Colorado ACLU Camping Ban Lawsuit Progresses

In a lawsuit addressing homeless camping in the City of Boulder a State District Judge has turned a motion to dismiss.

Although this case addresses stereotypical homelessness there is substantial legal issue overlap, more so if you’ve ever stealth camped in a developed area. Technically any full timer is homeless. If you are older or disabled this fact will put you at the top of housing waitlists, something I encourage people to do in a community that you have a connection to.

There is even more legal overlap in informal practice attitudes, we are considered by many law enforcement to be of the same caliber as a chronic alcoholic without a vehicle.

https://www.aclu-co.org/en/press-re...-aclus-applied-challenge-boulders-camping-ban

As I see it, the issues involved in cases like this are being misrepresented.
It's generally depicted as a "city ordinances vs homeless right to camp/exist" issue. So, when it's portrayed that way, we tend to lean on the side of people's right to simply have a place to exist, if they have no home.
But IMO we are actually viewing this through a false dichotomy, feeling forced to choose a "side" among two stances.
There are other options between these 2, which are better revealed when we understand that governments have enough money to solve the homeless problem many times over. Yet they continue to fail to even make a dent in the problem, in spite of billions spent. More of us should be asking why that is.

I also do think there's a difference between people living on the streets because they are desperate and have noplace else to go, as compared to vehicle dwellers who have the ability to move around. Yet this difference as well tends to be eclipsed in cases like these....

This is interesting, from the article…

“The court relied on plaintiffs’ allegations that Boulder’s indoor shelter space is far too limited to accommodate the number of people on the streets. It also noted that “program rules, restrictions, and structural realities exclude many unhoused residents from accessing the limited shelter that exists.”

This is the same argument that was used successfully on the west coast somewhere, that inadequate shelter beds prohibited banning living on the streets, tho I don’t recall hearing that last statement before.

It may come down to whether it is an individual’s right to choose, and whether that can be unconventional shelter, imposed on others by its location and aesthetics.

It’s going to be a mess, I suspect.