Weaver, Joseph and Young apparently have no understanding of what it means to have a "holistic discussion" on homelessness.

That's not me saying it... that's literally what they are saying in a scheduling meeting now about the followup to Tuesday's meeting.

"I don’t really comprehend what that means bc in the end we make discrete decisions. ... I don’t understand what a holistic (discussion) means."
https://t.co/IP7NcynNE7
Council decided last week that camps will keep being removed BUT they didn't weigh in on staff's recommendations for more enforcement. Members Brockett/Friend said they didn't want to vote on those without also considering more services....
....which might reduce the need for removals.

Basically, you can spend on removals or you can spend on services. So to uncouple these discussions doesn't make sense, they argued.
Council members will be polled about when they want this Part 2 meeting to be, but Weaver and Joseph are both in favor of later. Council needs time to "digest," they said. So possibly March or later.
If it IS March, it will be late March bc of board and commission appointments.
Forgot to attribute the quotes above. Those were Weaver.
Here's one from Young which shows the way council might be tending:
"I myself think a holistic discussion needs to be defined and we need to remember we can only do so much in Boulder. Boulder doesn’t have entire purview over Homeless Solutions Boulder County, so it’s very limited what we can do."
Young is correct about HSBC setting the policy. And giving funding. They've already said they won't pay for safe camping or parking, as they don't believe those can be part of a housing-first approach. (National and regional experts disagree.)
But Boulder can pay for things itself, and does have some control over the programs/services it offers. That's the issue Brockett/Friend are raising: Boulder's being asked to spend $$ on more enforcement. Why not spend the $$ on services instead? they say.
Especially given the apparent ineffectiveness of removals to address root causes of homelessness, as outlined by staff Tuesday.
However, council has already turned down these services before, so.... *shrug*
Anyway, short thread, and basically what I said in my article (linked above). But interesting news RE: scheduling, scope.
@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!

More from Society

Imagine if Christians actually had to live according to their Bibles.


Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.

Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.

Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.

Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.

Or cancelled all debt owed them?

Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.

Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.

Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.

Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.

Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.

Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?