HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/25/2015 - STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS DOWNTOWDATE:
STAFF:
August 25, 2015
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Strategies to Address Disruptive Behaviors Downtown.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to bring forth four options for consideration in light of opinions, complaints, and
feedback received regarding disruptive behaviors in downtown. Any or all of the options could be initiated as pilot
programs.
1. Authorize and deploy a Street Outreach Program, whose team will proactively build relationships with
vulnerable populations, provide options for help and other resources, and inform about City ordinances.
2. Expand and enhance the use of location diversion as a sentencing alternative which includes plea
bargains where perpetrators of disruptive behaviors agree to avoid Downtown in lieu of fines and other
penalties.
3. Continued exploration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) methods to create
safer public spaces.
4. The initiation of a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance, which would regulate sitting or lying in the public
right-of-way in downtown.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is seeking Council’s direction on whether or not to move forward with any or all of these four strategies:
1. Street Outreach Program
2. Expansion of Location Diversion
3. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
4. Shared Public Spaces Ordinance
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Downtown Fort Collins has long served an important role in enhancing the City’s economic and cultural health.
Recent survey results and steady numbers of complaints and concerns lodged by downtown business owners,
residents, and visitors indicate that there are disruptive behaviors occurring in the downtown area which are
impacting the desire of citizens to make trips to the area. The disruptive behaviors noted as problematic include:
Panhandling
Smoking
Intoxicated or drug-impaired behavior
Groups or individuals hanging out on benches
Littering
Groups or individuals sitting or lying on sidewalks
Public deposit of bodily waste
Profane or rude behavior
August 25, 2015 Page 2
Inadequate/unsanitary personal hygiene
Aggressive/intimidating behavior
A. Results of Public Outreach
A detailed description of the public outreach process undertaken is listed in the “Public Outreach” section. A
summary of the survey results from both the online survey, which had 1340 responses, and the community
conversation, which had approximately 110 attendees, is outlined below. Survey information regarding specific
strategies to address behaviors is listed with each respective strategy.
Of the people, both online and in person, who took the survey:
o 130 own a business downtown
o 250 live downtown
o 490 work downtown
o 851 answered none of the above
The vast majority of respondents frequent downtown either daily or weekly:
o 633 frequent downtown weekly
o 626 frequent downtown daily
o 148 frequent downtown monthly
o 103 occasionally frequent downtown
o 45 rarely frequent downtown
A majority of online survey respondents indicated there are ongoing disruptive behaviors that keep them
from visiting downtown:
o 673 indicated yes
o 498 indicated there were not disruptive behaviors that keep them from visiting downtown
o 270 indicated yes, but only at night
When asked which behaviors they found the most disruptive downtown, online and in person survey
respondents voted this way:
o 839 selected panhandling
o 698 selected groups or individuals sitting or lying on sidewalks
o 595 selected aggressive/intimidating behavior
o 483 selected intoxication or drug-impaired behavior
o 411 selected profane or rude behavior
o 357 selected groups or individuals hanging out on benches
o 264 selected smoking
o 185 selected public deposit of bodily waste
o 172 selected inadequate/unsanitary personal hygiene
o 150 selected other
o 82 selected none of the above
o 24 selected street performers
89% of respondents indicated that these behaviors are always or occasionally a problem:
o 47% indicated they are always a problem
o 42% indicated they are occasionally a problem
o 11% indicated they are rarely a problem
Online participants were asked how these disruptive behaviors impact their downtown experience:
August 25, 2015 Page 3
o 584 answered they influence my perception, but don’t cause me to avoid the area
o 532 answered they influence me to go downtown less often
o 355 answered they influence me to avoid downtown during the night
o 170 answered they influence me to avoid downtown whenever possible
o 168 answered they do not diminish my downtown experience
o 63 answered they influence me to avoid downtown during the day
When asked which behaviors diminish their downtown experience, online and in person voters selected
the following behaviors:
o 1052 selected panhandling
o 932 selected groups or individuals sitting or lying on sidewalks
o 904 selected aggressive/intimidating behavior
o 825 selected intoxication or drug-impaired behavior
o 806 selected profane or rude behavior
o 587 selected groups or individuals hanging out on benches
o 551 selected inadequate/unsanitary personal hygiene
o 528 selected smoking
o 525 selected public deposit of bodily waste
o 151 selected other
o 100 selected none of the above
o 71 selected street performers
Common “other” responses from the online survey included:
o “Rolling coal”/cruising down College Avenue
o Sign twirlers and solicitation
o Concerns with college age people.
