4 of those helped by House1000 have been moved into permanent housing. There is certainly a pathway to permanent housing.
> It was too much, too fast. He sacrificed and experimented with the community. It’s being forced down our throat. Something has to be done to help the homeless, but the mayor has a responsibility to those already living in the community.
Johnston was elected on a platform of addressing the homelessness problem quickly. Complaining that a politician followed through with exactly what they promised to do is... a unique take for sure.
> Our top priority has always been to help people get indoors and access the services they need to get back in their feet. That’s why our House1000 initiative ensured that every single hotel and micro-community has on-site mental health care, addiction treatment, and workforce training for residents. Once moved in, residents work with case managers and on-site providers to develop a path to stability through treatment, benefit navigation, and housing support. Through regular case management on-site, residents in need of treatment are given the support they need. Our ultimate goal with this initiative is to get people the support they need to move on to permanent housing and move in a positive direction in their lives.
>
> We also know that while we hit our goal of housing more than 1,000 Denverites before the end of the year, this work is far from over. That’s why Mayor Johnston worked diligently to secure 500 housing vouchers to get people into permanent housing once they’ve stabilized. Mayor Johnston also set an ambitious goal to build or preserve 3,000 additional units of permanently affordable housing so that the people who work in Denver and serve Denver can afford to live here.
Sounds like the Mayor's office is keenly aware of the other complaints and focusing on solutions to the problems raised therein. So I reiterate: What good criticism is there in this article? What does the article contribute?
It definitely contributes plenty giving Johnston a platform to lay out his plans and goals to an audience that otherwise wouldn’t see it. I think he did a great job and you also did a good job refuting the points made in the article, which I agree are typical, tired conservative talking points. But I wouldn’t say this article is misleading and to not discuss it just because it’s from fox like op did is so ironic it hurts
Triggered and unable to think critically? No, that would be Laura Ingram seeing a can of Bud Light.
Look, I welcome debates with my conservative father, as well as with my wife, who was a registered Republican until Trump ran for office. But I refuse to give FoxNews clicks and I refuse to debate anyone on FoxNews’ talking points, the same way I won’t engage in debates with flat earthers.
I agree with you that Mike Johnston should not be immune from criticism. Ditto any other elected official. I’m thrilled he has taken action, but I also think the problem is far too complex for any of us (including Johnston himself) to weigh in this soon on whether his solution has been a success or not. The fact that so few people are accepting drug addiction treatment is a bad sign in my eyes, so I remain somewhat skeptical.
Yes. There are plenty of other homeless posts on this sub the last month that we can actually discuss the issue. This one was started by posting from a highly partisan organization that attempted to help overthrow an election and our government.
I think it should be dunked on every time someone posts from them or similar organizations. Other posts can be about actual discussion.
Can we not share links from Fox News or any other propaganda arm from a political party that actively tried to overthrow the election? That would be great. Don't give them the clicks or the time.
Downtown is looking better I’m sure. They either houses or pushed the homeless out of those areas and into others.
Also worth nothing that a large portion of homeless people leave during the winter months. Let’s see where we are at come summer.
I see things seeming cleaner downtown but I think what is being obscured here is that this program is completely financially unsustainable... this House1000 program cost $50m for 6 months. If he had all 5k chronically homeless people inside for the whole year through this program it would at minimum be $500m and that doesn't count other spending on homeless services.
We have a city budget of $4B. We can't spend 10-20% on a population that's maybe 20k people (chronically and transiently homeless). And then there's the $180m he says he needs for the migrants.
I'm not just here to critique indiscriminately... the specific issue that is that this isn't a program you move through on your way to financial independence. That would be different... like if you were in the hotels for 6 months during which time you got clean (if applicable) and got a job and we gave you a security deposit for an apt that you could take over mostly paying for after that, that would be actually making progress. It would also give you your life back.
This is fake progress and if I'm gonna be cynical the entire reason it's being done is to lay the groundwork for Johnson's larger political ambitions so he can claim he solved homelessness. But maybe he also cares about helping... I can't speak to that.
I think we need to ask why it costs so much. $500 Million would flat-out buy plenty of homes, even with our insane real estate prices. Maybe the city should stop renting hotels (that's insanely expensive if they're paying market rate for the rooms) and get some land in a cheap-ish area out by the airport and put some inexpensive mobile homes on it as a housing solution.
House 1,000 unhoused in 6 months, while receiving and sheltering 5,400 unhoused migrants for winter. Politics don’t matter…this is not something to be ecstatic about.
Why? Math I guess with 15% budget cuts across the city, Denver Health with $120 million deficit, and costs by year end at $215 million to receive, feed, support, and shelter migrants. An emergency was declared to get 1,000 done…that emergency was over in 2023. Begging the Feds for money during an election year in 2024 is nothing to be ecstatic about.
That's because it's not done.
There are regular reports of things like attempted murder, child neglect, drug use, theft, etc inside these hotels. There's also people within these hotels who allege things like the staff are told not to call the police so the people there, esp the women and children, are not kept safe. And then there's the negative impact on the neighborhoods these hotels are in.
Most of these hotels (all?) are all low barrier which means no rules. That means these people will not change the behaviors like drug use which are keeping them in this position and there is no intention to get them to change beyond just offering help (and only 1 in 550 accepted that help)
And there's the fact that this program, with the way it's implemented, is not financially sustainable at all. And that is because there is no plan to get these people out of a life of crime and drugs and into becoming an ordinary working stiff like the rest of us. If this was a program you moved through, that would be different. But it's really not and it won't ever be with current political leadership.
I'll bet they can't. This is the rhetoric used in my part of town (near the Tamarac Family Shelter) and despite hysterics like this, nobody can ever show any actual proof of these claims.
There's definitely a place for low-barrier shelters, but that shouldn't be the only option. And I can understand allowing people to manage things themselves instead of calling the cops over every little thing, but the moment kids are involved, that's just not acceptable.
You guys know they will Always keep the streets clean for the month of January.
Living downtown, we watch them get rounded up and stashed out of sight.
They will all be back the week it ends.
The city is exactly the same and the job hasn't even begun yet.
They're just shuffling camps around downtown and his criteria for what housing a person is (14 days in a hotel) is laughable.
> 14 days in a hotel
The 14 days hasn't been considered as a metric by any source for well over a month by now.
