by Irene Clark

I am a relatively new activist of less than two years.  One of the first actions I ever attended was the very first boycott for the “Urban Camping” Ban back when it started at Snooze.  In the rush of learning about all the issues I had previously been oblivious to, I lost track of it for several months until I ran into Janet Matzen at another meeting.  She reminded me and everyone there about the ongoing boycott to end the Ban, and I started coming again.  Though at that time I cared about the homeless issue, there were a couple of incidents that showed me just how important this fight is.

One day a group of people came out after eating.  They were obviously rich.  As they passed, I offered them a flyer on why we were there, which they ignored.  I said, “Don’t you care about the homeless?”  To which the older woman in the full-length mink coat turned around and said in a snooty voice, “I don’t care.”  She was so callous and, being the sarcastic person that I am, I thought, “Oh, she’s just mad that she can’t wear her human baby skin coat out in public.”  As appalling as this and other encounters were, there was one that changed my life.

As part of the boycott, we fed, and continue to feed, homeless people.  Quite a few came to get some food, but one, in particular, caught my attention.  I noticed a young girl, maybe 18, walking towards me.  She was obviously homeless with disheveled strawberry-blonde hair, an innocent face, worn and dirty clothes and no shoes.  She was crying and looked directly at me and said, “This isn’t fair.  I’m so mad I’m homeless.”  At that moment, the only thing I could see was my own sweet daughter walking toward me with disheveled hair, dirty clothes, no shoes and crying.  My heart broke imagining that not only was no one rushing to help her, but the people waiting for up to two hours outside Snooze to pay for their over-priced pretentious food were looking down their noses at her.  I was so overwhelmed that I went to my car and just cried.

After Snooze reversed their position and opposed the camping ban, we began boycotting The Palm Restaurant, where we endured being called every name in the book, being harassed, police intimidation, targeting and even violence, and, for the pièce de résistance, I was even threatened with rape by one of their employees.  This was all while we were being accused of being homeless (as if that somehow made us less and justified how badly they treated us), of being paid to protest (not one of us is) or that we were making a mistake boycotting them because of how much money they contribute to homeless causes (by donating, they are really just paying for the right to make homeless people disappear).

We heard a similar story from Snooze about how they “help the homeless,” and we hear the same argument from the business we are boycotting now.  I guess the rich think that making someone’s life harder is considered “help.”  Have you noticed that trend lately?  Help the poor by taking from them, but help the rich by giving them more.  But our citizens experiencing homelessness already have nothing, and the Ban essentially takes away their last shreds of dignity.  It limits their ability to sleep.  They are forced to choose between sleeping in a well-lit place where they cannot use a blanket and are persistently told to “move along,” or under a bridge or in a dark alley where they can use a blanket (until caught) but where they are much less safe from violence.  Either way, they are prevented from getting enough sleep, which “may raise risk for, and even directly contribute to, the development of some psychiatric disorders” (www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters, “Sleep and Mental Health”, July 2009).  Contrary to what those that were behind this law want you to believe, there are not enough beds and services for the homeless as promised, and the Ban has actually made life much worse for homeless people.

When we were considering where to move the boycott after The Palm reversed their position, a lot of businesses were discussed.  Then we looked closer at the businesses with which we had been communicating.  One -- the Tattered Cover Book Store -- stood out as a business that should know better than to support the Ban for moral reasons, and we were genuinely saddened they had not withdrawn from the Downtown Denver Partnership after seeing how much our homeless citizens are suffering because of it. So, we approached them again by email to no avail.  We went and met with them to no avail.  We heard pretty much the same arguments from them as we did from Snooze and The Palm.  Then, we noticed that they were actually benefiting financially from being a member of the Partnership, and that not coming out against the Ban was purely a financial decision.  The Tattered Cover has FOUR new locations opening up at the Airport.  Would that have happened if they had split with the Partnership over the Ban?  The timing of these new book stores and their inexplicable reluctance to leave the Partnership led us to only one conclusion.