Attendees of the community conversation were asked which two strategies (explained below) they most
supported and if there were any they did not support. The following major points were discerned from the
approximately 110 member audience:
48 attendees supported a combination of the strategies
48 also supported the Street Outreach Program
45 members of the audience did not support a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance
32 did not support the enhancement of location diversion
41 attendees were not opposed to any of the presented strategies
B. Strategies for Addressing Disruptive Behaviors
In light of the survey results and the notion that most people do believe there are disruptive behaviors
downtown and that it influences people’s decision to come downtown, staff is bringing forward four different
strategies to address and reduce the disruptive behaviors.
1. STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM
Pilot Program Description
A Street Outreach Program has been used in many other jurisdictions to provide services to those in need while
effectively decreasing the issues and concerns in downtown business areas. The program works in the following
ways:
The team is available to respond to concerns as they are occurring as well as proactively being present
and engaging with people on a daily basis.
The team is available 7 days per week (hours to be determined).
August 25, 2015 Page 4
The team would be a mix of trained social workers and highly skilled volunteers.
Provides a range of services for persons in and around the downtown area.
Delivers street-based support to individuals experiencing homelessness and/or individuals with
psychiatric disabilities, substance abuse disorders, and other unmet social service needs.
The team acts as a liaison between social service providers, the Police Department, businesses, people
experiencing homelessness and other stakeholders in the downtown area.
Team members build trust and are known by merchants, police officers, and service providers.
The services provided by the team are understood, used, and highly valued by clients as well as
merchants, service providers, and police officers.
The program is funded by several community partners which is important to keep it collaborative in nature
(such as the mental health provider, community foundation, municipality, downtown authority and
business association, and others).
The ultimate vision of the Street Outreach Program is to achieve the following three things:
1. A proactive, solution-oriented and collaborative approach to reduce incidents in downtown by referring
people to available and appropriate services
2. A safe downtown for everyone
3. Health and welfare of individuals and community
Information From Other Jurisdictions
City staff has focused specifically on Burlington, Vermont’s Street Outreach Program when examining this option,
due to their similarities in demographics, community atmosphere, and other aspects with Fort Collins. Burlington
has seen the following outcomes which are expected in Fort Collins as well:
Decrease in calls for service to police
Decrease in call frequency for high-use individuals
Decrease in new charges for top users
Increased access to travelers and harder-to-reach segment of homeless population
More effective services for people experiencing homelessness; increased access (among homeless
population) to mental health supports, other resources and—in the long term—housing
"Cost-avoidance" benefits (less police calls for services, emergency room visits, and jail visits)
Positive impact on other systems like court and corrections
Greater coordination and efficiency
Additionally, the program directly supports: reducing anxiety of merchants, increasing communication,
connecting people with services, building relationships, and monitoring status of services (how many
beds available at the shelters, etc.)
Public Input
When asked about the use of a Street Outreach Program, the attendees present at the community conversation
voted the following way when asked if they support such a program:
66% voted yes
11% voted no
27% voted maybe
6% voted I don’t know.
2. EXPANDED USE OF LOCATION DIVERSION
Location Diversion is an alternate sentencing technique already used in Fort Collins that allows for the issuance of
an order as part of a plea bargain prohibiting a person who has been convicted of a crime from returning to a
specified location for a specified period of time. Defendants agree, pursuant to a plea agreement, to refrain from
returning to that specific location or area as a condition of having some portion of the sentence suspended. Plea
August 25, 2015 Page 5
bargains are part of the adjudication process for criminal violations and are subject to the approval of the
Municipal Court judge on an individual basis.
They have been used by other jurisdictions in conjunction with their Street Outreach Programs.