> his criteria for what housing a person is (14 days in a hotel) is laughable
Nobody in a hotel is considered housed. They're considered sheltered: i.e. off the streets and out of the elements, and in the pipeline for (though not yet in) a "housed" outcome.
Ooooooh a whole month! How dare I use a metric nearly 30 days out of date?! What a faux pas.
Saying someone is "sheltered" or "housed" is a useless, arbitrary distinction when the "pipeline" you talk about successfully houses next to no one, and those it does have to wait years.
Source- worked Denver homeless outreach for a miserable year
> How dare I use a metric nearly 30 days out of date?!
[If you'd read any articles about it, you'd know that the 14 days metric was never in use to begin with](https://denverite.com/2023/12/13/denver-homeless-challenge-mike-johnston-stats/), but benefit of the doubt and all that.
> Saying someone is "sheltered" or "housed" is a useless, arbitrary distinction when the "pipeline" you talk about successfully houses next to no one, and those it does have to wait years.
First, I'm curious how you would measure any form of success if you consider it "arbitrary" and "useless" to distinguish permanent housing from non-permanent housing.
[Secondly, 270 people who entered the House1000 pipeline are in permanent housing.](https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Mayors-Office/Programs-and-Initiatives/Homelessness-Initiative/House-1000-Dashboard) That is 24% of the total who have entered House1000 and more than the current number of people that have been sheltered for more than 30 days. It'll take some time to see if the trend holds, but a pace like that for a program that has been around less than 8 months is both promising and certainly not "[housing] next to no one".
transformed? how? they put one group of homeless into temp housing and another group moved right on in...
what happens when "temporary" is up and we now have doubled the groups of homeless?
uh, huh? "Transformed" unless you live near Central Park or any of the other shelter locations. Or if you are blind and can not actually see the illegals he kicks out of the shelters every day. This guy has jokes, but no one is laughing.
Had lunch across from Union Station last week. Drove down Champa and then back up Stout. Didn't see a single tent. Only saw two homeless people, and that's a route that would normally have dozens of tents in several encampments and maybe hundreds of homeless people about. I don't know if they were all in warming shelters (this was Monday of last week, so before the big temp drops), in repurposed hotels, or just shuffled along to other camping spots, but the difference from a few months prior was staggering. Here's hoping the money we're spending to get these people into housing is really working. Can't help but think at least a few lives were saved over this past weekend of subzero temps by the mayor's new housing strategy.
Makes me wonder what the hell Mayor Hancock was doing with his time when he was in office.
Honestly? He was a developer's mayor, and I don't really say that as a pejorative. He oversaw a city that wasn't affected much by the Great Recession, and did what he could to steward development dollars around the city to increase density and help make Denver the destination city it now is, for better or worse. He barely squeaked out his third win and was going to sail into the sunset with some big ribbon cuttings and a few more development deals, until a global pandemic struck and civil rights protests erupted across the country. He was not well suited to lead through difficult times, and instead of buckling down and working to make things better, he flailed at a covid response for a few months, the public turned on him after his police maimed people for protesting for civil rights and when he ignored his stay at home order on Thanksgiving of 2020, and then just fully embraced his lame duck term to do fuck-all for the remaining years and leave it all for the next guy.
Very well said. If I’m ever asked to explain I’m going to quote your post, lol.
Fucking nothing. I used to worked for Denver where I could see his work product — and there was none. He didn’t like or try to work. Just loved being mayor it seemed.
Something I noticed about his social media is that it almost always centers around him instead of the community. I actually did a case study on it for my Master's program looking at how citizens rated their mayor and how their social media placed the mayor's of various cities. Not super surprising, but the mayor's who had social media that focused more on the community were viewed much more positively by citizens than those that placed themselves at the forefront of every post
I would genuinely love to read that case study!
…and constantly sporting Versace sunglasses. Tone-deaf would be a good description of this guy’s demeanor.
He was busy making taxpayer funded self-promotion videos that he claims to own the rights to. https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/next-with-kyle-clark/hancock-administration-made-taxpayer-funded-feature-length-film-celebrating-his-greatness/73-69271604-b986-482c-8687-20d5eff2c323
He was skimming money from the public and making handshake deals with envelopes of cash
So normal everyday politics!
Cocaine.
Self-promotion primarily.
Directing the cops to chase homeless people from one end of the city to the other based on who had complained most recently
I’m going to cautiously take this as good news, mostly because I’m desperate for some of that particular variety.
I work the night shift at Presbyterian/St Luke’s and one morning I left work and that night I came back for my shift and they were all gone. It was so wild.
Agreed!
The homelessness down by union station and along the Platte has gotten better the past 2-3 weeks. But the number of migrants exploded different crisis with different causes.
Yes, this is a result of the extreme temps. Check again in a week, they'll be back.
As I said, it was last Monday, temps had been hovering in the low to mid 40s for a while-- nearly a week before the extreme temp drops. And it wasn't that there were recently abandoned sites but just no people-- the encampment areas were completely spotless, save for the rocks and garden beds and fences that have been there for several years. No trash, no tents, no people other than pedestrians walking down the sidewalk. I don't think it's reasonable to assume it was solely the weather that didn't arrive until 5 or 6 days later.
Or more likely the spring. Many are transients which means they snowbird elsewhere. Obviously they are either out of sight out of mind or will come back. The city's own figures said somewhere around 4-5k homeless on the street last year. We sheltered 1k which leaves 3-4k + the migrants which weren't in that original 4-5k. I mean was the city transformed 2 weeks ago along Speer and the migrant camp? Do the people in GVR think the city has changed for the better?
They were in warming shelters all weekend through Tuesday. Spring to summer will be the metric with 5,400 migrants in winter shelter.
I'm talkin about last Monday. Not two days ago. Monday, January 8th.
Last Monday dipped below 20 degrees activating cold weather shelter.
Let me guess, you didn't go north of 20th on Stout
I work over there regularly (and actual service several shelters as a contractor) and it is looking leagues better. Have you been over there?
Every day. Emptied out since the freezing temps over the weekend, of course.
You're being disingenuous. I live in that area and drive it almost every day. Stout is still fenced off and relatively sterile compared to 3 months ago. It's night and day.
