J. Andrews

🧵1/7

@Scottiegrrl @SolutionsNotSZs What shelter? It closes at 8am. All those other options you mention are part of the “safe zone” except for open space, which is an unreasonable scenario. I guess we could just make more incidents like Jessica Aldama happen if we want to be that kind of town

@SolutionsNotSZs The other options are down the street, by the creek, in the underpasses, by the main roads, behind businesses, on the mall, the library playground, in the endless open space, and oh-the homeless shelter for the sober. Look around you. The have settlements all over town.

@TaraWiner Definitely don’t vote in their interests though — I know you won’t but just as reminder!!!

I loved talking to students, hearing their opinions, and encouraging them to vote!

@DirtyDan719 @Doug_C_Hamilton Who?

@smith4stevenson @SolutionsNotSZs @dailycamera Oh, I have no doubt the proponents *thought* they were gonna help children. But their appeal to try to get “or sidewalk” removed after they’d already submitted their completed petitions tells you exactly how well it was “designed” LMAO

@JessInBldr @SolutionsNotSZs @dailycamera Does this not talk about schools? SZ is designed to help children, not sure how you can avoid that reality.

Enforcement-only measures that simply displace and shuffle unhoused people around the city without providing them with any legal spaces to exist makes no one safer. That's why voters must reject Safe Zones 4 Kids in favor of real solutions. Read the full piece @dailycamera

@smith4stevenson @SolutionsNotSZs @dailycamera “Because it’s in the name!” LOLOL Read literally a single thing written about this measure by its detractors. And not even the “no” campaign — the Camera, the Weekly, the former Human Relations Commission reps op ed from yesterday, BVSD reps, Boulder Beat… so many omg

@JessInBldr @SolutionsNotSZs @dailycamera Yeah, which is why it’s so weird that you would think it’s not designed with our children in mind…

@smith4stevenson @SolutionsNotSZs @dailycamera “It’s in the name!” BAHAHAHAHA

@JessInBldr @SolutionsNotSZs @dailycamera 302 is absolutely designed to keep kids out of harms way. It’s literally named SZ for Kids… You may argue (incorrectly) that “it won’t work”, but at the end of the day, SZ was created to keep our kids away from things like propane tank explosions. End of story. Yes on 302!

@RyChristophers @Doug_C_Hamilton The young person in Aurora was murdered by police. It makes sense to ensure that boulder learns from what happened there so it doesn’t happen here. Police accountability is essential to public safety

@DirtyDan719 @Doug_C_Hamilton This is like saying “I can’t even date anyone anymore because of #metoo!”

@smith4stevenson @SolutionsNotSZs @dailycamera The only outcomes of THIS election are a moderately conservative council or straight law n order. Neither of these outcomes will address the homelessness crisis unless people actually demand it. 302 above ALL will not keep kids “out of harms way” because it’s not designed to

@smith4stevenson @SolutionsNotSZs @dailycamera Its no surprise you’d also support 302 with a mindset like that. This council gave police and SAMPS every SINGLE thing they have ever asked for. Boulder has never had a progressive majority. Boulder has never enacted truly progressive policy.

@jjbchansen @SolutionsNotSZs @yellowscenemag The measure blocks encampments from nearly 80% of the city in the name of “kids”. It’s supporters have even said it’s about “where” and not “what” While at the same time shouting about drugs, crime, theft. 302 deprioritizes sweeping for those behaviors. It’s a ban on homelessness

@SolutionsNotSZs @yellowscenemag Please stop grouping all the homeless population together. They are a diverse population. The small subset of that population we need to protect students from can be dangerous.

“‘Farnan said that 302, in effect, “is pitting groups against each other, pitting students against homeless people, and then asking voters to choose. I think it’s bad policy.’” Via @yellowscenemag yellowscene.com/2023/11/01/bal…

@Togethr4Boulder @SolutionsNotSZs Deprioritizing behaviors and replacing them with proximity does not make people safer. 302 proponents consistently mention dangerous behaviors when they talk about this proposal. But the proposal actually signals that where is more important than what. That’s backwards

@SolutionsNotSZs Which means vote yes 302. It will make prioritization easier.

NEW: "[V]oters need to carefully examine whether the price of expressing our concerns would be outcomes that make it more difficult for public safety officials to do their jobs." #Boulder #NoOn302 dailycamera.com/2023/10/31/let…

@swalker451 @SolutionsNotSZs 302 tells the city that sidewalks and schools should be equally prioritized, rather than using their current matrix where reports of crime and threats of violence factor higher. 302 proponents specifically stated they want those areas given more weight. That disperses enforcement

I think this indicates how 302 is ineffective. “Get em away from schools.” Okay, fair, but then what? Do you recognize that continuously spending money & resources to move people around isn’t effective? That it doesn’t improve public safety?

@BevPogreba @SolutionsNotSZs @kap3021 Incidents of public safety do NOT go down in winter and the fact that you you think that replacing “reports of crime and threats of violence” with mere proximity tells me that it’s not about the drugs or the behavior. It’s bias towards a group as a whole and it’s disgusting

"Because it's not a solution to say 'If we just sweep harder, people are going to be safer.'" #Boulder

@BevPogreba @SolutionsNotSZs @kap3021 And by dispersement of campers, I certainly don’t mean “targeted and away from the places 302 people want them away from”. What I mean dispersement via continued sweeps that cause new problems for new areas as campers try to “obey” an 80% blanket ban

@BevPogreba @SolutionsNotSZs @kap3021 We definitely shouldn’t do something “new” that is more shuffling around! There is no doubt of what prompted 302. What resulted is poorly written policy that has two possible outcomes - 1/ nothing at all or 2/ dispersement of campers and dispersed response due to sidewalks