- 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 eight ( 8 ) 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 ChaptersAdams/JeffersonArapahoe CountyDenverDouglasGreater BoulderPikes PeakSan MiguelSouthwestThe 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/
AgreeMost European countries are providing public space for refugees from the Middle East and other war torn parts of the world and making efforts to assimilate them into their societies. In the U.S. we not only discard our own economic refugees we make it illegal to be homeless. The next thing you know corporations will be buying the naming rights to our parks and putting their logos up in neon lights. Maybe they wouldn't mind homeless people sleeping in parks if they had tents with corporate logos on them. Kevin AlumbaughGreater Boulder Green Party
Agree. Camping bans are not solutions to homelessness. They mask the root causes, are inhumane, and cost the taxpayers more than just simply offering housing.
Agree.I see no downside to this proposal. It is in line with 10 Key Values and the priorities of our state and local chapters. Passing this proposal will cost nothing, and we gain a clearer vision of how to be the change we seek to see in the world.
AGREEThe Poudre Valley Green Party voted unanimously to approve this at our last meeting. By the way, we're active again! We aren't on the above list, though. Can you add us as active in your records Brittany?
Agree. I think to even call a bill a “Camping Ban” when everyone knows it is not about a night out with roasted marshmallows, but rather with the most vulnerable people living in a destitute situation is wrong. It is also wrong for comfortable businesses with patrons to want to keep the poor from their sight. Even if we cannot spend as much time and labor as others who provide meals and conversations on cold nights, like Janet Matzen, we can still chose to care and sometimes do something.
AGREEThe Poudre Valley Green Party voted unanimously to approve this at our last meeting. By the way, we're active again! We aren't on the above list, though. Can you add us as active in your records Brittany?
Welcome back Poudre Valley! Happy you are active again. 🙂
We are needing one more chapter to vote in order for this to pass. We currently have 4 separate chapters voting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.