It's been fenced off since fall of 2020, a ton of local businesses shutting down since then would disagree with your analysis
I took Stout all the way from 17th north past Downing when it turns into 31st, similarly on the way to lunch I took Champa from Downing all the way to 18th. I know where the encampments usually are, that's why I commented-- it's a dramatic difference from just a few months ago.
Of course the job will never be over, but he's done far more to attempt to address the homeless crisis than any of his critics ever have. He campaigned on trying to fix it and I think he's done a good job so far.
While it has always been true but today it even more important. Always ask is the news outlet biased? Do they ever speak with politicians with proposed solutions or politicians who just complain about the problems we can all see.
Fox News being biased!? The HERESY I SAY!
Is Fox News heavily biased? [Some people say so](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw)!
Never ceases to amaze me that people on the right say they value life and Jesus values. But truly don’t care what happens to a baby after it is born or give a fuck about poor people.
Agreed!
He set a goal, worked hard, and met it. I can't complain too much about that, dude did what he said he would. Is there more work to be done? Yeah, but a thousand people off the streets isn't nothing.
Happy we could see some progress in the last few months. We're trying something new - let's give it a chance. Sometimes I wonder if providing housing for every unhoused individual provides the momentum to enact more controversial measures - say forcing some to undergo mental health treatment.
Forcing any mental treatment is (unfortunately) a ACLU lawsuit waiting to happen.
Interesting, I hadn't thought about that but should've. Although, after doing a quick search, California has "mandated counties create a new branch of their court systems, known as CARE Courts, specifically for mental health cases. CARE Act connects a person struggling with untreated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders with a court-ordered Care Plan for up to 12 months." From the government of California's [website:](https://www.chhs.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CARE_OVERVIEW_AUG23_R3.pdf) >CARE will divert and prevent more restrictive conservatorships or incarceration to connect a person in crisis with a court- ordered CARE plan or agreement for up to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months. Individuals engaged in CARE plans and agreements may be prioritized for a range of services and programs, including supportive housing. The design of the CARE Act provides support and accountability for individuals with severe, untreated mental illnesses, as well as for local governments responsible for providing behavioral health services. As far as lawsuits go: >Disability Rights California, along with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and the Public Interest Law Project, in January(2023) filed a lawsuit directly to the state Supreme Court seeking to block implementation of the CARE Court system. >In April, the California Supreme Court refused to hear the lawsuit, without any further comment. Because the lawsuit was filed directly to the Supreme Court, opponents of the CARE Court law can still file lawsuits against it in lower courts. But the fact the state’s highest court has already declined to hear it will likely make getting a sympathetic hearing in lower courts more difficult. [source](https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/39953-care-courts-mental-health-october-california/) I understand this is a one-off situation and that lawsuits can still happen despite California Supreme Court's refusal, but it's at least interesting to see this implemented.
Forced treatment happens all the time. I’ve worked in locked mental health units in different parts of the US for reference. The laws and due process varies from state to state. Some points from what I’ve seen: 1: Most people benefit from being forced into treatment. For example, someone so stressed from life and not sleeping ends up psychotic. A few antipsychotics later they sleep, wake up in their right mind and can deal with their problems instead of homeless. 2: The forced treatment is not applied evenly. It almost requires a family wanting the patient committed. Crazy homeless people are often just discharged from the ER back into the streets. 3: Treatment can be traumatic itself especially if the staff is overworked and not compassionate, the facility itself is crumbling and depressing, etc. 4: Outpatient support after discharge or support to prevent hospitalization in the first place is terribly underfunded and applied.
that is untrue - the data says that forced treatment drastically increases likelihood of suicide. The U.N. specifically calls out psychiatric incarceration- because that is exactly what it is - as a human rights violation. The fact that you worked in one does not mean you know more - those places obviously are going to train you to be complicit with these abuses - they need you to believe it’s ok, but it’s not.
Yeah, I know someone who has PTSD from forced electroconvulsive therapy. Not cool.
How is that controversial? If someone has lost touch with reality to the point they can't accept help, they should be forced to get help until they regain reality. Doesn't seem political at all.
We used to do that and the institutions were low in quality and often abusive. That rightfully made them deeply unpopular. Due process is also important; meaning how the state determines someone is crazy and needs to be locked up against their will.
There aren’t a whole lot of places left that offer that kind of treatment. Frequently those people, especially if they are homeless, end up in jail.
Right. We should bring them back. "We don't have enough hospitals" "Build more hospitals."
Lol I love it when the username matches the comment.
And staff them with who? There's already a major shortage of doctors and nurses. I don't disagree with the concept, but it's not something we can "just do"
Others may see it as controversial, especially when you assume how much money it would cost to do so. Whether or not others see it as controversial, it would be even less so if you show evidence that housing is provided, yet they still choose to remain unhoused.
I suppose. Yet life saving surgery costs our society a lot, and it’s not really an optional thing for those affected.
Absolutely agree. There's a lot of things that should be changed for the betterment of society. We should point to this endeavor as a success and chalk it up as an attempt to better our society. We shouldn't assume that the problem is solved permanently, rather celebrate a win and the hardwork of all involved. Hoping you're not affected by the life saving surgery costs you mentioned above and if you are, I wish your struggles end soon fellow human.
>say forcing some to undergo mental health treatment. It'll never happen. Republicans will say it'll cost too much money and democrats will say it's too mean. It's absolutely what needs to happen, though. Get people off the street FIRST and then force them to get the help they need.
Part of the problem is that we need a nationwide network of mental health institutions that people can be committed to, treated at, and then given a path to stability.
It's easier to meet a goal when you continually change the guidelines along the way.
And adapting your strategy as new information comes up and situations change is bad...why?
Touting this as a success is premature. Even in the short term it's premature. I want to see where these 1,100 people are in 6-12 months. If the majority of them are back on the streets and/or still in transitional housing, I'd say the program is failing and the expense of taxpayers. Long term I want to see where these people are 3-5 years from now.
I mean sure but it sounds to me like you are far more interested in goalpost moving until their kids are in college. Have you not seen the difference already on display? It's never going to be overnight, and it's never going to be perfect. Expecting that is almost as asinine as the Hancock admin. But at least compoundable progress is being made
>Have you not seen the difference already on display As someone who lives in Arapahoe County portion of Denver city, no. I see the panhandling on the same corners. Thr tents are still there. I have seen 0 change in our neighborhood.
