Mayor Coffman’s public-camping ban proposal meets early stalemate from the Aurora City Council


AURORA | Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman is moving forward with a revised version of an ordinance banning unauthorized camping in the city despite not having enough city council votes to pass it into law.

He’ll need at least six votes on the 10-member council to make his proposal law and apparently didn’t have them at a city council study session Monday night.

Coffman says his updated ban simultaneously echos the status quo but is also a significant improvement to the current system of abating homeless encampments. Council members Juan Marcano, Angela Lawson, Alison Coombs, Allison Hiltz and Crystal Murillo signaled no support for moving the proposal to the council floor for a formal vote. 

Coffman said he would like to see a recorded vote anyway. The veteran congressman and first-term mayor created a controversy earlier this year when he pretended to be homeless and spent a week sleeping in homeless encampments in the region. His remarks, made to a Denver TV reporter coordinating with the event, drew fire from homeless advocates. Coffman told a reporter that the majority of people he encountered were substance abusers who chose sleeping in encampments rather than shelters in order to accommodate their addictions.

Since then, he has worked to propose legislation to eradicate the growing number of visible public camps. His newest proposal would allow city staff to clear a homeless encampment even if it doesn’t pose a threat to public health or safety, which is how the city currently decides to “sweep” a camp.

“Unauthorized camping is unauthorized camping,” Coffman said throughout the discussion. 

The revised proposal does not come with fines or penalties for unauthorized camping itself, but if a person disobeyed an order to leave the unauthorized site, they could be fined or jailed for violating the order.

READ MORE: HARROWED GROUND — An Aurora battle over people without homes camping in public heats up with summer

Critics of such measures, including local jail and law enforcement officials, say fines and jail time imposed on homeless people for unauthorized camping essentially “criminalizes” them, compounding the problems and using public resources for their incarceration.

Tim Joyce, an assistant city attorney, told council members Monday that camping scofflaws ordered to move from camps during sweeps have not resisted and faced jail time or fines.

People living in encampments would be given a 72-hour notice instead of a seven-day notice, like they currently are, to abandon an unlawful camping site, according to the ordinance. In order for the city to clear an encampment, there would have to be space available at a sanctioned site elsewhere in the city. 

A newly-opened safe camping site pilot program sponsored by the city hit capacity on Thursday, Homelessness Programs Manager Lana Dalton told the council. It houses about 40 people. 

It’s unclear what kind of resources would be needed to create enough sanctioned city space for every person currently living in what Coffman’s proposal would consider an illegal camping site. There isn’t a clear number of encampments currently in the city, but Dalton did point to the number of service requests by people experiencing homelessness that the city has received this year versus last year related to encampments. In 2020, the city received 307 requests. So far this year it’s received 841.

Dalton said the city is currently undergoing a land survey and talking to different faith communities to scope out possible additional sites. Costs would vary depending on the type of site, she said.

Opponents of the proposal said Monday night they wanted to see policies that focus on the root cause of why people are camping. 

“What I see happening here is we’re effectively…just codifying the existing procedures,” Marcano said. “We are removing the flexibility of staff from how to address these issues. And I understand that we’re getting a lot of complaints about you know, sanitation, and things like that. I get them, too, as you know. And I’m also concerned about those issues.

“But we’re going to be, again, just codifying something, just to, I guess, say we did something,” Marcano said. “My real issue with this is I don’t see how anything fundamentally changes.”

Murillo added that she believes the ordinance is addressing symptoms rather than systemic causes of the encampments. 

“You can edit it all you want, but to me there’s no way to get around the fact that… it’s a wholly separate process from the work that we’ve been doing for the past three plus years. So I don’t support it in any version,” she said.

The ordinance is expected to come to a city council vote later this month. If votes remain the same as they were Monday night, the proposal would fail as a result of a tied vote. In Aurora, the mayor is permitted to vote on council legislation to make or break a tie.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
10 months ago

Get rid if the pot and they will leave.

Joe Felice
Joe Felice
10 months ago
Reply to  LKS

That’s just a knee-jerk reaction that would have no effect. Homeless people are not the least-bit interested in pot. Their things are heroin, crack and meth.

What you suggest can only happen with a constitutional amendment, as the voters made it part of the Colorado Constitution when it was approved. I was totally in favor of legalizing marijuana, but NOT making it a part of the Constitution, for this very reason. Legalizing it meant it could have been de-legalized, but now that it is part of the Constitution, I’m afraid it’s here to stay. A constitution is no place to deal with things like marijuana and, as we learned, alcohol.

And oh, places where marijuana is still illegal have just-as-big a problem with homelessness. Furthermore, where do you think they would go? Just vaporize?

10 months ago
Reply to  Joe Felice

Maybe we could just vaporize them to Alaska so we don’t have to look at them and their filth! And no I don’t want them here….along with their filth and crime….they should be in institutions.
And as a preemptive measure…how about all you people who feel so bad for them, invite them to live in your houses!

Joe Felice
Joe Felice
10 months ago

The Mayor can “move forward” with whatever he likes, to no avail, because any ordinance has to be considered and passed by Council.

And everything from now until a new councilperson is selected or elected will meet with stalemate, as the Council refuses to do its job and follow the City Charter. I guess that’s fine, and we, the voters will elect a liberal to fill the vacancy in November, thereby putting and end to the obstruction.

John in Denver
John in Denver
10 months ago

And what do the COURTS of the United States keep repeating on this topic?

9th Circuit ruling said

the court said it was “cruel and unusual punishment” to enforce rules that stop homeless people from camping in public places when they have no place else to go. That means states across the 9th Circuit can no longer enforce similar statutes if they don’t have enough shelter beds for homeless people sleeping outside.

The Supreme Court refused to take up the appeal by Boise, ID; so it is not a FULL sense of the Supreme Court’s opinion. But it hints at the position that there cannot be criminal action to enforce a ban on camping. How a city can enforce a ban on “unauthorized camping” without eventually having recourse to criminal penalties would hint at the difficulty of Coffman’s approach.

Doug King
10 months ago
Reply to  John in Denver

The City of Aurora is in the process of providing places for these folks to go to.

Doug King
10 months ago

I do believe the City needs to be starting somewhere and both sides need to find a place to meet in the middle to address the issue. There has to be a way. I can see the way myself….just takes perseverance and a few more $$