This technique has been used in Fort Collins for specific locations such as a particular bar for similar offenses.
Depending on the code violation and number of offenses, a plea bargain may be offered that prohibits the
defendant from returning to the Old Town area or a specific location. If the defendant agrees and the Municipal
Judge approves, defendants would be prohibited from returning to a specific area for a specified period of time,
rather than only a specific location. .
Public Input
When asked about the use of expanded use of location diversion, the attendees present at the community
conversation voted the following way when asked if they support such efforts:
51% voted yes
22% voted no
18% voted maybe
8% voted I don’t know
3. CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
Pilot Program Description
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) utilizes land use planning techniques and other
aspects of the built environment to influence behaviors and make safer public spaces.
Some small pilot efforts undertaken by the Downtown Development Authority have been considered
successful.
Common efforts that fall under CPTED include the strategic placement of flower pots, benches, trash
receptacles, and other artifacts already located within an area. These placements can create “safe zones”
and encourage more pedestrian traffic depending on a situation.
Public Input
When asked about the use of CPTED, the attendees present at the community conversation voted the following
way when asked if they support such efforts
61% voted yes\
10% voted no
18% voted maybe
10% voted I don’t know
4. SHARED PUBLIC SPACES ORDINANCE
Pilot Program Description
A Shared Public Spaces Ordinance aims to improve the accessibility, walkability and appearance of shared public
spaces in downtown. This Ordinance regulates lying or sitting on any public right of way in the downtown area. It
also regulates the space individuals may occupy on a bench or other designated seating area and regulates the
time in which they can occupy the seating areas.
Public right-of-way includes sidewalks, plazas, curbs, and other objects placed on the sidewalk such as
trash cans or blankets.
Exemptions provided for medical situations, young children at play, and other reasonable situations.
August 25, 2015 Page 6
No person may occupy more than reasonable space for one person on a bench; this includes personal
belongings.
No person may occupy a bench for longer than one hour.
If implemented, this ordinance could be a pilot ordinance, to be evaluated and reviewed at the end of one
year. Staff would collect data to examine the success or effect of the ordinance throughout the time
period.
Information From Other Jurisdictions
Other jurisdictions have had mixed success with similar Sit/Lie or Shared Public Spaces Ordinances.
Denver
Prohibits sitting or lying on sidewalks downtown between 7 am and 9 pm.
Cited purpose during adoption was to get people to move along or get them help if needed
Zero (0) arrests or citations under ordinance between 2008 and 2012.
San Francisco
Prohibits sitting or lying on sidewalks citywide between 7 am and 11 pm. Officer must issue a warning
before issuing a citation
In the area that sparked the controversy that led to ordinance’s adoption, 152 citations issues over 8-
month span in 2011.
Over 90% of these citations were issued to repeat offenders (City Fellows Report)
Survey of merchants in area of controversy shows that 58% of businesses cited no change or an increase
in number of individuals sitting in front of businesses
Those violating the ordinance were not consistently offered tangible alternatives
Seattle
Adopted ordinance in 1993 that bans sitting or lying on the sidewalk from 7 am to 9 pm
Downtown is safer since the law passed, but disagreement on whether or not ordinance played a role
(San Francisco Chronical).
o Critics state the problem has just relocated itself to different parts of the city.
o Citations aren’t issued often, mostly just warnings which do encourage folks to move along.
This is criticized as making problems less visible without solving them
Very low response rate to citations – most end up in default
o 250 citations issued from 2009-2013
o Recently have started filing charges to chronic offenders with unpaid citations and have seen some
success in this area (Seattle Weekly News).
Honolulu
Prohibits sitting or lying on sidewalks from 5 am to 11 pm in multiple business districts around the city –
recently expanded to include more districts.
o Started with Waikiki area and now in upwards of 15 business districts around the city
Considered by some to have been successful in Waikiki, which was used for justification of expansion
o Legal questions on whether or not the new, widespread expansion is constitutional.
Many concerns about the displacement of individuals into other districts where the ordinance did not
apply
o Populations have largely moved into less visible areas, such as under highway overpasses, etc.
