Tag Archives: registered sex offenders at Boulder Shelter

‘Poll shows tepid support for library tax, but consultants insist victory at the ballot is possible’

See the article from the online Boulder Beat by clicking here.

My comment is copied below:

Another reason to support creation of a Boulder Public Library District, besides the steady revenue stream spread among all users inside and outside the city limits, is removing the politicians and apparatchiks in municipal government from any involvement in setting library policy.

In the past, city officials have been far too lenient on the worst-behaved transients, and that has caused many patrons to go elsewhere. I chose to visit CU’s Norlin Library on a regular basis instead, where they provide only nine public access computers, but also where CU Police show zero tolerance for the bad behavior commonly seen at BPL. Example: Drunk transient passes out face down on keyboard of computer at BPL, he’s told to go outside and get some fresh air; drunk transient passes out face-down on keyboard of computer at Norlin, CU Police escort him out the door and tell him not to return for a year. I’m homeless myself, but I fully agree with response #2.

Meddling by city officials even led to BPL’s private security guards being disarmed, necessitating Boulder Police to increase patrols inside and outside the 1001 Arapahoe facility, no doubt costing more taxpayer dollars just for some vague Feel Good policy shift to unarmed security guards. (City police, of course, might be clear across town when called to BPL.) Makes no sense at all, and yet another reason I preferred Norlin Library, where CU Police are johnny-on-the-spot when summoned by library staff.

Years ago, around early 2010, I observed registered sex offenders riding the SKIP bus from Boulder Shelter for the Homeless to the Main Library, and they were trolling for new child victims both during the morning trip and outside the entrance at their destination. I reported this to BPL staff and Boulder Police, and it was promptly dealt with. I understand that parole officers were notified, who then put the fear of God (and returning to prison) into the perverts. I would hope that an independent library district would see fit to BAN registered sex offenders from the premises altogether.

I favor the proposed new full-size BPL branch in north Boulder, but given its proximity to the homeless shelter and wet house at the corner of Lee Hill and N. Broadway, sterner measures need to put in place to deal with bad behavior. Sure, there may occasionally be a Sunday School teacher or other solid citizen getting drunk and disorderly on library premises, but most of the time it’s the transients who have turned libraries into day shelters.

Max R. Weller


Imagine my surprise to find a comment from the blogger (not a journalist as I understand the word) who writes the Boulder Beat. It’s one thing to dislike the fact that I challenge the worst-behaved transients and their enablers, but it’s something far more serious to falsely accuse me of lying about a particular incident. Her strange take is copied below, followed by my response:


Hi, Max. I’m going to let this comment stand, as you used your full name. However, I am taking *great* issue with your claim that you witnessed sex offenders trolling for new victims. I am challenging this claim. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. 90% of victims know their perpetrator. Stranger abuse may happen, but it is exceedingly rare. It’s not homeless people looking to kidnap children that are the problem: It’s soccer coaches and dance instructors and teachers and “friendly” neighbors and priests and, most often, family members. Spreading fear and disinformation in this way is extremely unhelpful and dangerous, because it perpetuates the myth of dangerous strangers, and keeps people blind to the real dangers. I will tolerate your opinions, however loathsome I find them at times, but I won’t tolerate disinformation that endangers more children.


Neither offender is still in Boulder, CO. I don’t mind giving their names here, but you could just as easily confirm my story by asking Officer Paddock of Boulder PD, who was working as a detective in 2010 and investigated one of the individuals. I’m fairly certain she’ll remember me. She’s now 1/2 of the Homeless Outreach Team, as you probably know.

As to registered sex offenders (mostly child molesters) living at Boulder Shelter for the Homeless — alongside the adult survivors of abuse — that’s undeniable. See my blog post including the CBI map: Registered sex offenders currently living at Boulder Shelter, 4869 N. Broadway.

I’ve also seen them hanging around the sidewalk leading to the Dakota Ridge neighborhood, where I still have many friends with kids. Thank goodness everyone with direct knowledge, like me, has taken it seriously.

