Monthly Archives: January 2015

The truth, for a change


(Originally published on 12/9/2012).

By Max R. Weller

It had been quite a while since I did the arithmetic for myself, but here is the latest calculation from a speech given by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). Quoting below:

“Just last year, total federal and state spending on means-tested programs came to over one trillion dollars. What does that mean in practical terms? For that amount of money, you could give every single poor American a check for $20,000 – every man, woman and child,” said Ryan in a speech at the Jack Kemp Award ceremony . . . 

“Instead, we just spent all that money trying to fight poverty through government programs, and now what do we have to show for it? Today 46 million people are living in poverty. During the last four years, the number of people on food stamps has gone up by 15 million,” Ryan said.

“Medicaid is reaching a breaking point, and one out of every four students fails to earn a high school diploma. In our major cities across America, half of our kids don’t graduate, half,” he added.

Ryan pointed out that 48 years after President Lyndon Johnson launched the war on poverty in 1964, “poverty is winning.”

So, what is the real motivation for continuing the failed welfare state policies? I think it’s the lust for POWER, concentrated in the hands of those running the government, from the POTUS down to the most humble bureaucrat. In this case, of course, More Poor People = More Power; there is no incentive to win the so-called War on Poverty, because those in government would be putting themselves out of work! We see the same thing on a smaller scale with Boulder, CO’s homeless shelter/services industry: More Homeless People (including transients from Denver and elsewhere) = More Money for various programs which are failing to end homelessness.

I consider this to be a great evil committed by our political leaders. And it’s not only poor people being exploited by the welfare state at taxpayers’ expense — look at corporate welfare, especially the General Motors bailout. Obama’s plan to bypass the ordinary course of bankruptcy for GM (in which court-supervised reorganization would have been premised on a sound business plan), resulted in lots of workers at GM’s suppliers getting f***ed over in favor of UAW workers at the automaker itself. Shares of GM which were, in effect, purchased by the taxpayers have lost half of their value, and there is no reasonable expectation that GM will ever reimburse the costs associated with the bailout in view of its historically low market share at this point. BTW, Ford never received a penny from Uncle Sugar and didn’t need it — that’s called good management in the free enterprise system.

Legitimate concerns of the federal government (and states, counties, cities, school districts, etc.) include providing a safety net for the poorest, most vulnerable among us. But NOBODY in their right mind, setting aside politics, believes that individual poor men, poor women, and poor children in America each received $20,000 worth of real help from government programs last year. Most of the $$$ disappeared down the bureaucratic rabbit hole.

It’s a travesty of compassion for the poor, and a full employment program for apparatchiks.

‘Cha Cha Spinrad: Educate the police about bikes’


By Max R. Weller


Ms. Spinrad

Read her letter-to-the-editor in the Daily Camera, copied below in its entirety:

A week ago Thursday around 9 a.m. I was biking east on Baseline and the bike lane was filled with snow and ice from the snow plows, a typical situation for bike lanes to be in after it snows. I was volunteering for Boulder Food Rescue, a local nonprofit that takes produce that grocery stores would otherwise discard and distributes it to people who don’t have much access to healthy food. The organization is centered around bike transportation. On Thursday I was carrying 300 pounds of food to the Bridge House, an organization that employs homeless people to cook for those who need warm meals.

Knowing my rights under Colorado state law, section 42-4-1412, which states, “A bicyclist shall not be expected or required to ride over or through hazards at the edge of a roadway,” I decided to use the right-most car lane, which was clear of snow and ice. It was not only easier to bike in, but much safer. There were two general purpose lanes in each direction, and plenty of space for the few cars on the road to pass me.

A police officer in an SUV was stopped at a light between Mohawk and Foothills. As I biked past, he rolled down his window and ordered me to get into the unusable snow-filled bike lane and “stop impeding the flow of traffic.” I and other cyclists have to deal with entitled drivers all the time, but our police are supposed to be looking out for everyone’s safety. Boulder needs to educate its police about the rights of all users to use our streets. The city’s Transportation Master Plan puts a priority on encouraging walking and biking. Let’s make sure our police are on the same page!