(University of Hawaii)
o UH Study said that this displacement from urban core limits employment and mobility opportunities
o Study has shown that enforcement of the ordinance influences homeless to use shelters less (1/3 of
those surveyed)
August 25, 2015 Page 7
Public Input
When asked about the implementation of a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance, the attendees present at the
community conversation voted the following way when asked if they support such an ordinance:
42% voted yes
35% voted no
13% voted maybe
6% voted I don’t know
When asked specifically to express support for one variation of a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance, the attendees
voted the following way:
41% voted yes, for sidewalks, plazas, curbs, and benches.
39% voted no, not for any variation listed.
16% voted yes, for sidewalks, plazas, and curbs – no benches.
4% voted yes, for benches.
When asked which unintended consequences of a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance concern them the most,
attendees voted the following way (allowed to vote as many times as desired, approximately 110 in attendance):
52 people voted enforcement challenges
41 people voted that it criminalizes those with nowhere to go
33 people voted that it creates an unfriendly environment
32 people voted that it would push problems into surrounding neighborhoods
24 people voted that despite potential consequences, I still support an ordinance
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The Street Outreach Program may yield additional one-time and ongoing costs to the City. The estimated
starting cost of a pilot Street Outreach Program is $80,000 for two paid outreach workers. While growth in
the program is expected as it gains momentum, partner funding is expected to bolster this “seed” money
required for startup.
Neither an expansion of Location Diversion nor a Shared Public Spaces ordinance is expected to result in
addition costs to the City.
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design would be implemented with City partners, such as the
Downtown Development Authority. No costs to the City are anticipated.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
As a result of complaints and concerns lodged by business owners, visitors, and other residents, staff engaged in
a public outreach process to gather community input on perceptions of disruptive behaviors downtown. An online
survey was launched on Friday, August 7 and closed on Monday August 17. The online survey received over
1340 responses. In addition, staff held a community conversation on Thursday, August 13, and collected survey
results and comments regarding behaviors and strategies to address them. Over 100 individuals attended the
community conversation. The survey results were outlined above in the “Background” section.
Social media, press release, and website were all used to encourage participation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Homeward20/20 regarding a sit/lie ordinance (PDF)
2. Public Engagement Plan (PDF)
3. Comments collected at the August 13 Community Conversation Event (PDF)
August 5, 2015
To City Council and the City Leadership Team:
In the August 4 Homeward 2020 board meeting, members had a vigorous discussion on the proposed sit and
lie ordinance. The board recognizes there are issues with problematic behaviors downtown that should be
addressed, and are committed to working collaboratively to identify the best solutions.
Based on the board discussion, the recommendation from the Homeward 2020 board at this time is to look at
best practices and bring back more information from Burlington, Vermont, a community that utilizes a street
outreach program to address downtown concerns and connect people experiencing homelessness to
resources. A team from Fort Collins has been examining this program for several months and have been
planning this trip since mid-summer. Homeward 2020 sees this a potential long-term, sustainable solution to
issues downtown, rather than a reactive attempt to deal with these concerns. The following people will be
traveling to Burlington to examine this program: Beth Sowder (Office of Social Sustainability), Derek Getto
(Downtown Development Authority), Jeremy Yonce (Fort Collins Police Services), Stephanie Madsen-
Pixler (SummitStone Health Partners), David Rout (Homeless Gear), and Vanessa Fenley (Homeward 2020).
Initial discussion from the Homeward 2020 board yielded the following points:
• Sit and lie ordinances do not align with best practices for making homelessness rare, short-lived, and
non-recurring
• Displacement of individuals is not a solution, and may result in unintended consequences in other
areas
• The speed at which this proposed ordinance has come about is counter to Fort Collins' standards for
community processes
• A sit and lie ordinance stands in contrast to other policies and missions around creating a space in
downtown for people to gather
• Creating a policy that could increase ticketing and further tax the jail system is not an efficient use of
resources
• This can damage the relationships built and strengthened in the community around these issues since
last summer -- with people experiencing homelessness, with businesses, with non-profit providers,
and with other community stakeholders
• This is not a policy that would be well-received by or helpful to people experiencing homelessness;
there may, however, be an opportunity to engage those experiencing homelessness to involve them as
part of the solution for addressing problematic behaviors
Please let me know if you have any questions about this discussion or the points outlined here.
