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

@danielashby @AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd I'll bite. Let's try to keep it factual. There's a reasonable basis to some aspects of this question, that it might be possible to agree on. Then there are other, more variable, elements which depend on external factors such as transport and energy policy. /1

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd First up, we know reasonably well how much energy it takes to propel a high-speed train along the HS2 route. We can translate that into effective CO2 generated by making some assumptions about how green the electricity grid is. /2

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd Secondly, we have a reasonable grasp of how much CO2 is going to be generated by building HS2 - there are standard methods of working this out, based on the amount of steel, concrete, earthmoving, machine-fuelling etc required. /3

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd Thirdly, we can estimate how much CO2 is generated by cutting down trees, and how much is captured by planting new trees. We can also estimate how much CO2 is needed to keep the railway running and generated by maintaining the track /4

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd We know how much CO2 is saved by moving goods by freight train on the lines freed up by moving the express trains on to HS2, rather than by truck. /5

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW