Denver was my home for most of my adult life while I made a career in law. It wasn’t exactly Paris, but even Paris isn’t exactly Paris anymore. Denver was at least pleasant, clean and fairly safe.
Cheapskate that I am, I made a practice of parking about eight blocks away from my downtown office, in the direction of the “bad” part of town. (The parking rate was 10 cents a day – really!) I never had any problems.
As many of you know, I then retired and moved to Aspen. About six years ago, I bought a second home in Denver, in a downtown high-rise condo. I get around.
But now I’m done with my downtown Denver condo. What’s happened to downtown Denver in just the last three years is disgraceful and disgusting.
It’s simply overrun with vagrants. You know, the people we used to call “bums” until “bums” developed a connotation of aimlessness, thieving, voluntarily unemployed, substance-abusing beggars; and then called “homeless” until “homeless” developed a connotation of aimlessness, thieving, voluntarily unemployed, substance-abusing beggars; and then called … well, you get the idea.
So, I’ll simply call these feral humans by their scientific name, “vagrants.” I mean no disrespect in calling them vagrants. To be clear, I do passionately disrespect the vagrants, but calling them vagrants is not my means for expressing that disrespect. This blog is.
“Vagrant” is simply a timeless and accurate term that saves me the trouble and correctness of looking up the latest woke jargon on the subject, for fear of offending someone who – let’s be honest – is not very likely to read this anyway.
Denver now boasts the fourth worst vagrancy problem outside of California, and the tenth worse in the country. This is for a city of modest size compared to San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Atlanta and New York. In vagrancy, Denver is playing big.
That’s partly because the old mayor loved vagrants. He did what he could to attract more, right up until the time his term expired last summer and he fled to Miami. (I’m not making that up.)
That mayor presided over a 300% increase in vagrancy over the past three years – a quadrupling. At this exponentially increasing rate, I calculate that all 700,000 residents of Denver will be vagrants in another nine years. Seriously, do the math (ah, the miracle of exponential growth).
That mayor wasn’t alone. Virtually the entire Denver city council are leftist Democrats. The leftist group-think on this issue is that the vagrants are victims of a bad economy, probably the one George W. Bush brought on 20 years ago, and Ronald Reagan before him, and John Kennedy before him, by greedily refusing to take wealth from those who earn it to give it to those who want it.
And so, the lefty group-thinking goes, it would be cruel to insist that these people stop camping on the street, pooping in the gutters, shooting up on the sidewalks, and panhandling in the parks.
They simply have no choice!
OK, there are the underused shelters. But many of those shelters don’t allow drug use. How cruel is that?!?
And in the shelters, they can’t accost a passerby with begging, shouting, assault, and the other general weirdness that gives them the attention they crave in the toilet of a life they’ve engineered for themselves.
The new mayor elected last summer says he wants to do something about the vagrants (though he doesn’t call them by that scientific name). He doesn’t want to enforce the laws against vagrancy, however.
He instead wants to spend more money. He wants to spend $50 million to house about 1,000 of them. That’s out of the 7,000 or so that are here, a number sure to grow when word gets out about the fabulous deal for them in Denver.
Do the math again. That’s $50,000 per person – over $4,000/month in rent per person. Does he plan to house them downtown in the Four Seasons?
And why does he think they’ll go to the $50,000/person new housing when they currently don’t go to the shelters? Maybe he’ll entice them into the housing with room service or, more likely, drug deliveries. He did specifically say that the housing won’t prohibit drug dealing and usage.
This is on top of the $40-100,000 per vagrant that the city already spends yearly. To put that in perspective, it’s several times what they spend per student in the Denver public schools. And it’s on top of the $1,000 per person per month that they outright gift to vagrants (but only if the vagrant is a woman, a transgender, or a “gender non-conforming” person).
In the old days, we had special places for these sorts of people. They were called mental institutions. But maybe the institutions are all filled up now by Ultra-MAGAs incarcerated there for deprogramming.
Why, you might ask, do the voters of Denver continue to elect and re-elect city politicians who enable this destructive vagrancy? Why don’t they elect politicians who enforce the laws already on the books against camping in the street, panhandling on the sidewalk, shooting up in the park and pooping in the gutter?
That’s an important question. I have a theory.
The answer is that Denver, like most other cites, is overwhelmingly Democrat. Denver has elected Democrat Congresswomen for the last 50 years (first Pat Schoeder, and then the current mini-Pat whose name I’ve forgotten because she’s utterly absent from the news). Denver voted 80% for Joe Biden in 2020.
But, you ask, don’t even Democrats dislike street camping, sidewalk pooping, gutter panhandling and park shoot-ups?
Yes, even Democrats dislike those things.
But nearly all that camping, pooping, shooting up and panhandling takes place in less than the one square mile of downtown. That’s less than 1% of the 155 square miles of Denver. Measured by population, it might be even less than that, since, understandably these days, not many people live downtown.
And so, dim Denver Democrats – the dimDenDems – get the best of both worlds. They get to signal their virtue by enabling, encouraging and pandering to the vagrants without any cost to those dimDenDems personally. The cost is instead borne by (1) the vagrants themselves whose lives continue in Democrat-enabled misery and (2) the few residents of downtown who endure the presence of those miserable and immiserating vagrants.
Of course, the dimDenDems don’t feel guilty about that. No, they feel innocent – virtuous even – as they drive around in their Prius EVs with COEXIST bumper stickers. They’ll continue their destructive feel-goodery until downtown is a hellhole that even the vagrants will flee from – and toward the surrounding neighborhoods where those preening virtue signalers reside.
Before all of Denver descends into that Mad Max post-apocalypse, I’m out of here. See ya in the mountains.
WordPress says I’ve topped a million readers. Join them with a free subscription HERE or simply send an email to theAspenbeat@gmail.com
the Aspen beat 
When it’s time to sell your condo, give me a call! Plenty of them DenDems want to buy it.
You left out the “dim.”
Your “down valley” readers are glad to have you!
A. When I became a cop in Ft. Collins in 1966 we had twelve homeless. We knew them all and they were harmless. When the government started paying people to be “homeless” it exploded and the 12 we had got lost in the shuffle.
B. If Denver has bums pooping in the gutters San Francisco should hire a few to teach their bums to shit in the gutters and not on the sidewalks.
C. When you named the victims you forget the businesses. When the customers quit coming and you’re surrounded by bums you close your business and leave town.
D. My wife complained about her dog begging at the dinner table. “I hate that.” “Then quit feeding him from your plate.” “That’s the only way to get him to stop.” That’s the Democrat in her. If we pay bums enough they’ll get jobs.
Sorry to hear this is happening. I got a sense of how great Denver is by watching those “Perry Mason Returns” movies. It is good that people like this writer are being a “thorn in the side” to those who have brought about this decline, and places like WordPress and RCP are sources of intelligient discussion
This is unfortunate news to hear. I may be naive, but living in New York I was hoping to move to Colorado to avoid this problem and enjoy the skiing and climbing that is just so great out there. Anybody have any suggestions about towns with SANE policies to live in Colorado with out these problems. Any suggestions welcome!
Colorado Springs. They started down the vagrant path with Denver, saw enough of it, and have been enforcing the vagrancy laws ever since. You’ll see some panhandlers but no sidewalk campers.
I was going to suggest western slope.
My daughter lives in Broomfield, NW of Denver, but you can go further afield and live cheaper.
You’re from N Y? Then stay the heck where you are. Your Democrat voting ilk is not wanted here. The Adirondack mountains offer all that you’re looking for in a nice deep blue state.
I know what those who object to this are doing: moving to Texas. After years of seeing California license plates on my daily drives around Houston, in the last year or two, I’m noticing a lot more Colorado plates. All I can say is: check your politics at the state line, bub.