Sincerely,
Vanessa M. Fenley
Director, Homeward 2020
ATTACHMENT 1
Current members of the Homeward 2020 board:
Christine Kneeland, Community Member and Chair of the Homeward 2020 board
Dave Edwards, Community Member
Julie Brewen, Fort Collins Housing Authority
Beth Sowder, City of Fort Collins – Office of Social Sustainability
Bill Kneeland, Kneeland Law
Bryan Tribby, Community Member, with the experience of being homeless
Cheryl Zimlich, Bohemian Foundation
Diane Jones, Community Member
Gordan Thibedeau, United Way of Larimer County
Guy Mendt, Catholic Charities
Joe Frank, Community Member
John Hutto, City of Fort Collins – Police Services
Ken John, Homeless Gear
Marcia Davis, Community Member
Matt Robenalt, Downtown Development Authority
Mike Walker, Serve 6.8
Randy Ratliff, SummitStone Health Partners
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
PROJECT TITLE:
DOWNTOWN DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS
OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL:
Inform/Consult
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION:
Do stakeholders – general public, businesses and visitors Downtown and service providers – support the
direction of Council to address disruptive behaviors Downtown?
KEY STAKEHOLDERS:
Downtown business owners; property owners; downtown residents and adjacent residential neighbors;
employees; local patrons; out-of-town visitors; non-profit organizations; Downtown Development
Authority (DDA); Downtown Business Association (DBA); Visit Fort Collins; major employers including
Woodward Governor, Odell Brewing, New Belgium Brewing; CSU students, faculty, staff, and parents;
City Boards and Commissions – Affordable Housing, Human Relations Commission, Economic Advisory
Commission, Senior Board, Commission on Disability; City Council; City of Fort Collins departments; and
other interested organizations and members of the public.
OBJECTIVES:
After Council direction August 25, explain project goals, scope, process, and purpose
Provide information regarding existing conditions, policies, and new topics/issues
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES & TOOLS:
A broad range of approaches and techniques will be used to engage members of the public and
key stakeholder groups, including working with the Downtown Plan planning group – including
public events, small-group meetings, online and mobile engagement, participation in community
events, and broadcast notification and outreach. We are committed to engaging a diverse range
of stakeholders in the planning process, including those with limited English proficiency or who
speak Spanish as a primary language as well as additional underserved populations.
TIMELINE:
Timeframe: Fall 2015
Explain the project goals, planning process, and relation to other previous and current planning
efforts.
Seek to understand current and potential future opportunities, issues, and needs.
Keep people updated on the process.
ATTACHMENT 2
Key Messages:
Business, visitors and residents who frequent Downtown have asked the City to address some
problem behaviors Downtown. No specific group is being targeted as part of these efforts.
Any proposed City action Downtown will be in alignment with other plans Downtown including the
Downtown Plan and the City’s Strategic Plan.
Tools and Techniques:
Press releases
Fact sheet(s)
Presentations to boards and commissions, other interested community partners
Social media/IdeaLab/Nextdoor.com
Cable 14 video and bulletin
Website updates
1
Street Outreach Program
The only firm yes!
There would have to be a lot of them.
This would draw more people of compassion to intervene – just concerned about what
we’re defining as disruptive/unlawful behavior. Could we hear city staff give a
presentation on what they learned? –D. Hesser
There are inadequate services to refer people to, so this isn’t a comprehensive approach.
Please check out the work that White Bird does in Eugene, OR. I support it because of
the thorough and compassionate understanding they show about homelessness in their
model. They are more-so advocates and protectors for the homeless than they are
authoritarian/policing agents.
The most promising aspect of this is how powerful it can be to say “You matter.” “I
care.” “Let’s problem solve this.” But especially – just reaching out. Let’s be our best,
not our worst.