Cha Cha Spinrad


My two cents, copied from the DC website:

OMG! Cha Cha might have been delayed in taking donated food to Bridge House to help feed the transients from Denver and elsewhere!

POLICE BRUTALITY! Let’s have another lie-down-in-the-street protest!

How can something like this happen in Boulder, CO? 

Seriously, folks, do you believe that this skinny chick is hauling 300 pounds of food with her bike?

A story with each picture


By Max R. Weller


Boulder Shelter for the Homeless has the most lazy Transition Program residents in America, which is why you see volunteers from the community or a Boulder County Jail work crew doing chores like this (and their laziness also accounts for the awful filthy conditions inside this facility).


Sounds like a good job, tending goats grazing on Rocky Flats.


Remember the homeless guy who ran for BCC in 2011? The one sponsored by Bridge House, who withdrew because a blogger raised questions about his mental health? Same thing as Luke Chrisco . . .


Are you thinking of donating to Bridge House? Think about who you might be helping.


Today, it’s homeless women arriving on RTD.

Taser Fire

I find all of the stats on my blog interesting, but sometimes I’m left to scratch my head. There’s something called Search Engine Terms, and this morning somebody was looking for “why not to huff paint thinner” — and the (unidentified) search engine referred them to my blog. WTF? I don’t recall writing about that subject before, and I know as much as most other people, no more: IT WILL FRY YOUR BRAIN!

That’s all for today, folks . . .

‘The American Welfare State’


By Max R. Weller


Homeless Philosopher

It’s a real challenge to find figures that accurately reflect overall per capita spending on the poor and homeless in our country. The link I’m providing today is from a study done by the Cato institute and published on April 11, 2012: The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty — and Fail. An excerpt follows:

News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1 percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls for increased government spending on social welfare programs. Yet this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty. And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three. (Emphasis is mine).

Welfare spending increased significantly under President George W. Bush and has exploded under President Barack Obama. In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. It is time to reevaluate our approach to fighting poverty. We should focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty . . .

This policy analysis by Michael Tanner is 24 pages packed with info, and well worth your time to carefully read and consider it.


Boulder, CO’s homeless shelter/services industry turns its back on “Tiny Houses”


By Max R. Weller

Read the Guest Opinion in the Daily Camera written by Greg Harms, executive director of Boulder Shelter for the Homeless. A reminder: More than half of the single men and women housed in the emergency overnight dorms at this facility are transients from Denver and elsewhere, with no ties to Boulder, and BSH is also one of the few shelters in America nowadays which accepts registered sex offenders.

Copied here in its entirety:

Much has been written about the homeless deaths in Boulder in 2014. The Camera deemed it the third-biggest news story of the year. In 2014, eight homeless people died “unattended,” meaning they were found outside. But these eight people were only part of the story. A total of 23 people were remembered at the annual Boulder homeless memorial in late December. Some of these individuals passed away in the hospital, some in hospice, some at friends’ homes and some at BOHO or the Boulder Shelter. The reality is, however, that the total number of homeless people who died in Boulder in 2014, to the best of our ability to count them, was about the same as it has been in past years.

When anyone dies prematurely, it is sad; especially for those of us who work hard to try to prevent these deaths. Local service providers strive to offer the best combination of life-saving and stability programs possible but we have limited resources and we cannot force services on anyone. Nor would we want to. Years of experience has shown us that there is no substitute for individual motivation as the basis for change.

Recently, a guest opinion expressed ” A plea for year-round shelter for the homeless” (Daily Camera, Dec. 31). Currently, from October to May, the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless provides 160 nightly beds for those without a place to sleep. Likewise, BOHO, utilizing faith-based buildings, offers overflow accommodations during the same winter months.

Although it may not be well publicized, there are also several summer sheltering options for the homeless in Boulder. The Boulder Shelter provides 65 beds a night during the summer through its Transition and First Step Programs. In addition, BOHO has been providing two summer sheltering options in conjunction with several faith organizations; one of which is exclusively for homeless women.

It is true that all of these summer programs have some basic requirements for admission and they are not the kind of drop-in services that are available during the winter months. However, these requirements are in place not only to provide needed safety and structure for clients but also to help prevent Boulder from becoming an even more attractive place for people traveling in the summer.