I think perhaps Our Gracious Host neglected to point out another, possibly the primary reason for the increase in “Homelessness” ™. Money. One can not help but notice the enormous amounts of money that seem to be generated by the politicians who propose funding of projects allegedly designed and intended to “help the homeless”. Sometimes, as in Denver (and many other democrat-run former cities, now more accurately called shitholes) the politicians propose building “housing” for them. The question then becomes precisely who is to build the “housing,” and the answer is usually contractors with connections to the politicians proposing the projects. And how, you may inquire did those contractors develop those connections with said politicians? Again, the answer is money; political contributions are a legalized form of bribery. All on the up-and-up, of course. Not to mention all the civic groups that suddenly spring up to “help the homeless”. How do you think those people get paid? Why, it’s from the same pot of gold that the contractors dip into, viz., taxpayer dollars. It’s all in the name of a good cause, don’t you see? Helping the homeless! How can you be against that, you hard-hearted republithug! And so we create another self-licking ice cream cone: homeless vagrants create an opportunity for politicians and their friends to suck money out of the citizenry in order to fund projects demanded and organized by the politicians, and the more “homelessness,” the more abundant are the opportunities for making money by those politicians and their friends. It’s a very exclusive club, my friend, and you and I are not in it. But rejoice! There are plenty of opportunities to join. Take your pick: homelessness, drug rehabilitation, global climate change, the list is nearly endless. Get on board the gravy train and hope to jump off before it crashes at the end of the line.
Same here just substitute Atlanta for Denver and North Carolina mountains for Aspen.
You didn’t even mention the Denver gay bar that recently called it quits after a bunch of years in business. And the amazing thing? (But it’s not really amazing) I would venture that upwards of 90% of that gay bars patrons vote Dem. And let’s not forget, Denver, like virtually ever other blue city in America, is a proud and virtuous SANCTUARY CITY! Until the migrants actually show up. And then? Not so much. Hypocrisy on steroids.
Guess these “dimDenDems” (great word combination) think the bum enclave won’t expand and come THEIR way. When that happens expect the usual leftist screaming and hyperventilating over their lack of “safety” but they’ll still vote lemming-like for the continued destruction.
Speaking of gay bars, let’s not forget the Colorado Project brought to us by Californian dot com millionaire Tim Gill and his little buddies who were determined to push CO to gay marriage. Likely are buddies with the state’s First Man and his little buddy. And succeed they did.
“The answer is that Denver, like most other cites, is overwhelmingly Democrat.”
Your theory is well supported Glenn. Democrats (even the POC democrats) also fight tooth and nail to ignore this phenomenon:
“A report by Heritage Senior Research Fellow Jay P. Greene, Ph.D., and Research Associate Madison Marino revealed that the presence of chief diversity officers (CDOs) in K-12 schools led to lower test scores among black and Hispanic students and wider achievement gaps between minorities and white students. In districts with CDOs, black and Hispanic students “lost an additional 4.5 percentile points on their math achievement tests relative to districts that did not have a chief diversity officer,” said Greene. Schools with CDOs were also more likely to not inform parents if their children started to gender transition, change their name, or use opposite-sex bathrooms”.
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/equity-elementary-extended-the-growth-and-effects-diversity-equity-and-inclusion?
I think the current PC term for them is the “unhoused”. Of course, expect that to change again to something else once “unhoused” is recognized as synonymous with aimlessness, thieving, voluntarily unemployed, substance-abusing begging, etc.
My northern Rockies town is about 1/10th the size of Denver, but has more homeless per capita. (over 600, at last credible estimate to Denver’s 4,000) Our problem goes back at least a half-century as having a reputation for being vagrant-friendly, or at least vagrant-tolerant. Other cities have been busing their vagrants to us for decades.