There are many ways to outreach. Some are respectful, helpful, and effective. Others are
paternalistic, disrespectful, and ineffective. I have a very hard time trusting an outreach
program run by the same people who just got sued by the ACLU etc. for the panhandling
ordinance and who may also be making it illegal to sit for a while on a bench. If you’re
talking about what people who are sitting on a bench might need… somewhere to rest
might be on their list…
Let diverse people volunteer. Offer to pay people to get diversity. Get people who have
previously been “problematic.”
Nobody addresses the underlying root issues.
What services are they going to refer them to? Services are limited and aren’t available.
What is the definition of “help?” What kind of “help” are we offering?
This is a systematic problem?
Mental Health First Aid Training
Is there an ability for police to page this team, or for this team to respond with police?I
see more success this way. (Similar to DART or VAT).
General Comments
We still need to create affordable housing
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss and communicate.
Spend money on housing and assistive programs, NOT policing and diversion.
There are hundreds of residents- people living within your boundaries! The live with
ALL of this 24/7/365!! INCLUDE them in your discussions.
What is disruptive about hanging out on benches?
ATTACHMENT 3
2
If each person can choose two answers EXCEPT those who choose “None of the above,”
then those who choose to answer “None of the above” are under-represented in the poll
results.
^Amen
^^I agree. Your survey research skills need some improvement. The process thus far is
extremely problematic. Biased survey questions, a one hour “forum” that doesn’t allow
for healthy public discourse.
People who think hanging out on benches is disruptive should never sit on benches.
Put a stop to “rolling coal.”
While housing becomes unaffordable why do we as a city need to exacerbate the problem
by excluding those without housing from our downtown area???
What about the Greenpeace and other solicitor fundraiser folks? Root causes? Lack of
low income housing, lack of mental health treatments available, poverty wages, etc.
My credit card info was breached due to Greenpeace. Greenpeace can be very aggressive.
Where are the people on the benches supposed to go? And if they have all their
belongings would one think they may be homeless?
Detox center need in Fort Collins!
Expand the border of map across Jefferson onto Linden. Distinction between homeless
and transient. Some businesses and their clients are much more affected than others.
Homeless does not have to equal rude, aggressive and dangerous. Jefferson Park is a
public space that taxpayers should be able to use. The park is only used by this
population because thy trash and overwhelm the space.
We must stop doing nothing. No need to distinguish bench/sidewalk, for passersby, the
effect is the same.
We need to find out why these disruptors do what they do besides being around
The police need to not be so buddy-buddy with the problem people downtown. And they
need to spread out not hang together.
Very concerned about the uses of the survey, which was described as a “non-scientific
questionnaire designed to gauge public opinion.” How can a poorly-designed, biased
survey with admittedly no scientific value be used to measure anything? How can it be
the basis for sound public policy?
I worry many of these policy solutions do not represent sustainable solutions to the issues
at play.
What law is being broken by panhandling? I have a civil liberty and a religious right to
tithe or give to whomever I feel needs help. In crime prevention via environmental
design, what crimes are being prevented? How about providing more places for people to
rest or sleep in their cars? Churches? Church parking lots?
3
We build unaffordable housing in Old Town and simultaneously kick the most vulnerable
people who cannot afford to live in housing? Panhandling is a constitutional right. Is
sitting on a bench any worse?
Shared Public Spaces Ordinance
ORWELLIAN. This is a violation of our civil rights to sit on a sidewalk or bench to rest.
Could this be based on what we look like or smell like?
Please do not do this. People take naps in the park. Elderly sit on benches, people with
back problems. This is offensive and will change the character of our people and our
places.
If there are not enough benches, install more!
^Yes!
Population increases in cities and bench space becomes harder to come by- unless there
are more benches. Do we not have enough in our city budget to install enough benches
for our growing population?
Let’s ban New West Fest, Tour de Fat, and Brew Fest. Too many people of affluence
sitting on benches, taking over sidewalks, and STREETS, for crying out loud.
NO. Sitting and lying down are human needs. If it makes you uncomfortable, may do a
little thinking and work on the fact that it bothers you.
Sit/lie is a problematic approach to a systematic problem. Resting should not be illegal.
How many cities have similar ordinances been deemed unconstitutional? We cannot
distinguish between homelessness and disruptive behaviors. An ordinance that affects
those laying in a public space is one that only targets those who are forced to be in a
public space; it does not target the college-age individuals/others long-term.