Lots of people are survivors, and many survivors were assaulted by strangers or by adults they scarcely knew. Perhaps you should look up the criteria for an offender in Colorado to be designated a Sexually Violent Predator:

An SVP is a sexually violent predator. Outlined below are the statutory criteria to classify an offender as an SVP:

Offender must be 18 years old when the offense was committed, or less than 18 years old but tried as an adult;

The conviction is for sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, sexual assault on a child, sexual assault on a child by someone in a position of trust (convictions also include attempts, solicitations and conspiracies to any of the offenses previously outlined);

The victim must have been a stranger to the offender or a person with whom the offender established or promoted a relationship primarily for the purpose of sexual victimization;

Meet scoring criteria on the risk assessment instrument, or demonstrate significant psychopathy per testing.

So, the state of Colorado recognizes that so-called stranger danger is real. Whether you believe it or not, most of the SVPs I’ve known at BSH have assaulted children or adults they didn’t know.



For obvious reasons, I can’t do anything to alert the public about sexual predators lurking within their families or in positions of trust. BUT, I can and I will continue to use this blog to warn people about the registered sex offenders who are, thanks to apologists and enablers, hiding in plain sight at Boulder Shelter for the Homeless and other homeless hangouts in the city.

And I don’t give a flying fig if boulderbeat finds some of my commentary “loathsome.”

Oh, btw, the two perverts’ names are Russell Avery (currently homeless in Pueblo, CO according to the CBI database) and Charles Wadsager (currently living at an address in Denver).


Registered sex offenders currently living at Boulder Shelter for the Homeless:

See the Colorado Bureau of Investigation website by clicking here. Enter the address of 4869 N. Broadway in Boulder.

Screenshot showing names of 7 offenders at BSH. (Click on image to enlarge.)

Remember, these perverts live under the same roof with many women (and a few men, too) who are the adult survivors of sex crimes. Is this what Ardith Sehulster meant in her recent letter-to-the-editor, ‘I have seen positive leadership at homeless shelter,’ published in the Daily Camera about a week ago?

I submit that the stubborn do-gooders of Boulder, CO see only what they want to see.

Time to send everyone in authority at Boulder Shelter for the Homeless packing, along with the pervs. The paid staff in leadership positions, the unpaid board members, every rapist and child molester, all of ’em!


(E-mailed to Boulder City Council.)

I don’t like Boulder Shelter’s leadership either, but Redstone and O’Connor are a joke

I can’t see their Guest Opinion because of the Daily Camera’s paywall, but I’ll bet the authors of this commentary are once again lamenting the self-inflicted suffering of the worst-behaved transients. You know, the ones who are a small minority of all homeless men and women now in Boulder County, but commit a disproportionate amount of crimes (ranging from illegal camping to murder) and consume the bulk of available resources.

Far be it from me to defend the indefensible conduct of the executive director and board members at Boulder Shelter for the Homeless. Perhaps the most evil policy they have is accepting registered sex offenders into their worthless program, and forcing the adult survivors of sex crimes to live with them under the same roof. And BSH may be the only homeless shelter in the country doing this.

That brings me to this reminder about Joy Eckstine Redstone:

Joy Eckstine (L) and convicted rapist Jim Budd (R).

Mr. Budd is currently serving a lengthy sentence in Colorado DOC, and it should be noted that his victim was a volunteer at the now-defunct Carriage House when Ms. Eckstine was executive director. The victim is an acquaintance of mine, and she once remarked to me that she’d never received the least bit of sympathy or support from Ms. Eckstine, who once dated Mr. Budd. (Draw you own conclusion.)

As to Darren O’Connor, we can be thankful he’s NOT a violent criminal. However, he’s another self-styled homeless advocate who knows nothing about the subject, and a Media Whore as well.

As the old saying goes, and I thought of it when I saw the headline of this commentary blasting the leadership of our local homeless shelter:

Joy Redstone and Darren O’Connor: Homeless shelter suffers from flawed leadership

Image result for pot calling kettle black images


To be expected, and you can thank the do-gooders in Boulder County

Boulder Shelter for the Homeless continues to harbor registered sex offenders, allowing them to live alongside the adult survivors of sex crimes . . .


‘Public safety in focus . . .’ Since when does Boulder city staff give a damn?


By Max R. Weller

Read the article in the Daily Camera here. Copied below in its entirety:

Two homeless men, who refused to give their names, share a bite to eat while sitting in Central Park in Boulder.