The Boulder Shelter for the Homeless has significantly expanded services over the last few years. These additions, however, have focused on permanent solutions for homeless people (like the newly-opened facility at 1175 Lee Hill) rather than adding more temporary shelter beds. This approach is in accordance with national evidence-based practices and with The Boulder County 10-Year Plan to Address Homelessness.

Homelessness is a complex issue. Providing services to this population is also complex. I believe our community does a good job at providing an array of appropriate services for our poorest neighbors. Can we improve and expand on these offerings? Of course, but we want to do our best to minimize any unintended consequences and focus our limited resources on the programs that are the most effective for our clients and the community.

Greg Harms is executive director of the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless.

> My online comment following this piece on the DC website follows:

See what progressive cities across the country are doing in re homelessness:…

Nary a peep about building a “Tiny House Community” from Boulder, CO’s homeless shelter/services industry.

Consider that each one of the 31 units for single adults in the Housing First project at 1175 Lee Hill cost well over $200,000 — but OM Build in Madison, WI can turn out a tiny house with the same amenities for only $5,000!

Really, do the people running things here want to “end homelessness” or not?

I might add that Mr. Harms has over 90,000 reasons to support the status quo; these reasons being dollars in his annual salary . . .


Greg Harms (C), Betsey Martens (R), and facilitator with mic (L) ready to cut off public discussion of the 1175 Lee Hill project.

At times, fighting this battle gets very lonely and discouraging for the Homeless Philosopher. I can be as stubborn as anyone on the other side, however, even without the incentive of Big Money.

> Addendum: BSH recently posted the folowing blurb on their Facebook page:

By the numbers, here’s what the Shelter accomplished last year. Ah, but it’s what those numbers represent, lives saved and changed, that really matters.
• Provided 39,904 bed nights of shelter
• Provided 4,380 bed nights of transitional housing
• Provided over 8,000 bed nights of permanent supportive housing (in partnership with Boulder Housing Partners)
• Made over 3,800 contacts of street outreach (Boulder County Cares)
• Served 1,204 unduplicated clients
• Served over 95,000 hot meals
• Provided over 15,000 morning service contacts

It’s more funny math, and I had to respond:

“Provided over 15,000 morning service contacts” you say? I know something about this, because I’m frequently standing outside at 6AM. NEVER have I seen more than a dozen or so others waiting with me (and usually a lot fewer) — a far cry from the average of 40+ it would require to make a total of 15,000 over the course of a year. I don’t mind being counted for a hot meal that I NEVER eat in the morning, but I object to imaginary people coming to BSH for morning services.

‘Volunteers help with annual homeless count in Colorado Springs’


By Max R. Weller


See the story, with video, from Colorado Springs. Quoting from it below:

The annual count determines how much funding the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will give to local homeless resources.

And yet, there is no end in sight to homelessness despite all of the $$$ being given to the homeless shelter/services industry, which consists of both government agencies and charitable nonprofits. When you calculate just how many dollars, from both public and private sources, are spent per capita in any city across America, it’s a shocking figure: Tens-of-thousands of dollars annually on behalf of each homeless person.

Remember my former slogan on this blog: DONATING TO A NONPROFIT IS NOT THE SAME AS HELPING THE HOMELESS. Neither is paying taxes to fund the myriad of government social services the same as helping the homeless . . .

I’m glad that I boycotted this homeless “census” in 2015, just as I’ve done in previous years.

Update on Housing First in Anchorage, AK


By Max R. Weller

I’ve blogged about Karluk Manor before; that’s the Housing First facility in Anchorage, AK which opened in December, 2011 — and serves as a model of sorts for 1175 Lee Hill here in Boulder, CO.

The Alaska Dispatch News has an interesting series on chronic alcoholics on the streets in Anchorage, and the last installment is The search for solutions. Quoting from it here:

At the 48-unit Karluk Manor, street alcoholics in Anchorage can move in exactly as they are, without a requirement to quit drinking. The facility seeks to find and house the most vulnerable among a group of homeless veterans that police, fire and public safety authorities refer to as the “Top 200” – top in volume of public resources consumed in the form of trips to the sleep-off center, jail, emergency rooms and the shelters.