I believe this is a bandaid approach to the real issue at hand. It’s asking for discrimination
against a targeted population.
I’m worried a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance begs for discrimination, since it will likely
only be enforced against certain people that are “aesthetically displeasing.”
Why can we not share space with everyone?
“This is not connected to homelessness,” it addresses aggressive behaviors downtown. Is
it aggressive to sleep on a curb? Is it aggressive to smell like you haven’t had a place to
take a shower? Is it aggressive to carry all of your belonging with you because there’s no
safe place to store them? Saying an ordinance like this does not incriminate
homelessness, and therefore intentionally doesn’t use any verbage related to
homelessness, makes it ten times more oppressive, because all the disruptive behaviors
addressed are ones that homeless individuals largely cannot avoid.
What is more important to us, downtown image or people’s survival?
4
Location Diversion
We need affordable housing!!!
Positively ORWELLIAN. Could I be taken “outside” for supporting someone who
appears to need help? For praying for them even?
If we had affordable housing we wouldn’t have people living on the streets of Old Town.
This gives police another reason to harass those with no place to go.
It’s not okay to move poverty out of downtown.
More than a little archaic.
Plea agreements are not great. People are not treated fairly by the legal system. People
take crummy plea deals for things they didn’t do all the time. Also, this is not okay even
it that magically isn’t an issue here.
How will this impact college students, who are vital to downtown businesses?
I think everyone should be held to the same standard of behavior. And should suffer some
consequences if not.
This is crazy!
Kick CSU students out of Old Town. They drink, use drugs, sit on benches, are loud, and
many of them don’t shower.
What if someone needs to get to a shelter or other service and they are banned? That
doesn’t help anyone.
Don’t put spikes on benches, ledges, or anywhere really.
How does this work if someone gets diversion and they work in downtown?
Not addressing issue just pushes it to other parts of town!
Once person is excluded from downtown area, who will actually ensure they are not
returning? Typically if the person finds themselves in from of a judge, that is an indicator
that they aren’t a good rule follower.
Without affordable housing people will congregate in cities. Downtown areas belong to
all of us – not just business owners!
Alternative sentence – restorative justice.
Some of us closely border (opposite side of street) the official “downtown area.” Are you
going to just divert – pushing the undividable outward – or at greater distances?
Will people displaced be charged with a crime? How will program be paid for?
Good idea! I like the sound of it… Seems like enforcement might be difficult.
Comment Cards
Thank you for addressing this issue!
I have a couple of concerns, for now. The primary concern is that downtown is turning
more and more into a bubble for the wealthy, similar to a gated neighborhood.
Somewhere where people that are seemingly financially comfortable can spend their time
5
without being disrupted by the challenges and suffering present in the world and this
community. Two, if my experience downtown is ever disrupted it is by the actions and
presence of car cruisers, but primarily people in and outside of the bars and their
carelessness as well as the presence, actions and carelessness of the police.
Problems have increased since Denver Rescue Mission came on board. Know for a fact
they bus people up from Denver, increasing transient population. It could be as simple as
just communicating with them and asking them to stop.
Location diversion is an interesting idea but related to activity at Jefferson Park, the
movement has gone to Library Park. Thus, inside culture of the library has greatly
changed as well. Our police are annoying in relation to all of these issues.
I don’t think the 103 people in this room and the 650+ people who voted online are
representative of the 150,000 people living in Fort Collins. How would the enhancement
of location diversion be enforced? That seems to be a difficult task to monitor everyone
who enters the downtown area.
I think a shower facility would be great. The ruckus comes from local breweries.
Great ideas! Thanks for your work to be proactive. Will the Street Outreach Teams go
anywhere? Or based around Old Town area? Jeff Park, Library Park, and nearby places
could use the service too!
I believe this meeting was just retaliation for being sued by the ACLU. I believe that
people have the right to be treated as human beings not a lab rat with your meeting
tonight. There have always been homeless people since the beginning of time and always
will be. Refugees from other countries get treated better than our own countrymen. Many
homeless are vets! Like I was and there is no help!