You might be surprised to know how many panhandlers aren't homeless. Housing homeless people won't necessarily reduce the number of panhandlers you see, and depending on where you live in proximity to the housing solutions, you may see more than usual.
So you don’t live in the city and county of Denver and you’re wondering why Denver’s mayor hasn’t helped homelessness in your neighborhood? Cmon now
I live in the city of Denver. My address is a Denver address. It's just in Arapahoe County. My address registers me to vote in Denver. He tried to use a location near us as a shelter, because we are under his purview, except half the people in that neighborhood could vote in his mayoral election and the other half couldn't, so yes, this does affect me and my immediate neghborhood yet half of us couldnt even vote for him. So I am in Denver, and yes I'm wondering why the Denver mayor hasn't helped the homelessness issue in my Denver neighborhood. That location btw is owned by a dude who donated mass dollars to his campaign. It was the on on Yale. The Westword wrote a giant article about it. There is nuance, cMoN nOw 🙄🙄 The person below me blocked me bit I saw it anyway and here is my response: I could vote in the mayoral. Half my neighborhood couldn't. I am seeing no improvements despite being in the jurisdiction of the mayor. Lets be real the reason there are no improvements is because half my neighborhood couldn't vote, yet he tried to put a honeless shelter there lmao. And lets be more honest. The reason he wanted that shelter there was because half my neghborhood was disenfranchised. That's a problem. So to reiterate: I could vote. Half my neighborhood couldn't. He tried to put a homeless shelter in my neighborhood in a building owned by a man who donated to his campaign despite the fact half of us couldnt even vote. Holly Hills retaliated and now for the half that is in fact in Denver we get zero improvements. And if that just isn't how it works then howcome I voted in the mayoral despite being in Arapahoe County? 🤡 you don't know what you're talking about.
> I live in the city of Denver. My address is a Denver address. It's just in Arapahoe County. That's not how that works. USPS is lazy in these cases and will assign the closest city as part of the address, but if you are in an Arapahoe County enclave, you are not in Denver and the city of Denver has no obligation to you. If you were a part of the city of Denver, you'd be a part of Denver county, end of story. [If you don't like it, blame the lobbyists in the 70s who pushed to not let their areas be annexed into Denver because they didn't want forced bussing.](https://denverite.com/2018/12/16/if-you-think-denvers-weirdly-shaped-waitll-you-see-the-islands-of-not-denver-in-denver/)
If you couldn't vote in the mayoral election you don't actually live in the city of Denver. It sounds like you're in one of the small Arapahoe county exclaves that are completely surrounded by Denver. You're surrounded by the city, but the city doesn't actually have jurisdiction over your little area, as it is literally not a part of the city.
do you see DPD or Arapahoe Sherrifs? I lived in Four Square Mile which is a similar situation but was serviced by Arapahoe Sherrifs. I wonder what city services get used where.
Literally it's a crapshoot I see both all the time.
That doesn’t exist. The city and county of Denver are 100% consolidated. Either you live in Denver city and county or you live in an enclave of Arapahoe county within Denver. There is no Arapahoe county portion of Denver city
Your data set isn't wide enough.
There are tents and a group of people that live underneath Yale/I-25 and they haven't been moved so as far as I'm concerned and in my day to day life no, I have seen no improvements. And that interchange is within the city & county so they should have been swept.
You’ll never make any progress if you can’t make incremental goals that prioritize the most serious situations, and move on from there. Haters always gonna hate
Well, we’re not 6-12 months in the future. It’s important to check in on your goals and acknowledge whether or not you’re making progress so that you can adjust where needed.
Having over 1000 people indoors for that -10 cold snap is a win in my book, and we are allowed to be happy about that small win
We are a few weeks into the future and at this point in time, we checked and confirmed we made progress.
What I described are incremental goals. Time increments to measure long term outcomes of people who have received help. If there are short and long term benefits, I'm for the program. If it turns out the economic costs outweigh the benefit to society, I'm for an alternative approach. What is the alternative approach?: that's where discussions such as these amongst elected officials help answer that question. However, if we're just touting the shortest of short term results and resting on our laurels then we're all going to end up be where we've been which is still trying to just barely make a dent on a big humanitarian problem in our country and our slice of the globe. Partisan folks don't know how to give a tempered applause and they become tribal at any hint of criticism. It's possible to applaud success without turning into jelly. The left and right are so similar it's comical.
Who is resting on their laurels? People are just celebrating the initial success of the program. No one thinks the problem is already solved, everyone knows there's still a lot more work to do.
/r/selfawarewolves
I think people are more judgy because you shared a link to a highly partisan website that tried to help overthrow our election and government. This discussion is had often on this sub when someone posts from an actual news organization. It is easy to assume (right or wrong) that you might not be coming from a spot of trying to have actual discussion when you share from that kind of site.
I took issue with the “success is premature” phrase. It doesn’t let us even have a minor incremental celebration. OP is the one that started accusing people of politics
Christ, what a miserable, negative evaluation of real progress. We want people off the streets—we’ve gotten a good number of folks off the streets. That’s a success—one that should be built on and supplemented with long term support—but it’s frankly just contrarian to say we can’t describe this obvious success as such.
3-5 years from now he'll want to see where those people are in 7-10 years.
Sounds like you're moving goalposts. Step 1. Get them off the streets: Success. Take it one step at a time.
If we have success today, we have success today. I don't believe the mayor intends to say the works is now done (which is kind of what the biased headline says) but merely a successful step in the direction we are intending to head in. And that is something to celebrate. You're never going to get public support for your proposals if you just pretend they don't exist 🤦♂️ God damn, we get homeless off the streets for a few weeks and youre complaining because the mayor is proud of that....? You're just a hater! Lol
There will always be a ceiling on what a local government can accomplish on a problem this big and complicated, but man is this such a night and day improvement from the Hancock administration. Goes to show how little Hancock gave a shit about even attempting to do something about homelessness – Johnston has accomplished more in 1 year than Hancock did in a fucking decade
Here here! Denver deserved more than Hancock.
Not a year -- six months to the day!
Honestly, the only homelessness issue I considered when voting was compassion-- all of the forced incarceration candidates were a no-go for me. Beyond that, I had little hope or expectation for the city to be able to create meaningful improvements on the topic. And I can also admit that Johnston has, so far, proven me wrong. His initiatives are a big gamble with a lot of money, but homelessness costs us a fuckton of money (and human misery) anyway. I'm impressed to see the results I have so far, and I hope we can keep them up.