Two homeless men, who refused to give their names, share a bite to eat while sitting in Central Park in Boulder. (Jeremy Papasso / Staff Photographer)

The Boulder City Council held a lengthy workshop session during its meeting on Tuesday, aimed at fine-tuning the new management plan for the city’s homeless shelter.

That plan has been drafted and redrafted through the fall, as the city and the shelter attempt to agree on operational terms that satisfy the shelter, the people who live near it and officials who are working to implement a new homelessness strategy.

Reaching a draft that leaves all those parties feeling good has proved to be very difficult in recent months, and the lingering discomfort of some players in this process was on full display at times during Tuesday’s discussion — particularly on the issue of “sexually violent predators” in north Boulder.

No decisions were made following the council’s hearing, as the council was giving guidance to City Manager Jane Brautigam, who is tasked with negotiating on a management plan with the shelter that sits along north Broadway near Lee Hill Road.

That negotiation process is nearing an end, though, and the assumption at the meeting was that the council might not reconvene on this issue until June.

Following a “good neighbor” meeting on Oct. 2 with north Boulder residents who live near the homeless shelter, administrators proposed dialing back some operational changes in order to address concerns they heard at the meeting.

At the meeting, neighbors learned of a plan that would see the shelter open 160 beds year-round for homeless people classified as having “moderate” or “high” needs.

The shelter would operate within the larger homelessness strategy that de-emphasizes emergency services and requires homeless people seeking help to register with a “coordinated entry” system that aims to refer people to appropriate paths out of homelessness or toward agencies that can help them.

More than 500 people have completed the coordinated entry screening to date, according to Karen Rahn, the city’s director of Human Services.

The shelter is primed to undergo some significant operational changes, beyond becoming more of a year-round site. It would also eliminate “clean and sober” requirements and amend the way it handles people deemed by the state to be “sexually violent predators,” of which there were four at one point last summer.

It would also eliminate morning services — such as showers and breakfast — for walk-up clients (Emphasis is mine — MRW), and forbid shelter clients from leaving and re-entering the facility during the daytime except in cases where those clients had appointments or otherwise important business to handle.

“If all you want in the community is a shower and a locker and you’re not interested in services, no, there is not a place to go,” Rahn said of this likely change at the shelter, describing the general point of “coordinated entry.” (Emphasis is mine — MRW.)

Some neighbors of the shelter spoke during the public hearing about the various ways in which they feel unsafe living nearby. One man talked about a homeless man found staying in his basement, while another woman said that her son is regularly harassed on the way to school by homeless people offering drugs and alcohol.

“It sounds like so many disagree with what we’re doing,” said Mirabai Nagle, the councilwoman who was elected in November. “If (neighbors) just aren’t happy, and they inundate us with this amount of emails, to me that says we’re doing something wrong, possibly.

“Are we serving our residents who are homeless or are we serving a greater influx of transients? I don’t know if our infrastructure and budget are set up for this.”

Several veteran council members went around explaining to Nagle the “context” for Tuesday’s discussion, related to the broader homelessness strategy.

But even after that, Nagle turned to the neighbors in the crowd and said, “Does this make sense to you?”

Audience members shook their heads and one shouted something before being shushed by Mayor Suzanne Jones.

“We hear you,” Jones said to the neighbors. “It’s a balancing act of trying to figure it out. We appreciate your input.”

There was some discussion later at the meeting of whether that section of north Boulder needs its own police annex.

“I certainly understand the neighbors’ concerns up there in wanting more police presence,” police Chief Greg Testa said to the council. “But I have the staff that I have and we have to answer 911 emergency calls for service throughout the entire city, so I cannot just assign officers to patrol the area of the shelter.”

Jones said to Testa that he should let the council know if he needs more resources to keep the community safe, and Testa thanked her for that, but added that it would be a challenge to hire more officers even if the money were there, due to officer shortages in the area.

Some citizens said that cellphone coverage is spotty in parts of north Boulder, which makes them feel even less safe. Councilwoman Lisa Morzel said that she walks the area frequently and can confirm the service is “really bad.”

The council agreed upon one way they think they can make things safer: limiting the number of “sexually violent predators” who live at the shelter at any one time to one. That was an idea that came from Councilman Aaron Brockett and, while it was not final — as nothing was Tuesday — it did seem popular among the members.