Addressing Disruptive Behaviors Downtown
8-13-15
ATTACHMENT 4
Direction Sought from Council
Seeking Council’s direction on whether or not to move
forward with any or all of these four pilot strategies
1. Street Outreach Program
2. Shared Public Spaces Ordinance
3. Expansion of Location Diversion
4. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
2
Background
Complaints regarding disruptive behaviors from business,
visitors, and residents:
• Panhandling
•Smoking
• Intoxicated or drug-impaired behavior
• Groups or individuals hanging out on benches
• Littering
• Groups or individuals sitting or lying on sidewalks
• Public deposit of bodily waste
3
Community Outreach
• Online questionnaire ran from August 7-17
• 1340 responses
• Community conversation on August 13
• Approximately 110 attendees
4
Survey Responses
5
Do you:
6
How Often Do You Frequent Downtown?
7
Online Only: Are there Ongoing Disruptive Behaviors
that Keep you From Visiting Downtown?
Which behaviors do you find the
most disruptive Downtown?
8
Of the Problems Selected, Are They:
9
Online Only: How do these
disruptive behaviors impact your
Downtown experience?
10
Which of the following diminish
your Downtown experience?
11
Common “Other” Responses
• Cars cruising/diesel smoke
• Sign twirlers/solicitation
• Concerns with college-age people
12
Strategies
There are multiple pilot strategies that may help address the
disruptive behaviors Downtown
1. Street Outreach Program
2. Shared Public Spaces Ordinance
3. Enhancement of Location Diversion
4. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED)
5. Combination of the above
13
Street Outreach Program
• Business and Residents able to reach out to team when
there is an identified disruptive behavior
• Reduces the burden on police officers
• Team provides a frequent, proactive presence Downtown
• Builds on efforts of DDA business education
• Team acts as liaison between social service providers,
Police Services, businesses, vulnerable populations, and
other stakeholders
14
Street Outreach Program
• Used to provide services to those in need
• Case management
• Resource referral
• Crisis intervention
• Successful models include:
• Burlington, VT (est. 2000); Portland, OR
• Collaborative: multiple funding partners and stakeholders
• Builds trusting relationships
15
In Person Survey Results
16
Do you support a
Street Outreach
Program?
Shared Public Spaces Ordinance
• Pilot program would regulate sitting or lying in the public
right of way (sidewalks/plazas/curbs/benches) in
Downtown
• Would also regulate the manner and duration in which
people can occupy benches and other seating
• Pilot would last for one year
• Enforcement area same as smoking ordinance
(Downtown)
17
Downtown Boundaries
18
Shared Public Spaces Ordinance
• Mixed results from other jurisdictions with ordinance
• Seattle, WA
• Viewed as successful in improving downtown image/safety
• San Francisco, CA
• Majority of merchants cited no major change in behaviors
• Honolulu, HI
• Some success in Waikiki district, concerns about
expansion and displacement
19
In Person Survey Results
20
Do you support a Shared
Public Spaces Ordinance?
Do you support a Shared
Public Spaces Ordinance?
21
What potential unintended
consequences concern you the most?
22
Enhancement of Location Diversion
• Plea deals for citations would include agreement to not
be present downtown for set time period
• Length of time for agreement based on specific behavior
and prior violations
• Already used in Fort Collins for specific locations
23
Enhancement of Location Diversion
• Alternative sentencing technique for disruptive
behaviors (to reduce potential for recidivism)
• Could be used for appropriate violations such as:
• Assault
• Criminal mischief
• Trespass
• Damage to public property
• Disturbing the peace
• Disorderly conduct
• Harassment
• Subject to Municipal Court approval on a case-by-
case basis
24
Do you support the expansion
of Location Diversion?
25
Environmental Design
26
• Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
Do you support the use of
CPTED?
27
Which strategies do you
most support?
28
Any strategies you do not
support?
29
Direction Sought from Council
Seeking Council’s direction on whether or not to move
forward with any or all of these four pilot strategies
1. Street Outreach Program
2. Shared Public Spaces Ordinance
3. Expansion of Location Diversion
4. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
30