Karluk Manor is Anchorage’s first “Housing First” project, an approach that’s gaining traction nationwide.

Among the core principles of Housing First is that housing is a basic human right, not a reward. Proponents say when a person leaves the chaos of the streets, the stability of a home is more likely to make life changes possible. “Harm reduction” is another tenet of the philosophy: In practice, it means trying to get people to make incrementally healthier changes, such as switching, perhaps, from liquor to beer.

Initial results of a two-year study of Karluk Manor by the Institute for  Circumpolar Health Studies at the University of Alaska Anchorage suggest that people who live at Karluk are drinking less alcohol, less frequently, than before they moved in, said David Driscoll, the director of the institute.

Researchers found that the Karluk residents also spend more time doing activities that require concentration such as crossword puzzles, or physical activity. Public safety costs per tenant also plummeted, according to the study, from an average combined cost to the Anchorage Police Department, the Anchorage Fire Department and the Anchorage Safety Patrol of more than $3,500 per person to just more than $1,500.

Jail and shelter nights were also reduced, according to the preliminary data.

Nationally, studies of other projects have shown that Housing First, pioneered in Los Angeles and New York more than 20 years ago, stabilizes clients’ lives and saves money, Driscoll said.

The model is gaining acceptance even among federal agencies. In 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs adopted the approach for its homeless programs.

> More funny math which does NOT take into account the millions of dollars spent to convert the former Red Roof Inn into Karluk Manor.

Continuing excerpt:

Expect to see more such projects in Anchorage: Housing First is now the model preferred by federal funders such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Detractors say Karluk Manor offers no real incentive for alcoholics to change their ways. Some have questioned the morality of providing severely addicted people a place to drink, likening the project to a “hospice” or even “assisted suicide.”

> The Homeless Philosopher certainly agrees with the paragraph immediately above. One resident reports that he drinks less now, only one fifth of vodka a day. He’s still killing himself, maybe at a slower pace (and maybe not), but killing himself nonetheless.

Excerpt concludes:

Karluk Manor’s manager Colleen Ackerman said it is understood that most people who live there won’t stop drinking. Frequently, they have been through every other program available without success.

Karluk uses a system that ranks applicants on their vulnerability. The people who score the highest get the apartments. Some of the people who live at Karluk have needed to move into assisted living because of alcoholism-related dementia, Ackerman said.

For some, Karluk will be the last place they live. Since the facility opened, 11 residents have died — some inside the facility, and some elsewhere.

“This is really the end of the road for a lot of them, sadly,” she said.

> 11 residents dead in a little more than 3 years, since this Housing First facility opened.

Comment by J.H. following the ADN article online:

“I’m glad they didn’t have this free housing back when I was a drunk and starting to lose everything. I might never have quit. To have a free apartment and still be allowed to keep drinking . . . It would have been a dream come true back then. A dream from Satan, that is. But I was lucky. No one enabled me in that manner.”$img_size_380x380$

‘Greedy nonprofits scheming for funding’ would be a better headline


By Max R. Weller

Read Denver homeless initiative would be latest to tap social impact bonds in the Denver Post. In the wake of Denver’s FAILED 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness, which has resulted in more homeless people on the streets than ever (despite some of the “chronically homeless” being moved into hugely expensive housing), the crooked folks running the homeless shelter/services industry — including both private nonprofits and government agencies — have developed a new brand of Snake Oil, which they hope to peddle to a gullible public. Quoting from the article:

In the dry and wonky world of municipal finance, a new way for state and local governments to pay for the rapid expansion of social service programs — from Massachusetts and New York to Chicago, Salt Lake City and now Denver — is gathering steam and turning heads.

And it could even save taxpayers over the long haul — at least, that’s the way it’s sold.

Government officials, nonprofit leaders and for-profit investors are striking deals that take on thorny challenges, such as helping ex-offenders avoid new crimes and expanding preschool access for at-risk children. Coming soon in Denver, officials want to use a deal potentially worth $8 million to $15 million to move up to 300 of the most chronically homeless into housing that’s coupled with mental health and substance abuse treatment.

