No songs or sirens would be needed for Homer. Only "DouuuuughNuts, drool drool"

A strange use of language Mr. Cowles.

I am not a lawyer like you are, but there are things like court ordered restraining orders that could be used to restrict some people from certain locations and make them subject to arrest if the order is violated. I think a famous example is the "black book" that the State of Nevada keeps (or kept) that excludes or excluded known mobsters from casinos.

"a place where known parolees and other congregate; where assaults and other physical disturbances, narcotics use and distribution and other illegal conduct occurs with unusual and increasing frequency and where neighbors reasonably believe themselves to be threatened in the use and enjoyment of their own properties and public places around the property."

Yeah well this sounds like the Boulder Homeless Shelter, doesn't it? Why doesn't Tom Carr file the same suit against that organization?

"The Boulder Shelter, which was organized in 1982 in response to the death of a homeless veteran who died from exposure, is not run by a government agency."

Yes but the Boulder Shelter gets a lot of many from many government entities, including the City of Boulder, the County of Boulder, the State of Colorado (and possibly other states) and the Federal Government . One of their biggest cash sources for the Boulder Shelter is from the State of Colorado which gives it money to "supervise" and house parolees and for which it has no qualifications to do so. But don't expect the Shelter to freely admit this money making operation.

The Shelter never stops blabbing about this "homeless veteran" who died in 1982. If the Shelter made public a list of people who live there now, almost all would be either parolees, ex-convicts and people waiting to be tried for serious offenses along with a small minority of completely insane. Some might be veterans but almost all are or were serious criminals.

"Why don't you live here?"

One reason quite directly is the "affordable housing program" directed by Boulder Housing Division Manager Jeff Yegian and his predecessors. It was designed from the start to explicitly discriminate against people who are not wealthy but who do not have permanently poorly paying jobs. Lots of residents, voters, complained about this but the complaints were ignored by City government, who went ahead and created this monstrosity anyway.

Suppose you made a good living one year but the next year lost your job. Forget it. Unemployed people are not welcome to get an "affordable house".

Next year get back on your feet? Also forget it. You don't have enough money to buy an un-subsidized house, but you will make too much money to get an official "affordable" one. For some reason you are regarded by the City's program as some lucky person who doesn't deserve his luck. Instead you are treated like someone who deserves to be impoverished by high rent and real estate prices and without shelter here. More simply you are told to leave town, something not even the homeless are told.

"The university has an interest in seeing more of its employees live here."- Oh, really? The simple solution would be for the University to pay lower level employees enough to live here. But Nooooooo. Good salaries are only for high level administrators. Everyone else has to depend on government subsidy. The University learned this trick from Walmart,I think. I wonder if the University of Colorado also helps its employees apply for food stamps like Walmart does?

"The homeless KNOW their 'rights'. They show up at the Emergency Room for a sniffle, knowing they 'can't be turned away', so WE pay $500 for their sniffle."

Your statement above is complete nonsense, both mean-spirited and bigoted. Give away all your money and possessions and then show up at any emergency room with a sniffle and see what happens. Otherwise, simply put, shut up.

"Or back pain, get drugs, sell them."- I know it's a shock for you to find this out but not all crime is committed by homeless people. Some of the worst crimes in the last 10 years have been committed people living in mansions.

Easy on the slander there Mitch!

"In many cases homelessness is by choice." Yes,not hard to find evidence of this

"It is no different then someone on welfare having more babies to increase their welfare check." Can't say this hasn't happened but this is a rare event certainly and according to all evidence. Remember that guy Clinton who ended welfare as we know it?

" Or, an unemployed person collecting unemployment and not bothering to look for a job."- It is degrading to imply that unemployed people don't want work. Absurd as generalization.

"Or using food stamps to buy cigarettes." Ah yeah both the food stamp recipient and the store that sells the cigarettes would be committing a crime with this one. And both would be caught believe me. Such petty crimes are punished harshly in this country especially food stamp fraud.

"Many folks feel that society owes them and should support them. Homelessness for some is an easy way out. Beg for money and buy food and whatever else you want. The reason so many on are on the street corners is because so many people give them money. It pays to beg. If it didn't pay no body would do it. Boulder creates it's homeless problem by making it easy to be homeless. Make it harder and the problem goes away. The real problem is that there are some that for one reason or another find themselves homeless and do not want to be. There are many families that have fallen on hard times that really need help to get back on their feet. The services that they could get are strained by those that choose the lifestyle. It is not OK for children to live in cars. If only we could weed out those that take advantage of what Boulder offers and give more help to those that really need it much of the homeless issue would be resolved."

Here you ruin everything by stating something I agree with. But even when there are people who (on this very web site) state publicly and loudly "that society owes them and should support them" (but strangely not anyone else) nothing happens to them. Your comment is void of solutions.

"Boulder is all about banning things." - I don't know what Boulder is about but I would not agree with that statement.

"Why not ban panhandling?"- I agree that at least some panhandling ("flagging" on street corners) could be easily suppressed. Put up barriers on the worse street corners ( for example, Broadway and Canyon and of course the notorious intersection of Broadway and 36 that lies on county property outside of city limits), and prevent pedestrians from entering the highway except at the very intersection itself.

"Enforcing the no camping ban".- I think the City Police really try to do this. The problem is County law enforcement does little or nothing. There is some chuckle-head who planted himself on County property just North of City limits but within walking distance of the Homeless Shelter who has "camped" on this property since he got of an out-of- state prison in 2007. Bizarrely he continues to make public statements that his housed neighbors in North Boulder actually want him there.

Oh right, somebody selling e-bikes is going to be the best source of information on the worst possible abuses of e-bikes. I suppose you watch Fox News too.

No. The rights of pedestrian are superior to the "rights" (if any) of cyclists. Cyclists encountering pedestrians should get off their bikes and walk around them. Pretty simple.