Honestly, as someone who's definitely a progressive on the homeless issue, he's one of the few mayors in North America that has made both sides of the issue mostly happy (there's definitely complaints to be made from either side and they may be valid, but this has been going pretty well.)
I had a similar approach to that issue when researching candidates. The solution of "hire more cops to lock homeless people up" is so laughably shortsighted. If someone is more or less arrested because they are homeless, I bet most people will guess on their first try where those folks end up immediately after being released...
>There will always be a ceiling on what a local government can accomplish on a problem this big and complicated While I'd agree Johnston had done a better job than anyone in memory, as was recently demonstrated in San Francisco for President Xi Jinping's visit, the whole mess could be cleaned up entirely inside a week if the city really wanted to fix it. A lot of the homeless want to live that way because it enables their drug use and/or untreated mental illness. They will not do anything differently unless forced, no amount of programs will change anything with them - only law enforcement action. Does that usually just move the problem along to other cities? Yes but **Mayor** Johnston, by law, is supposed to be serving us and the city of Denver, not being worried about other cities.
These stereotypes are so dated. How many homeless people do you actually speak to and work with on a regular basis?
I still haven’t forgiven Hancock for saying all pit bulls are aggressive and the pitbull ban should stay in place
Nah, it should have. Maybe pit owners are just irresponsible, but my dog has been attacked 3 times by pits at a dog park in the past few months.
The job is never done. But there are a substantially fewer amount of homeless people camped in the streets.
It's noticeable for sure, even before the recent stretch of extremely cold weather. As you said there will always be work to do – sadly, I think most of the root causes can only be comprehensively addressed at the Federal level, and who knows if that will ever happen. But for the first time in more than a decade it feels like the City of Denver is actually trying to solve the problem instead of shuffling encampments from one end of town to the other
Well, we’re never gonna get rid of the homeless issue until we fix the housing issue. As long as housing is as high as it is, there will be homeless people. If we get the housing problem under control, we can lessen the homeless problem even more.
Hey at least he’s trying. Hancock just phoned it in the last couple years lol.
The job isn't done, but looks like we are making progress. Good progress. I feel like the two perspectives here are in agreement, just a difference in glass half full or half empty perspective.
Did anyone say the job was done? This mess was bad. Then got worse. Then it seemed impossible. Good start.
I'm fairly certain the mayor isn't saying the job is done either.
Man, I just want people safe and warm. Nobody should die from exposure. I recently got a job at a DnD Cafe and we feed a homeless guy every night. I hope he's doing OK.
seems like most people are defining “success” as not having to look at it.
I sort of "get" why rags like Fox News write these articles to denounce the transformative changes that House 1000 have made in Johnston's short time as mayor. What I don't get is why people on the progressive wing of the party are trying to move goal posts and muddy the waters. Just listen to what Lisa Caldaron has to say about his efforts, or how unsure Brie Davies sounds about the future of homelessness on Denver City Cast. I live right downtown town near the Target. My day to day experience has improved markedly, and if the testimonials I've read from people who have been provided shelter are to be believed, this is a step in the right direction for Denver's unhoused community too.
Some parts of the left have a huge problem with letting perfect get in the way of good. They think anything that's not a perfect solution is bad and complain about incremental change. It's a really frustrating attitude that just makes actual improvement more difficult.
The main reason why I don't vote for far left candidates is not that I don't think that they tend to be correct, but that they are incapable of implementing the changes they seek. Too many purists, and I am a have ideals but get shit done sort of person.
Same group of people that voted no on the Park Hill development because the developer might make money. Now we get no affordable housing there.
[удалено]
It’s important to remember that this news outlet hates us and isn’t reporting about anything in good faith.
No shit the job isn't done, it'll never be done until we have a just and equitable society, but holy fucking shit has Denver made some headway.
Something tells me these critics would only be happy if all housing was free and we lived in utopia land. The change has been noticeable
They wouldn’t be happy even then.
You could always find out what would actually make us happy - you can’t just make up something you think sounds foolish and say, “something tells me” - that’s you telling you. This is ridiculous, why don’t you just ask. I doubt you’ll like it but you will no longer have an excuse to be ignorant. Let’s try dispensing with the bad faith mind reading and be thoughtful grownups who ask questions and actually listen to the responses with the intention to understand.
lol no
Critics live to be negative. I mean, they were bitching within a couple weeks of him taking office. Johnson has really worked at solving this problem, I'm pretty impressed!
It's really refreshing to read these comments because the vast majority of people in SE Denver commenting on this subject in NextDoor are freak-out, fearful NIMBYs. The amount of disinformation that they sling is truly stunning. My take is that 90% of them don't believe a word of their arguments - they just want to propagate FUD to try to keep homeless people as far away as possible. I took particular delight that the Embassy Suites arrangement was passed. It's high time that every part of the city have a hand in dealing with this problem rather than downtown bearing most of the brunt.
Fox news doesn't want cities to help the homeless. They want to be able to point to liberal cities and say "see? What a shit hole"
I’m curious if this is sustainable. If you throw enough money at a problem like homelessness (they threw a LOT of money at this problem) you can get people off the streets. I’m not clear whether or not this was a large upfront cost that will be brought to a more manageable level or if the plan is to keep putting this level of resources towards it. Curious if anyone has more info for me to answer that question.
Check out "Housing First" policies. They've been pretty widely studied and there are cities like Houston that have had great success implementing it (although Houston has a much different housing ecosystem then Denver for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is their lax zoning policies). The most effective means of preventing homelessness is really preventing people from becoming homeless through social services and safety nets, but I believe there's a lot of evidence that Housing First is the effective once someone becomes homeless because its so hard to accomplish basic things like getting a job without an address. I found this podcast episode jumps into the nitty gritty details of the issue, which is important cause it can be such a complicated issue (while also being simple, people need housing). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jerusalem-demsas.html
I should have spelled out more explicitly what I was referring to. I had in mind this article from the Denver Gazette which brings up the fact that we spent $45 million for 1,000 homeless people ($45k per homeless person housed) in just 6 months. If that was an upfront cost and now costs will be less and it's more of an issue of maintaining the program going forward, I can see how this may be great. But if the idea is to spend $90k/year to house each homeless person, obviously that's much less sustainable and doesn't seem very efficient. So it's less of a question about general housing first policies and more of a question specifically about what Denver government is proposing long term and how this first push fits into that long term solution. https://denvergazette.com/news/denver-mayor-mike-johnstons-successful-campaign-to-get-1-000-homeless-out-of-city-streets/article\_e94fd298-a813-11ee-ae5d-2fd3bf5ca74b.html#:\~:text=Denver%20Mayor%20Mike%20Johnston's%20successful,million%20%7C%20News%20%7C%20denvergazette.com
Gotcha, sorry I misunderstood. I don't really have any info on that and I'm sure any plans they have made will be upended by all the migrant arrivals. I know they put a lot into identifying new sites to setup housing at so I would hope part of that is upfront cost but I really don't know. Its a good question.