As promoted, private investors that take part put up millions of dollars to start or expand preventative programs. In just a few years, those programs start saving taxpayers money by reducing the need for costly spending in other areas — say, for frequent jail, detox and hospital stays by homeless people — which the government then taps to pay back investors, plus interest.

And if the plan fails to save money? Then the foundations, investment banks or others who put up the money wouldn’t get repaid.

The arrangements are called social impact bonds or investments. Some call them “pay for success” plans.

It’s just another scam, using the same old Big Lie that the newest panacea of “social impact bonds” will eventually save taxpayers’ money. That only makes sense if you use funny math and exclude all of the millions of dollars spent up-front; Boulder, CO’s 1175 Lee Hill Housing First project is a perfect example, just 31 units for single adults at a price tag of well over $6 million, with hundreds-of-thousands more dollars in annual operating costs.

These homeless industry confidence tricksters belong in front of a grand jury, which could indict them for Fraud.


Who are the biggest bums in Boulder, CO?


(Originally published on 5/15/2014).

By Max R. Weller

Read Boulder worries about being a ‘homeless magnet’ in the Daily Camera. Quoting from it below:

Boulder should find ways to invest its human services money that will make a dent in homelessness, but without making the city even more of a magnet for homeless people from around the region, City Council members said Tuesday night.

“Nobody wants to hurt someone who is down on their luck, but whether we’re drawing more people to our city is a question that needs to be answered,” Councilman Macon Cowles said in comments that were echoed by other council members during an update on the city’s human services strategy.

Intake data released by social service agency and day shelter Bridge House last year showed that more than half of the people who sought help there had lived in Boulder less than six months.

A homeless man sleeps next to Boulder Creek near the Boulder Public Library Main Branch on Friday, May 9, 2014.

A homeless man sleeps next to Boulder Creek near the Boulder Public Library Main Branch on Friday, May 9, 2014. (Mark Leffingwell / Daily Camera)

The answer is simple! Require valid photo ID showing a Boulder County address from any homeless person requesting shelter/services. You might even require additional documentation to prove residency in Boulder County for at least a year. This is the practice that has been adopted by Haven for Hope in San Antonio, TX.

If Bridge House and Boulder Shelter for the Homeless refuse to get on board with the new policy, cut off all funding from the city taxpayers. The city could then pursue condemnation of the so-called homeless people’s day center at 1120 1/2 Pine as a Public Nuisance and a heightened police presence, both day and night, around 4869 N. Broadway. I’d bet if a police dog trained to sniff out illegal drugs ever entered either facility it would go apeshit. Time for law enforcement to take off the gloves . . .

Continuing excerpt from article:

Councilman George Karakehian said he has become friends with a man who is working hard to get out of homelessness and is now on a list for transitional housing. That friend told him how easy it is to “game the system,” Karakehian said.

“I believe we’re far too easy in admittance into our system than other communities are,” he said. “We should give a nod to locals. I hate to see someone who starts in Denver and comes to Boulder and then goes to Greeley and then back to Boulder take the spot of someone who is from here. We are somewhat of a homeless magnet, and I am concerned we will not get ahead of the curve because the more services we provide, the more homeless come.”

C’mon, George, admit it: you’ve been following my blog! About time, too . . .

Now, to the point of this particular post. Who are the biggest bums in Boulder, CO? Oh, puhleeze! The individuals who run local nonprofits are, in fact, tasked with raising the maximum amount of funding from both public and private sources. That includes Isabel McDevitt at Bridge House, Greg Harms at Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, and others. They’re glorified beggars, nothing more.

Educate yourself by reading this book: Bowling for Bums: My Life as a Charity Whore. It’s available to be checked out at the Main Branch of Boulder Public Library, 1001 Arapahoe.

Furthermore, the City of Boulder should conduct a performance audit to determine exactly what positive long-term results — if any — are obtained by city taxpayer support of Bridge House, Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, etc. Such an audit should also seek to determine the cost to the city of all of the support being given to transients who have no ties to Boulder, CO (other than drifting here to no good purpose).

At this point, I’ll remind everyone that the Homeless Philosopher is NOT without compassion. I strongly favor providing transients with the $5 bus ticket on RTD to Denver (and a police escort to the Transit Center at 14th & Walnut), along with a couple of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and a bottle of water to-go.