Regarding the parts of this story I italicized above, the Homeless Philosopher himself will be banned from Boulder Shelter for the Homeless despite having been a morning visitor there for almost a decade — without ever receiving a single disciplinary consequence for any inappropriate behavior. Most of the residents at this facility can NOT make that claim, so I’m wondering now if my friend R. was spot on when she said to me: “Max, you have a bulls-eye on your back. The shelter wants to get rid of you!”

Generally speaking from my years of experience, the walk-up homeless clients at 6AM who seek a hot shower, access to a small locker, and a hot breakfast (which I only rarely eat) are NOT troublemakers when compared with BSH residents staying in the facility overnight. BUT, ending so-called morning services is low-hanging fruit that both city staff and the executive director, Greg Harms, can  grasp and point to as their effort to ensure the safety of residents, workers, business owners, and customers in the neighborhood. It’s horse pucky, of course:

Scooped up by Karen Rahn.

(BTW, I have friends among all of those neighborhood groups listed above, and I wish that city staff would ask them about me. And the newspaper, too.)

But, I digress . . .

The REAL problem here is that the new and highly-touted Coordinated Entry for homeless shelter / services is a sham. It’s the same worst-behaved transients without ties to Boulder County who are being given a hearty welcome, and Boulder County’s own homeless people continue to be shortchanged. Yes, we have been LIED to by the bureaucrats and the nonprofit do-gooders alike. And most Boulder City Council members seem to be willing to play along . . . Furthermore, of the 500+ people who have been screened to date, you can depend on NOT a single one of them finding permanent housing and remaining in it long-term — 5 years, let us say. ALL of them will recycle through the system over and over again, which guarantees JOB SECURITY for everyone involved in running this con game.

 True now more than ever! 

Boulder Shelter policy zigs and zags, who can predict what it will be?


By Max R. Weller

Read Latest proposal at north Boulder Shelter would cancel morning services, restrict client movement in the Daily Camera. Copied below in its perplexing entirety:

Boulder Shelter for the Homeless Executive Director Greg Harms speaks with residents during a "Good Neighbor" meeting hosted by the Boulder

Boulder Shelter for the Homeless Executive Director Greg Harms speaks with [neighborhood] residents during a “Good Neighbor” meeting hosted by the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless on Oct. 2 at the Shining [Mountain] Waldorf School in Boulder. (Jeremy Papasso / Staff Photographer)

Following a “good neighbor” meeting with north Boulder residents who live near the homeless shelter, the shelter’s administrators have proposed dialing back some operational changes in order to address concerns they heard at the meeting.

Generally, many of the changes to the shelter’s operating agreement that have been under consideration this fall involve expanding service to the homeless.

What was presented to neighbors at the meeting, held Oct. 2, was a plan that would see the shelter, on north Broadway, open 160 beds year-round for homeless people classified as having “moderate” or “high” needs.

Those people would be allowed to stay at the shelter during the daytime, neighbors learned, whereas now they are sent away in the mornings and welcomed back in the evenings.

But Greg Harms, director of the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, has revised the list of proposed changes.

For one, under the latest plan submitted to the city by Harms, the shelter would do away with its morning services. Currently, the facility has walk-up breakfast, shower and laundry service. Anywhere between 15 and 50 people show up for that on average, the shelter reports.

That would be discontinued after this season. 

“We got a lot of feedback from the neighbors that there was a concern that homeless people were attracted to north Boulder for our morning services, even if they weren’t staying at the shelter, which meant they were camping near the shelter or staying in their cars,” Harms said. (Emphasis is mine — MRW)

Additionally, the shelter would not let residents leave the shelter and then return during the day. They would have to either stay at the facility or leave and then wait until the evening to come back.

“We would manage people’s ingress and egress so that people aren’t just going into the neighborhood to smoke a cigarette, then going in later, that kind of thing,” Harms said.

This proposed change is also a response to the fact that some neighbors expressed displeasure at the prospect of increased homeless activity near their homes.

The latest changes submitted by the shelter also call for a change to the shelter’s policy on “sexually violent predators,” though it’s unclear what difference this change would actually make.

There is huge community anxiety — among north Boulder neighbors especially, but also among other residents and much of the City Council — over the fact that the shelter has of late become a relative haven for people deemed by the state to be “sexually violent predators,” as many as four of whom occupied the shelter at one point this year.