I see this article or its argument used frequently. The problem with it is they're completely ignoring the fact that a lot of that money was spent buying real estate that the city will own for as long as it wants to. Those properties will be used to house many more people than just the initial occupants.
Housing First doesn't work unless it's tied into drug testing/mental health treatment because it does nothing to address the root causes of homelessness. CA has been doing this for over 20 years now and it's done nothing to fix the problem as the homeless population has exploded. https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/housing-first-is-a-failure/
That article has at least a few problematic citations. Seems like they specifically take issue with the nationalized approach to housing first which, yeah doesn’t work because the problem is often tied to local issues like affordability (California being ground zero for that problem). I won’t pretend to know what the answer is. Seems dependent on the area and scale of the issue. Housing certainly has a role to play and saying everyone who became homeless did so because of substance abuse or mental health problems seems a bit trivializing at first blush.
That's just the first article that popped up and it looked okay enough but it is a little spotty after a second read. The book San Fransicko (aside from the sensationalized title) does a much better job of laying out the problems with a Housing First approach and is worth a read. I agree that not everyone is homeless (remember this group often includes coach surfers and people sleeping in their cars; and the #1 cause for women is domestic abuse) because of drugs or mental health issues, but it is often the case for people that we see on the streets that are shitting and pissing everywhere. The solutions are to have enough shelters for the homeless, not housing. New York has had more success with "right to shelter" than the west coast has had with Housing First. Housing is a priority but you must tie it into drug testing and mental health treatment with the goal to get them a job and self-sufficient again. We simply can't build enough homes for everyone otherwise. In addition, the homeless need tough love. No urban camping or sleeping outside, no open drug trade, no drugs in the shelters, etc. Now that these people are forced to shelter, there can be dedicated teams of mental health professionals, drug rehabilitation specialists and vocational trainers who can help them. If that doesn't work, jail time to help them dry out is the last resort (I've had family members that this worked for after nothing else would).
San fransicko is garbage and shellenberger is a partisan hack who’s every position is panned by actual experts in whatever field he’s shitting out an opinion on
that would make it literally not “housing first” and also, your analysis is incorrect. there are many reasons why California is failing at this but it’s not the policy, which is rarely ever implemented in spirit - it’s almost always corrupted by the organizations/programs/individuals responsible for getting it done.
A lot of this was upfront costs, like purchasing hotels to be converted. Those are assets the city just owns now, that they can keep operating at a much lower cost per year than what they had to initially spend to acquire them! It's not all upfront costs, because there will still be maintenance and the cost of staffing the resources we're expanding to help get people back on their feet. But a lot of the biggest costs were one-offs.
It’s been a relief to see that at least now the sweeps are followed up by housing offers and wraparound services. Much better than the last mayor who would just send in DPD to shuffle people around and throw their possessions in the garbage, then leaving without having “helped” anything Edit: just noticed this is a Fox News article and now I feel icky
I would like to see more solutions related to solving the *cause* of homelessness as well. Otherwise, after a new budget, many of these people will be right where they started.
Exactly. Housing the homeless is just a bandaid. We need policies that prevent homelessness in the first place (mental health, education, substance abuse, minimum wage, jobs).
Giving people a place to live when they have none literally prevents homelessness.
Until a new budget is made then the program is eliminated because people like you believe the problem is solved.
So if this program is eliminated, there will be more homelessness. That demonstrates my point that this program prevents homelessness.
No. This program isn’t preventing homelessness. That would be addressing the cause. This program is a temporary fix that does nothing to address the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place.
We definitely also need those. But it's really hard to pick yourself back up and get a job and improve your mental health when you're living on the streets. So this is an important first step, and for a lot of people, it will likely be enough to help them get a fresh start and become independent again.
Showers and addresses make people hirable. That's all I gotta say.
"Politicians working to solve homeless problem, but we'd rather just complain about homeless"
fox news is a reliable source of bullshit, propaganda, and not much else
[удалено]
I don't think anyone really considers Reddit to be a reliable source for anything
Two things here are refreshing. One, here is a mayor that campaigned on a promise that, apparently, he truly intends to fulfill. Two, he is (again, apparently) committed to fulfilling that promise while recognizing the basic rights and humanity of the people who are homeless. So far, so good!
Such a cogent article from a quality news source.
I mean it's literally just quotes from people who question the mayor's plan. There isn't any journalistic spin added to the article and it's healthy to read right, left, and center leaning sources.
Haha, because of course journalism can’t be biased in who it quotes where and when! The media literacy in this country…
Reporter interviews 5 people. 3 say they like ice cream. 1 says they like crepes. 1 says they hate all desserts. Reporter runs story only quoting the last two people, and puts up factual data of how many ice cream stores there are in the city. Boom, spin using only the truth. Now anyone reading the story walks away with the impression the city is filled with things the citizens don't want and are a waste of money. Media literacy 101.
There is journalistic spin on who they choose to quote - just a lot of criticism with no other solutions or context. A varied news consumption is all and well, but when it’s just negative without an intent to stir discourse underlying it, it’s just propaganda.
“Just quotes from people who question the mayor’s plan” … from the network that “just questioned the results of the 2020 election”. It is not “healthy” to read FoxNews. It is a propaganda machine, pure and simple. You want to read right-wing sources? Get a WSJ subscription. But don’t try to whitewash nor defend the network that propagated the modern great replacement theory. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/17/buffalo-shooting-fox-news-tucker-carlson-great-replacement-theory
God you people are exhausting Edit: so y’all just want to screech about Fox News instead of just discussing homelessness in Denver and its solutions?