After the demise of the extraction economy 50 years ago, that left the university as the biggest employer and influencing political force. Everything that happened subsequently was not a surprise. Some locals boast that we have more non-profits per capita than anywhere else. (Actually, I looked it up and we’re #4, but that’s beside the point) Most are dedicated to homelessness. For years I joked that we had more active homeless advocates than we had homeless. But over the last 5 years or so they finally began to become outnumbered by their cause.
We too have spent millions on the problem. In fact, a decade ago we built the state’s largest homeless shelter on the main on the edge of downtown to signal our virtue. To the surprise of few, that end of town is now degrading. The city’s master plan for that stretch of town is a beautiful statement of modern urban planning; mid-rise complexes with high-end restaurants with outdoor seating, galleries, boutiques, “maker spaces”, and what-not at ground level with office spaces and luxury condominiums upstairs. Of course, with the homeless shelter a block down the street, that’s never going to happen. The reality is that most of the retail that existed nearby eventually left to be replaced by cannabis outlets or other low-rent businesses or start-ups there for the near-free rent. (Even the sex shop moved!) I have every expectation that the grocery store a block over that was recently taken over by an out-of-state chain will soon close up as well for obvious reasons.
About 12 years ago the city engaged in a “10 Year Program to End Homelessness”. At the end of the 10 years, it had only doubled. They don’t talk much about that. It seems that subsidizing low income housing only results in 5-year waiting lists for subsidized low income housing. Who could have predicted that?
Over the last several years, there has been only one true conservative on the city council, a neighbor of mine representing my district. He gave up the fight for fiscal and policy sanity after one term, and moved out of town not long after. I took that as a bad sign. Many of our Progressives seem to look at Portland as a model to emulate instead of avoiding.
Last year, the city counsellors floated a 7-million dollar “homeless levy” that would be funded through property taxes. Hapless homeowners who have been enduring property tax increases far in excess of inflation for years voted it down. This year, they mayor declared a “homeless emergency” and plan to spend millions of dollars on running more shelters year-round and instead proposed a “fire services levy” because they now say that the fire department is underfunded. Of course, because the money that should be funding the fire department has now been diverted to the homeless, DEI and other boondoggles that offer no value to the average citizen, but make Progressives feel good. As the city has already announced a 10% budget increase and our property tax bills arrive only a few weeks before the elections, the city reconsidered that and canned that idea instead of suffering another resounding defeat.
Part of the Progressive narrative about “the homeless” is that these are our neighbors, fellow citizens just like you and I; people who couldn’t afford rising rents, were just one paycheck away from eviction and what-not, victims of domestic abuse, or similar misfortune. And no doubt there is certainly some degree of that. But for the vast majority, that’s obviously not the case. In a university town, you’d think that there’d be some sort of scientific effort to quantify just who these people are, where they came from, and how they arrived at their current state. And yet, there is a lack of curiosity to obtain credible statistical answers to these questions. I can only assume it’s because those pushing an agenda know better than to seek answers that they already know will not support their agenda.
The funny thing is that a large number of the homeless would rather camp out around town instead of staying in the shelters, even in winter when it’s well below freezing most of the time. The big reason for that is because the shelters have rules, particularly that alcohol and drug use is not permitted. We do have a couple of councilpeople who wish to correct that not only by making drug use in the shelters acceptable, but also by legalizing other forms of hallucinogenics. Although I’m sure that the needles are provided, there’s no talk of where the illegal drugs will be coming from. Oh, I can tell you. It will be from the friendly and helpful drug distribution organizations who are already associated with if not directly responsible for most of the violent crime that happens in my formerly peaceful town. (I was rear-ended in a hit-and-run a few years ago by these helpful vacuum-filling vendors and am reminded of that in my back every evening when I lie down in bed)
And what is the most expensive aspect of running a shelter? Security! 24/7 armed security. (The Progressives initially had a problem with the “armed” part, but it turns out that no sane person wants that job unarmed) I’m pretty certain that if everyone in my neighborhood were to gather in a closed building to sleep on cots for a night, armed security would not be required. But these people literally require armed babysitting. Again, they are not like you or I.
