Colorado is often a lightning rod for debates around housing policy, access, and affordability; these debates ultimately point to the fundamental question housing policies ask of us as communities: who has the right to belong here?
This question is at the center of a fierce debate currently happening in Aurora which concerns the city’s recently enacted camping ban. The current law permits city workers and law enforcement to remove encampments for the unhoused from public spaces without any notice. A proposed change to this law would mandate that unhoused peoples be given a minimum 72-hour notice before having to move their encampment.
The current process works like this: an encampment is reported to the city, which then dispatches an outreach team to connect with the people living in the encampment. They are offered free services to facilitate their move, including an offer to move to Aurora’s Regional Navigation Campus which provides free housing to those in immediate need. In instances requiring a team to be dispatched to remove or move an encampment, a cleanup crew and hired contractors must be sent to the site to facilitate removal of the encampment. The timeline is usually around 72 hours for the full process to commence.
There is an exception to this rule, which centers around public safety: in instances where it is obvious to a reasonable observer that an individual camping in a public space poses an imminent threat – either to others or themselves – then the city has the authority to remove them immediately.
Those in favor of the proposed change to the law assert that a formal 72-hour notice is not only more realistic in terms of process, but also more humane as it provides a measure of meaningful notice to the unhoused without having to immediately evacuate them from the site.
Those who oppose the change do so on the grounds that such a rule is unnecessary and is simply a question of lack of will and resources on the part of the city. They claim to have a ‘tough love’ approach to dealing with the unhoused, focusing primarily on rehabilitating individuals to become self-sufficient.
The issue with these debates is that they typically center the discomfort of housed peoples who recoil at the sight of unhoused peoples in encampments. It does not prioritize the welfare of those directly impacted: the unhoused themselves. These debates remind us that public policy – and especially public policy affecting the basics of life, which includes housing – must come from a place of deep understanding, compassion, and compromise.
There are enough spaces and resources to provide comfortable, stable, and safe housing to all. We just need to be courageous enough to find it.
Security Deposit – landlord not allowed to keep any amount of deposit if tenant is experiencing domestic violence