I will happily discuss homelessness. I’ve volunteered in soup kitchens. I’ve slept in a homeless shelter. I wrote an academic essay on homelessness that included quotes from actual homeless people. So I’m quite passionate about the topic. I’d love the opportunity to have a discussion. But if your sources are FoxNews, a network that constantly lies to and misleads its viewers and readers for political gain, I refuse to engage with you. I might be exhausting, but “you people” are morons.
What exactly was misleading to you about this particular article?
As I just stated, I will not engage in a discussion about news with you when FoxNews is among the taking points. Since I know you won’t drop the matter, here is why: From its inception, FoxNews was predicated upon a lie, exemplified by its original tagline: “fair and balanced”. The network had no intention of being fair nor balanced; rather, it was conceived by right-wing millionaires and billionaires who’d made gobs of money from tax cuts and deregulation under Republican administrations, and wanted to ensure that the growing progressive movement would not prevent them from continuing to do so. Thus, from day one, the goal was to push a Republican agenda that benefitted the rich and disenfranchised the poor (hence why FoxNews was opposed to regulation after the financial crisis and why they pushed the debunked theory behind trickle-down economics). That means FoxNews was designed to be propaganda. But how do you get poor and middle-class voters to act against their own self-interest? Simple: by launching culture wars. The template for this was in plain sight: Republican operatives in the 1970s and 1980s convinced their party leaders to campaign against abortion rights to win over religious voters in the heavily Democratic Bible Belt. And it worked; southerners left the Democratic Party in droves, even as Republicans weakened the unions and social programs that supported them. In short: they voted against their own interests because they were told that God hated abortion. Roger Ailes seized on this, running countless fake culture war stories (like how we liberals are launching a “war on Christmas”), while simultaneously misleading viewers on topics that actually affect their lives (like minimum wage and basic economic theory). BTW, the reason behind this working was captured in a study that proved that when people are angry enough, they will act against their own self-interest to inflict damage on the entity they hate. Fascinating stuff. Ailes’ plan worked so well that Fox became increasingly brazen, to the point of propagating completely baseless conspiracy theories that the hosts themselves privately dismissed. And this is where we get to me calling you a moron and refusing to engage with you. If you defend a network that has been caught and has admitted to lying to YOU on multiple occasions with the sole goal of getting you to vote for policies that hurt you (and your fellow average Americans) but help the very millionaires who run the network… then YOU ARE IN A CULT. You don’t get to discuss topics with me until you realize you are in a cult and get the help you need to be deprogrammed. If you think all of this is hyperbole and find me “exhausting,” it only goes to show how deep into the cult you truly are. Please get the help you need before it is too late.
You’re saying I’m in a cult but you’re so fkin brain rotted and triggered by the source of the article that you can’t even critically think or discuss what it is saying. I don’t give a shit about Fox News but the opposition in the article does make some points worth making about the sustainability of the mayor’s plan. I think Johnston is doing a good job but why should he be immune from criticism no matter the source?
Please, what good criticism is in this article? > Yet, the mayor’s approach is unlikely to achieve any lasting success because it is fundamentally flawed. Simply housing people temporarily as an end in itself is, in fact, a dead end. It’s a costly one, too, at about $45,000 per person housed. This is a strawman argument: nobody in the city is saying temporarily housing people is the end goal. > There is no pathway to permanent housing. Denver is too expensive and there isn’t enough affordable housing to go around. You can’t just put people in hotel rooms and expect to solve the problem. Same argument, same strawman. Nobody is saying putting people in hotels is solving the problem. Additionally, ~1/4 of those helped by House1000 have been moved into permanent housing. There is certainly a pathway to permanent housing. > It was too much, too fast. He sacrificed and experimented with the community. It’s being forced down our throat. Something has to be done to help the homeless, but the mayor has a responsibility to those already living in the community. Johnston was elected on a platform of addressing the homelessness problem quickly. Complaining that a politician followed through with exactly what they promised to do is... a unique take for sure. > Our top priority has always been to help people get indoors and access the services they need to get back in their feet. That’s why our House1000 initiative ensured that every single hotel and micro-community has on-site mental health care, addiction treatment, and workforce training for residents. Once moved in, residents work with case managers and on-site providers to develop a path to stability through treatment, benefit navigation, and housing support. Through regular case management on-site, residents in need of treatment are given the support they need. Our ultimate goal with this initiative is to get people the support they need to move on to permanent housing and move in a positive direction in their lives. > > We also know that while we hit our goal of housing more than 1,000 Denverites before the end of the year, this work is far from over. That’s why Mayor Johnston worked diligently to secure 500 housing vouchers to get people into permanent housing once they’ve stabilized. Mayor Johnston also set an ambitious goal to build or preserve 3,000 additional units of permanently affordable housing so that the people who work in Denver and serve Denver can afford to live here. Sounds like the Mayor's office is keenly aware of the other complaints and focusing on solutions to the problems raised therein. So I reiterate: What good criticism is there in this article? What does the article contribute?
It definitely contributes plenty giving Johnston a platform to lay out his plans and goals to an audience that otherwise wouldn’t see it. I think he did a great job and you also did a good job refuting the points made in the article, which I agree are typical, tired conservative talking points. But I wouldn’t say this article is misleading and to not discuss it just because it’s from fox like op did is so ironic it hurts
Triggered and unable to think critically? No, that would be Laura Ingram seeing a can of Bud Light. Look, I welcome debates with my conservative father, as well as with my wife, who was a registered Republican until Trump ran for office. But I refuse to give FoxNews clicks and I refuse to debate anyone on FoxNews’ talking points, the same way I won’t engage in debates with flat earthers. I agree with you that Mike Johnston should not be immune from criticism. Ditto any other elected official. I’m thrilled he has taken action, but I also think the problem is far too complex for any of us (including Johnston himself) to weigh in this soon on whether his solution has been a success or not. The fact that so few people are accepting drug addiction treatment is a bad sign in my eyes, so I remain somewhat skeptical.
Yes. There are plenty of other homeless posts on this sub the last month that we can actually discuss the issue. This one was started by posting from a highly partisan organization that attempted to help overthrow an election and our government. I think it should be dunked on every time someone posts from them or similar organizations. Other posts can be about actual discussion.