Since announcing our boycott at Tattered Cover, we have been criticized over it for many reasons.  The most frequent arguments are that they did not testify for the Ban, they are a beloved institution, or that they are “David versus Goliath.” True, they did not testify before City Council in favor of the Ban, but they did “vote” for the Ban with their wallet by paying membership dues to the Partnership before and after the Ban, even after being well-aware of the harm the Ban is doing to our homeless community they claim to care about.  They may even be a beloved institution competing against “Goliath s,” but does that excuse their partnering with an organization that created, pushed and supports such inhumane treatment of the most vulnerable population for which the Partnership claims to be the caretakers?  If you think it does, then perhaps you should take a long, hard look at yourself because you have probably lost touch with your humanity.

Our homeless citizens are someone’s brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, nieces, nephews...  They are living, breathing human beings with feelings, desires and dreams.  Most have fallen on hard times or suffer from physical or mental issues.  Some have even chosen to opt out of the way of life imposed on them by society.  Does this mean they don’t deserve to be treated as humans?  Does this mean they are disposable?

With the way our economy is going and the widening wealth disparity in this country, by choosing to not help our fellow homeless citizens, you may just be choosing to not help yourself in the not-so-distant future.  What goes around comes around.

By John Wayne Claybaugh

In the spring of last year, the city and county of Denver created an ordinance that made it illegal to ‘camp’ on private and public property in the city and county of Denver. It is illegal to cover one's self with a blanket or any other article during the night or day, even if one is sitting in a park in the rain during the day.

As we look at the numbers of individuals experiencing homelessness, we can look at the "Point in Time Study" sponsored by Metro Denver Homeless Initiative. This report stated that over 10,000 homeless individuals live in our city. In an effort to house them there are barely over 1000 emergency shelter beds available. These emergency shelter beds are seasonally complemented by a few hundred more in the winter months—still way below the need, so where should a person who is experiencing homelessness sleep?

There are some who pay for their own hotel rooms or get hotel vouchers from various providers, yet this solution doesn't work for everyone. Some do find space in shelters. There are still many people who feel like their only choice is to sleep outside.

Because of the camping ban the police are waking people in the middle of the night. In the summer of 2012 I might have been told to move no less than four times during the night. The police said they didn't care where I went; I just needed to go somewhere else.

When the ordinance was first spoken of there were promises of more services becoming available and that the police would assist people in finding shelter for the night. Overall, this hasn't happened. While there are a few more beds, mats, and cots available now than before, there still aren't enough. And as for police helping people to find shelters, in the six times I was approached by police since the camping ban, I was never offered services. Also, there's the fact that some people do not feel safe in shelters. 

As evidence of the lack of adequate shelter beds, during the recent cold weather in early December, Denver Rescue Mission (meaning the Lawrence shelter) filled their dorm, both chapels, the hallways, and the dining room. The mats were so close together that you couldn't roll over without being on top of the next guy. Plus they don't have mats for that space and may or may not have blankets. (Last year I slept in the dining room once. I was given one or two sheets, that's it. Thankfully I carried a blanket with me at the time and slept on that.) 


A few downtown businesses who initially supported the camping ban have issued statements saying that they now believe it is a disservice to the homeless population. The camping ban criminalizes sleeping, which is obviously a basic human need. For our government to say that it is illegal for a homeless individual to find an out of the way place to sleep at night is inhumane. People should be allowed to sleep all night without being disturbed.

In addition to the fact that the camping ban makes it more difficult for people to get rest at night, we often forget that the ban also makes it more difficult for homeless people to rest at all during the day. On a chilly day, what does a person do? The day shelters are full. A homeless individual may want to take a nap. The reasons for desiring a nap are plentiful. Maybe they didn't "get in" the night before and only got a few hours of sleep on a bus. Maybe they've worked long hours and simply need a break. Maybe they have been ill. A person who has a house or an apartment can simply lay down on a couch or a bed, but someone who is living without a home cannot do such a thing. There are libraries and other public spaces available, but these locations require patrons to at least stay awake.

This is what Denver has become. It is now illegal to protect yourself from the cold by covering with a blanket or tarp. The message that the city has sent to the homeless community is, "We don't really like you and we want to pretend your problems don't exist."

I hope that, even with all the regulations the city has put in place that directly affect the homeless community, all of you can stay warm through the rest of the winter.