Harms proposes that the shelter would discontinue service to these people, except in the event that they can’t find shelter elsewhere, which is entirely possible.

The Boulder city attorney’s staff responded in a memo to the proposed changes, and noted as much.

“There is not a known alternative for this population locally,” the memo stated, with reference to so-called “predators,”

“In the short term, this (change) is likely to have no effect on restricting sexually violent predators at the shelter.”

But in general the staff analysis offered support for the shelter’s proposal. The city and shelter remain engaged in a back-and-forth negotiation on the operating agreement, and Harms said he could not predict when it will be completed.


Everyone who follows this blog knows that the Homeless Philosopher has found it very convenient over the years to visit Boulder Shelter for the Homeless at 6AM for a shower and to keep a small locker with a few meager possessions there (although I no longer store cash in it after being robbed of $350 last March, apparently by a staff member with access to combinations and a master key to all the locks provided by BSH). I’ve also said that I might easily make other arrangements if the shelter were to close; looks like I’ll have plenty of time to do so.

Having said that, let me point out that I’ll continue to camp in the area around N. Broadway & U.S. 36, just as I have since early 2008. Two reasons:

1) It’s on the main RTD bus line, the SKIP, and almost every day I shop at King Soopers on Table Mesa and spend a few hours at either Norlin Library on the CU campus or at Boulder Public Library.

2) My camping policy these days is to stay far away from all transient knuckleheads, so my campsite is located outside of Boulder city limits, but still within easy walking distance of the bus stop next to BSH. 

Let me also point out that many of the BUMS — who do their worst to live down to all of the negative stereotypes — camp out in this north Boulder neighborhood but rarely go to BSH for any purpose. A perfect example are those living under the N. Broadway & Rosewood bridge over Four Mile Creek, within a stone’s throw of the liquor store. Last I heard, the pedestrian underpass was a site for peeing and pooping and vomiting, all from the BUMS. One even died there a few months ago . . .

As far as registered sex offenders, many have come to our city from elsewhere in Colorado and even from other states. NEITHER Boulder’s do-gooders NOR city authorities have any legal obligation to shelter them here, NOT for a single night. Purely on humanitarian grounds, we should offer them bus tickets back to wherever they came from: Denver, Florida, New York, etc. That our so-called leaders can’t figure this out remains a mystery.

BOTTOM LINE: It’s all about $$$, and the local homeless shelter / services industry (including, of course, Boulder Shelter for the Homeless and Bridge House) is determined to coerce as many vulnerable homeless folks as possible into their various “programs” (all of which are about as useful as teats on a boar hog) so they can appeal for more funding from both public and private sources. No end to homelessness is in sight.

(E-mailed to Boulder City Council.)

Tax support for homeless perverts (many are transients) in Boulder County, CO


By Max R. Weller

The Worthy Cause sales tax helps support numerous registered sex offenders (including Sexually Violent Predators most likely to re-offend) in residence at Boulder Shelter for the Homeless and Bridge House’s Path to Home. These vicious felons are living alongside the adult survivors of sexual crimes, and the latter group apparently receives no consideration.

Here’s just one of the Sugar Teats that Boulder Shelter for the Homeless and other local nonprofits are attached to: Worthy Cause III. Scroll down to page 7 for the section on Housing & Homelessness; page 8 tells about BSH in particular; page 9 details Housing First at 1175 Lee Hill and other permanent supportive housing in Boulder County, CO.

(1175 Lee Hill, billed as a collaboration between BSH and Boulder Housing Partners, also received a $4M federal grant to fund construction.)

Boulder Shelter for the Homeless has received these Worthy Cause taxes in the amounts shown by year:

2009 / $25,000

2010 / $25,000

2011 / $50,000

2013 / $58,000

2015 / $62,100

2016 / $100,000

2017 / $25,000

It’s interesting to note the amount of taxpayer support going to Attention Homes and Bridge House as well; many people claim that the latter organization is entirely supported by private donations, but that’s a BIG LIE.

I hope the registered sex offenders, including Sexually Violent Predators, who are finding refuge at BSH will appreciate the ordinary folks helping to foot the bills through the taxes they pay.(BTW, I pay sales tax here in Boulder almost every day.)