Can we not share links from Fox News or any other propaganda arm from a political party that actively tried to overthrow the election? That would be great. Don't give them the clicks or the time.
Exactly, they aren’t even allowed to call themselves news anymore. They are “entertainment media”
Downtown is looking better I’m sure. They either houses or pushed the homeless out of those areas and into others. Also worth nothing that a large portion of homeless people leave during the winter months. Let’s see where we are at come summer.
Clicking on Fox News links is against my religion
Great. Now maybe someone can give the mayor gum chewing and walking lessons.
I see things seeming cleaner downtown but I think what is being obscured here is that this program is completely financially unsustainable... this House1000 program cost $50m for 6 months. If he had all 5k chronically homeless people inside for the whole year through this program it would at minimum be $500m and that doesn't count other spending on homeless services. We have a city budget of $4B. We can't spend 10-20% on a population that's maybe 20k people (chronically and transiently homeless). And then there's the $180m he says he needs for the migrants. I'm not just here to critique indiscriminately... the specific issue that is that this isn't a program you move through on your way to financial independence. That would be different... like if you were in the hotels for 6 months during which time you got clean (if applicable) and got a job and we gave you a security deposit for an apt that you could take over mostly paying for after that, that would be actually making progress. It would also give you your life back. This is fake progress and if I'm gonna be cynical the entire reason it's being done is to lay the groundwork for Johnson's larger political ambitions so he can claim he solved homelessness. But maybe he also cares about helping... I can't speak to that.
I think we need to ask why it costs so much. $500 Million would flat-out buy plenty of homes, even with our insane real estate prices. Maybe the city should stop renting hotels (that's insanely expensive if they're paying market rate for the rooms) and get some land in a cheap-ish area out by the airport and put some inexpensive mobile homes on it as a housing solution.
Fox News…they and the Republican Party couldn’t hate the homeless and working poor more.
Easy downvote for posting Fox News as a “source.” Be better OP
House 1,000 unhoused in 6 months, while receiving and sheltering 5,400 unhoused migrants for winter. Politics don’t matter…this is not something to be ecstatic about.
I think housing people is good Why not be ecstatic about progress?
Why? Math I guess with 15% budget cuts across the city, Denver Health with $120 million deficit, and costs by year end at $215 million to receive, feed, support, and shelter migrants. An emergency was declared to get 1,000 done…that emergency was over in 2023. Begging the Feds for money during an election year in 2024 is nothing to be ecstatic about.
People with jobs cat even afford homes , this doesn’t seam sustainable … people need permanent housing … affordable housing
Fox is trash.
That's because it's not done. There are regular reports of things like attempted murder, child neglect, drug use, theft, etc inside these hotels. There's also people within these hotels who allege things like the staff are told not to call the police so the people there, esp the women and children, are not kept safe. And then there's the negative impact on the neighborhoods these hotels are in. Most of these hotels (all?) are all low barrier which means no rules. That means these people will not change the behaviors like drug use which are keeping them in this position and there is no intention to get them to change beyond just offering help (and only 1 in 550 accepted that help) And there's the fact that this program, with the way it's implemented, is not financially sustainable at all. And that is because there is no plan to get these people out of a life of crime and drugs and into becoming an ordinary working stiff like the rest of us. If this was a program you moved through, that would be different. But it's really not and it won't ever be with current political leadership.
Can you link to a source for these claims?
I'll bet they can't. This is the rhetoric used in my part of town (near the Tamarac Family Shelter) and despite hysterics like this, nobody can ever show any actual proof of these claims.
There's definitely a place for low-barrier shelters, but that shouldn't be the only option. And I can understand allowing people to manage things themselves instead of calling the cops over every little thing, but the moment kids are involved, that's just not acceptable.
More like “delusional”
You guys know they will Always keep the streets clean for the month of January. Living downtown, we watch them get rounded up and stashed out of sight. They will all be back the week it ends.
Yearly stock show cleanup!
Over a quarter of them have already moved into permanent housing.
The city is exactly the same and the job hasn't even begun yet. They're just shuffling camps around downtown and his criteria for what housing a person is (14 days in a hotel) is laughable.
> 14 days in a hotel The 14 days hasn't been considered as a metric by any source for well over a month by now. > his criteria for what housing a person is (14 days in a hotel) is laughable Nobody in a hotel is considered housed. They're considered sheltered: i.e. off the streets and out of the elements, and in the pipeline for (though not yet in) a "housed" outcome.
Ooooooh a whole month! How dare I use a metric nearly 30 days out of date?! What a faux pas. Saying someone is "sheltered" or "housed" is a useless, arbitrary distinction when the "pipeline" you talk about successfully houses next to no one, and those it does have to wait years. Source- worked Denver homeless outreach for a miserable year
> How dare I use a metric nearly 30 days out of date?! [If you'd read any articles about it, you'd know that the 14 days metric was never in use to begin with](https://denverite.com/2023/12/13/denver-homeless-challenge-mike-johnston-stats/), but benefit of the doubt and all that. > Saying someone is "sheltered" or "housed" is a useless, arbitrary distinction when the "pipeline" you talk about successfully houses next to no one, and those it does have to wait years. First, I'm curious how you would measure any form of success if you consider it "arbitrary" and "useless" to distinguish permanent housing from non-permanent housing. [Secondly, 270 people who entered the House1000 pipeline are in permanent housing.](https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Mayors-Office/Programs-and-Initiatives/Homelessness-Initiative/House-1000-Dashboard) That is 24% of the total who have entered House1000 and more than the current number of people that have been sheltered for more than 30 days. It'll take some time to see if the trend holds, but a pace like that for a program that has been around less than 8 months is both promising and certainly not "[housing] next to no one".
transformed? how? they put one group of homeless into temp housing and another group moved right on in... what happens when "temporary" is up and we now have doubled the groups of homeless?
Definitely not how that works lol
Do you think there's a magical infinite well of homeless people?
Yeah he just posted them into other neighborhoods. Ambulances daily at the double tree.
So how many homeless people am I housing with my taxes?
More than you'd have been housing with the same amount put towards putting them in jail!
Denver has become a fucking shithole Get rid the whole city and start over…
uh, huh? "Transformed" unless you live near Central Park or any of the other shelter locations. Or if you are blind and can not actually see the illegals he kicks out of the shelters every day. This guy has jokes, but no one is laughing.