At least Denver managed to keep your homeless concentrated to a square mile. In the last year, they’ve started spreading out all over here. They started on state land on the river. The state finally fenced that off, so they metastasized and spread all over. Again, our local Progressives had a perverse answer to the problem. If they spend money rehabilitating public parks, regular citizens will start using them again and the homeless wouldn’t want to do drugs there anymore. Instead, we’ve now spent millions on park improvements that are now enjoyed almost exclusively by drug users. In my neighborhood, we’ve been working for a decade to get a park on land the city already owns for that purpose, but there’s never the money available. I’ve been starting to joke a bit more out-loud that perhaps if we were to get some tents on the lot and some junkies shooting up, we’d finally get our park done too.
We have one councilwoman who’s constituents are understandably upset that the auxiliary temporary winter shelter that opened during COVID in their district now appears to be becoming 24/7 permanent. Her answer is to cycle outdoor homeless camps through every other district every few months. That’s Progressivism for you; spreading misery around more equally.
The sad part is that we’re really not helping anybody. Progressives still cling to the fantasy that if everyone just had the same nice house and bank account, everyone would be fine. But that’s not the case. (If it were, then Hollywood celebrities would be the most stable and happy people on the planet) They only thing they know how to do is throw other people’s money at the problem and hope that some of it sticks, which only encourages more of the problem. They think they can build or subsidize cheap housing without realizing that just more people will be catching busses to get on the list for the cheap for free housing and kill time doing drugs while they wait.
The unfortunate reality is that government (at least in its current state) is incapable of doing what has to be done, which is judging people and deciding who is redeemable and who is not. All they can do is treat the law-abiding abused single mom the same as they treat the life-long criminal and/or junkie. They can’t demand accountability of anyone. All they can do is projectile vomit other people’s money at the problem. Any attempt at doing anything substantial beyond pie-in-the-sky solutions would be deemed illegal or unconstitutional.
Why did this happen to Denver, you ask? Because Colorado got Californicated back in the ‘70s and ‘80s, just as my state is being Califonicated now. I blame John Denver for ruining Colorado; he just made it sound so nice. We got discovered during COVID when Californians realized they could life here free and afford a nice 3-bed, 2-bath house here for a quarter of what they were paying in their locked-down state. I can remember when people here used to mock Californians. Today, they’re voting exactly like them.
At least you can decamp back to Aspen. Not sure where we’re going to go. We can’t afford a home in Aspen. Perhaps we should show up and be your homeless!
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
Thomas Sowell
Once upon a time in America, people would work together to solve problems.
Now, “good” people want to get enough money to get away.
The “bad” people milk the problem for money.
Leadership provides motivation, optimism that the problem can be solved, and a workable plan.
America ain’t gots.
How about the word hobos to describe the now politically incorrect terms for bums, vagrants, and homeless? What was old is now new again! So the word hobo could work, or even the word vagabond.
I think there was another term back in the 1970s that referred to safehouses where junkies and skels could do their drugs away from prying eyes … shooting galleries.
The truth is it doesn’t matter what the homeless street bums are called … because any new politically correct term would quickly become associated with the stinking, filthy degenerate behaviors exhibited by these derelicts, and the new term would become associated with the bad behavior.
So to placate the Left, we could start calling these homeless squatters as “free range urban unicorns” and this new polite term would quickly become associated with the deranged and dirty behaviors constantly on display by these people, and yet another newer more polite term would be devised by the Left.
BTW … I am somewhat surprised to read that the homeless on the streets of Denver is that big of a problem. Winter is around the corner, and I would assume that Colorado’s subzero temperatures would act as nature’s disincentive to live somewhere other than homeless tents on streets. Do the homeless in Denver flock south for the winter?