• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Denver's proposed camping ban passes council on first reading

What will be ethe effects of it passing, anyway?

If they criminalize it - and start doing what? I see that their options are to 1) Relocate homeless to a shelter, maybe try to help them square their lives away 2) Simply scatter the number of homeless and force them to try to hide from law enforcement 3) Drive them out of the city 4) Toss them in jail.

Well - #1 requires adequate resources for housing and assistance that people complain about.
#2 and #3 are a blind-eye approach and might scatter the numbers but doesn't reduce the actual number of homeless. . . and will just likely spread their 'problems' to other areas: suburbia, etc.
#4 will result in overcrowded prisons and right back to where we all started.

Seems to me they need to decide what they want to do: just get rid of homeless - or make more efforts to end homelessness.
 
Generally speaking people would strongly oppose an increase in taxes. Especially the conservatives (which there are plenty of in colorado) who think everyone is homeless because they are lazy and shouldn't be helped.

Yeah, well what do you want? To clean up your streets or to deal with the homeless making camp all over the place? Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to deal with the homeless problem, it will cost you. And this is a benefit to the local society/city on whole. You're getting something out of it, and you don't get something for free.
 
1. LOL So I am a liberal now?



2. Where are you in Colorado that homeless people are not able to come to?



3. This is what your argument has come down to? Claiming comprehension issues? How original.

1. Don't know if you are a liberal, but you speak like one.

2. I didn't say they are not able to come...I said they won't come.

3. No, it's what YOUR argument has come down to...as you've shown with just about every one of your comments. You really have a hard time understanding plain English, don't you?
 
Don't know how much the State itself pays, but the USDA paid Colorado over 300,000,000 bucks in 2010.

Hmmm...

Did the USDA pay that to the State? Or to the farmers?
 
I wonder if part of this isn't a response to the "Occupy" movement, and a means to ensure that the Police can simply go in and dismantle any camp that they may try to rebuild this spring?

I dont think it is in response to Occupy. Occupy Denver was pretty civil and they applied for permits and didnt leave too much of a mess behind. Was done somewhat well here.
 
Hmmm...

Did the USDA pay that to the State? Or to the farmers?

I believe it goes to the State first and then the State disperses it. But I'm not sure.
 
Yeah, well what do you want? To clean up your streets or to deal with the homeless making camp all over the place? Ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

What I want probably would never happen so that is not really applicable.
If you want to deal with the homeless problem, it will cost you. And this is a benefit to the local society/city on whole. You're getting something out of it, and you don't get something for free.

Tell that the hundreds who showed up to speak against the homeless being allowed to be homeless last night. Tell the that people who combat any efforts to raise taxes or redistribute taxes to help the homeless. the reality is in a perfect world we wouldnt have homeless or if we did we would be taking care of them properly. But there is a large base of people who push back on any efforts to assist them. You cant just force it on people because so many oppose.
 
What I want probably would never happen so that is not really applicable.


Tell that the hundreds who showed up to speak against the homeless being allowed to be homeless last night. Tell the that people who combat any efforts to raise taxes or redistribute taxes to help the homeless. the reality is in a perfect world we wouldnt have homeless or if we did we would be taking care of them properly. But there is a large base of people who push back on any efforts to assist them. You cant just force it on people because so many oppose.

Perhaps those "hundreds" could put their own money where their mouths are?
 
I think that most people who support helping the homeless do put our money where our mouths are.

And yet, you think the State or the Feds should spend money as well? Again, spoken like a true liberal.
 
I dont think it is in response to Occupy. Occupy Denver was pretty civil and they applied for permits and didnt leave too much of a mess behind. Was done somewhat well here.

Okay. I know there's a law in Worcester, MA that nobody can be in a City Park after midnight and that there is no camping in almost all of the city parks. That law was reinforced last fall after the couple dozen Occupy Worcester folks tried (unsuccessfully) to occupy the Worcester Common on two separate occasions and were forced into Lake Park (which is in the middle of nowhere) instead.
 
Tell that the hundreds who showed up to speak against the homeless being allowed to be homeless last night. Tell the that people who combat any efforts to raise taxes or redistribute taxes to help the homeless. the reality is in a perfect world we wouldnt have homeless or if we did we would be taking care of them properly. But there is a large base of people who push back on any efforts to assist them. You cant just force it on people because so many oppose.

People always want what's unreasonable. But there's no such thing as a free lunch, so if you want something you need to be prepared to pay for it.
 
Seems the State of Colorado doesn't get any money.

That flushes your suggestion down the tubes,eh?

What suggestion was that?
 
Criminalizing homelessness is a dangerous precedent to set IMO. I used to live in Colorado, born and raised, and while homelessness is a problem, I don't think this is the answer.

What have been deemed "Ugly Laws" were actually such laws. They started cropping up around the mid-19th century. If you would like, there was a text I picked up a bit ago called "The Ugly Laws" that went into great detail over their origin, purpose, and association later in the late 20th century.
 
What suggestion was that?

My bad...it wasn't you who made the suggestion that Colorado help the homeless by diverting farm subsidy money.
 
Okay. I know there's a law in Worcester, MA that nobody can be in a City Park after midnight and that there is no camping in almost all of the city parks. That law was reinforced last fall after the couple dozen Occupy Worcester folks tried (unsuccessfully) to occupy the Worcester Common on two separate occasions and were forced into Lake Park (which is in the middle of nowhere) instead.

To my knowledge most, if not all, occupy denver folk went home after hours except for a time period that was announced prior.
 
Yes I do think that there should be more support at state and federal levels to assist with the homeless problem in this country. Why is that wrong?

Because it's a local issue...the State has very little money to spend and needs it for more important State issues...the Federal government is broke.
 
Because it's a local issue...the State has very little money to spend and needs it for more important State issues...the Federal government is broke.

What is more important that helping the citizens of their country, state, county, or city get off the streets and become productive tax paying citizens? Please explain to the downside to that?
 
What is more important that helping the citizens of their country, state, county, or city get off the streets and become productive tax paying citizens? Please explain to the downside to that?

Nothing wrong with helping citizens...it's just not the place for the State or Federal government. In the case of your OP, it's a Denver issue.
 
Nothing wrong with helping citizens...it's just not the place for the State or Federal government. In the case of your OP, it's a Denver issue.

Well maybe not the Federal government - but I see nothing wrong with a state taking it on - it's an issue within their state. I don't see why they shouldn't be 'allowed 't od oso.
 
Homelessness is not confined to Denver. You do realize that right?

Sewage is not confined to Denver either...all communities have it. Do you think the State or the Fed should pay for Denver's sewage treatment?
 
Back
Top Bottom