Posts tagged locations

Someone needs to ask Boulder fire chief — county sheriff — city manager …

Rob Smoke, columnist

….DOES the possibility of increased wilderness usage by homeless people —
people who may have been affected or influenced by Boulder’s new rules
banning people from parks at night — indicate a higher risk of fire?

In fact, there’s no other conclusion that can be reached.

It should be pointed out that stating an increased risk is not bashing the homeless.
If someone is outdoors and physically exposed, and there are limited options,
a fire is something very useful, even if it is in violation of an ordinance.
Also, the circumstances that can lead to a campfire turning into a wildfire
can be as simple as leaving the fire unattended when it appears to be out —
and it’s a phenomena that need occur only in an extremely small fraction of all
instances of people using an outdoor fire to create a disaster, which is not to call homeless people
as a group “firebugs.”

If I’m not mistaken, the Fourmile and/or Dome fires were considered likely to have
been caused by outdoor campfires, according to sheriff Pelle.

The city of Boulder, and soon to be city of Denver, it appears, are enacting
ordinances which essentially ask homeless people to disappear.
One has to consider the availability of “disappearable” locations —
our wilderness areas comprise, geographically, the largest subset of
disappearable locations. It should also be noted, the new rules and
regulations — and the anti-camping ordinances — are essentially a violation
of civil rights, putting people in harm’s way without recourse.

Whilst officials tell their constituents they are “cleaning up” the homeless problem;
facts are, a wildfire caused by a homeless person who might have otherwise
stayed in a city park, without a fire, but closer to basic services —
would be a horrible boomerang effect — not a small price to pay for
relying on law enforcement to solve a social crisis.

People need to open their eyes — not because the homeless
somehow threaten to burn down Colorado, but because
the risk of fire is substantial enough that the only prudent thing
to do under these circumstances is everything in our power
to lessen risk. It would be one thing if every homeless
person represented a lost tree. The mathematics of the risk, in this case,
indicate that it could be one non-malicious homeless person out of thousands causing
the loss of a forest or homes or lives. That increased risk, in light of the new
laws, is a serious issue. The risk situation is analogous
to nuclear power safety. It’s perfectly safe, except when it isn’t.

Put another way, although many thousands of matches
may be lit that do not lead to a forest fire, it still takes only one lit match.
Another aspect, of equal concern I’m certain,
is that putting people into the wilderness — which is simply an obvious possible
result of the anti-homeless ordinances — exposes them to a spectrum of dangers.
People die out in the wilderness all the time for lack of food, water, warmth
or emergency medical services.

The immediate solution is to suspend enactment of ordinances
banning people from public places. If Boulder or Denver residents find the presence of homeless
people inconvenient or unpleasant, then solutions that don’t involve making them “disappear”
must be sought.

Rob Smoke is a political columnist for Boulder Channel 1 often writing about city politics.  Rob is a critic and one man watch dog of the council and has been for over 20 years. He has been a writer and journalist for many local papers. Tuesdays nights he can be found at Boulder city council meetings.