I tell it like it is, and would challenge McDevitt, Harms, et al to debate the issue of homelessness in any public venue at any time.

I won’t be holding my breath. They’re not only bums making a living off the suffering of others as they practice the creed MORE HOMELESS PEOPLE = MORE MONEY, they’re supported by many local do-gooders who don’t have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot.

The Boulder brand of racism, and more


By Max R. Weller

It’s been fascinating to me, observing the very different reactions of white Boulderites to the cases involving alleged sexual misconduct by two young men at CU recently. One white, a grad student in the philosophy department; the other black, a redshirt freshman on the football team.

In the former case, we were treated to the spectacle of Professor David Barnett riding to the [attempted] rescue of the young WHITE man who was forced out at CU, by launching a gratuitous “investigation” into his accuser’s sex life, then putting the collected gossip and innuendo into a written “report” and giving it to the CU administration, which never authorized it. Of course, the young woman who had accused the young WHITE man took exception to Prof. Barnett’s meddling, and CU was forced to settle her lawsuit for over $800,000; a faculty review panel has recommended by a 4-1 vote that the nutty professor be suspended without pay for a year (the dissenting vote was for termination of Barnett’s employment). In addition, the Daily Camera’s pundit Charlie Danaher has opined that the young WHITE man was being denied “due process” despite the fact that this case is a civil matter involving university policy, and a lesser standard of proof — “preponderance of evidence” — applies to both his accuser’s allegations and Prof. Barnett’s clumsy intervention.

In the latter case, by stark contrast, we can see the young BLACK man being suspended from the football team and forced out of CU without any formal hearing or other opportunity to defend himself. Because the matter has been taken up by law enforcement, CU apparently believes that the presumption of innocence in re the young BLACK man does not apply to the university’s actions, and neither a professor nor a newspaper columnist has shown the least inclination to come to the aid of the young BLACK man. I raised this issue in a comment following the story linked to above; my comment was deleted by the DC’s website administrator, but I also posted it on Facebook and here it is:

Why isn’t Prof. David Barnett helping this young man by “investigating” his accuser? Is it because [he] is black? Why isn’t Charlie Danaher writing a commentary bemoaning a lack of due process by the CU administration, which has suspended [him] from the football team and caused him to leave the university? Again, is it because of race? Boulder, CO peckerwoods and hypocrites . . . LOL!

After the DC deleted this comment, I added another:

So, which word caused my comment to be deleted?……

Clearly, this young BLACK man is being treated differently than the other young man accused of sexual misconduct, in the case which prompted such controversy at CU recently and so much debate here on the Daily Camera website.

Barnett and Danaher (and the rest of their ilk) aren’t wearing white sheets with pointy hoods nor are they engaged in any overt acts against the young BLACK man, but their blatant favoritism to the young WHITE man is racist nevertheless . . . Same accusations of sexual misconduct, very different ways of pursuing so-called justice. It’s irrelevant that the misguided efforts of Barnett and Danaher (and the rest of their ilk) have produced nothing of benefit to the young WHITE man; it’s their motivation that is my focus.

I call it the “Boulder brand of racism.” Peckerwoods and hypocrites!

Read the DC’s report: Boulder coroner: Homeless man died of pneumonia, alcohol abuse. My comment following this story is copied below:


Another homeless person not served well at all by the do-gooders who enable self-destructive behaviors, and who use these deaths to raise more money for the homeless shelter/services industry.

BTW, Daily Camera, any idea how long a time Mr. Gray had been here in Boulder, CO? Days, weeks, months, or years?

The enablers gave him food, clothing, shelter, and all sorts of other stuff. He was then able to spend ALL of his disposable income on cigarettes, booze, and dope.

Without that support from places like Bridge House, he might still be alive. Sorry if that offends you, but people in Boulder need to start holding Isabel McDevitt, Greg Harms, Betsey Martens, et al ACCOUNTABLE for the negative consequences of their FAILED shelter/services model.


More homeless alcoholics at the “Horseshoe” along Boulder Creek Path

That’s all for now, folks. Maybe I’ll make a batch of homemade biscuits for lunch, to go with a can of Campbell’s Sausage Gravy.