- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Proposal 001-16: Reject the Urban Camping BansPlease read the proposal and keep comments on the topic of the proposal only.Designate your vote by using the following terms: AGREE, BLOCK, or STAND ASIDE. Any blocks will require a vote of the council Per Section 4.3 of the GPCO Bylaws, "All decisions concerning policy, finance, and objectives shall require consensus or a vote of at least 60% of the membership present at a state meeting and/or the Council".There are currently nine ( 9 ) active voting chapters in the Green Party of Colorado. A vote of at lease 60% quorum requires at lease one response from five( 5 ) chapters.Active ChaptersAdamsJeffersonArapahoe CountyDenverDouglasGreater BoulderPikes PeakSan MiguelSouthwest Mesa (Pending Council Representatives)The floor is now open for one week of Agreement Seeking (March 1, 2016).Thank you,Brittany Hoover, Council Facilitator 1. Basic InfoDate proposed: February 23, 2016Name of the sponsor(s): Bill Bartlett, Susan Hall, Kevin Alumbaugh2. Title:Reject the Urban Camping Bans3. Text of the actual Proposal:Denver and Boulder have both passed "camping bans" that target homeless populations by making it illegal to sleep in vehicles, or to lie down in public areas. The Green Party of Colorado rejects these bans as counterproductive at best and inhumane at worst.Our rejection of these "solutions" is based in our Key Values, including Nonviolence, Social Justice, Economic Justice, Respect for Diversity, and Future Focus.We call upon our local governments to overturn the camping bans that creates criminals out of our most defenseless citizens. We demand that our leaders do more to listen to the disenfranchised members of our society to address their needs. Our communities are strengthened when we open ourselves to dialog that creates an equitable future and opportunity for all peoples.4. Background:Research has been done recently by Professor Tony Robinson, the chair of CU's political science department. From 9 News Denver: "The research, which was compiled from interviews with 441 homeless people, shows 36 percent have been arrested for being homeless and 90 percent report police harassment." In Denver, the homeless are not permitted to use anything but their clothes to protect them from the elements (no blankets or coverings).5. Justification/Goals:Camping bans such as those in Denver and Boulder are a prime example of corporate influence effecting policy in a negative way. The Downtown Denver Partnership used its political influence to lobby in favor of this misguided policy. This is a place where the Greens can and should make a statement.6. Pros and Cons:Passing this proposal makes a statement at a time when it is most needed. Many Greens are active in movements that support Colorado's homeless community, and this would help reflect our commitment to them and their work. We would also be setting a standard for future Greens that hope to run as candidates for our party, to give them some guidance on our stance concerning this issue.Failure in passing this bill would allow us to remain silent as those that most need a voice have none. We should make it known that Greens will work for better legislation than this.7. Alternatives to the proposal:We could draft something more depth, or share some ideas about how we address homeless needs with Green policies.8. References:Huffington Post, retireved November 20, 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/denver-camping-ban/Channel NEws 9 retireved Novemger 20, 2015 http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/04/07/homeless-study-cu-denver-camping-ban/25431635/
Agree. What a pathetic non-solution camping bans are to homelessness. Is this the best that elected city council members can come up with? Just go somewhere else so we can pretend you don't exist. Where are they supposed to go? Camping bans shift the burden of dealing with the homeless epidemic to local police departments who are not trained to be social workers. Most of the homeless are innocent victims of the recent economic crisis and they will be the last segment of society to recover from it. A high percentage of them are also in need of treatment for mental illness. Interesting that there was money to bail out the banks and financial institutions but there was no money for the most vulnerable in our society.Why do city governments and police departments even have jurisdiction over public spaces like parks other than to provide for public safety? Public spaces should be like national parks. Citizens should be allowed to camp anywhere they choose within them or conduct ongoing protests with impunity unlike the Occupy encampments that were eventually shut down brutally by the police state. Rather than having the option of sweeping them under the rug as an inconvenient truth there should be tent cities in our parks to remind all of us of our failure to deal with the problem. Then maybe local governments would be more likely to come up with practical alternatives such as low income housing and safe temporary shelters on public land. How about a tax on stock transactions or a dividend tax on corporate profits to benefit the homeless in the communities where their headquarters are located?
I completely agree. I would only like to add I agree with everything Kevin said since he did such a good job of providing reasons why some of the most vulnerable people in our society should not be subjected to more abuse in a system that has its wealthy prey on the poor.
This proposal also needs two additional chapters to agree. I was mistaken in that 5 votes are needed to reach quorum, since Mesa is an active chapter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.