Guest opinion: David Friedlander: Boulder’s ‘safety’ crisis is actually a crisis of comfort

Addressing Safety and Inequality in Boulder: A Report on Sustainable Development Goals

By David Friedlander

Before learning my address made me ineligible, I considered running for Boulder’s City Council. My inclination to run was inspired by my conviction that Boulder has the potential to be a global leader in addressing the impacts of climate change and structural economic inequality. Yet when I spoke to Boulderites, many cited “safety” as the city’s biggest problem, albeit safety in a very narrow context.

First off, ecosystem collapse, ruined crops, depleted groundwater, violent temperature shifts and wildfires are safety issues. For decades, it’s been known that humans are earth’s primary climate destabilizers, yet I see little effort to eliminate or reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in Boulder, where oversized SUVs consuming locally-fracked gasoline clog a car-centric infrastructure en route to oversized, sprawling, consumer-good-filled homes. In 2022, those same GHG-spewing automobiles caused 377 crashes in Boulder. But safety from these threats aren’t what most Boulderites are talking about.

Over 10% of Boulder County’s population live below the poverty line, and Boulder households earning the area median income likely cannot purchase a home here or meet living expenses without subsidization. In Boulder and beyond, poverty, homelessness and wealth inequality (which is now worse than it was in pre-revolution France) have grown for decades. These economic trends are a safety issue as well, but again, not the kind most Boulderites are referring to, at least not directly.

No, when Boulderites speak of “safety,” it’s a euphemism for managing Boulder’s unhoused populations. Indeed, crime in Boulder has increased in the last few years, but much of it has been perpetrated within specific populations, like the unhoused and students, according to the Boulder Beat. When I drill down and ask if the safety of the people I speak with has been directly compromised, they share anecdotes about being yelled at on the creek path, something that happened to a friend or some ad hoc plea about protecting children. The lack of specific safety threats leads me to believe the real problem is not a lack of safety, but a lack of comfort.

It’s uncomfortable to see people live in depravity when you enjoy extreme material comfort. It’s uncomfortable to retain and increase your privilege when you could help those who are orders of magnitude less fortunate than you. In these cries for safety — and their conjoined pleas for increased police presence — Boulderites reveal their lack of compassion and understanding about the causes and cures of homelessness.

In terms of causes, it’s safe to assume that most of Boulder’s unhoused populations grew up in economically disadvantaged homes. Without family resources, many people are forced into subsistence jobs and wage slavery, making just enough to get by  in a world of out-of-control living expenses. Today, 61% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and many are one lost job or rent hike away from being homeless. This state of perpetual precariousness makes drug abuse, alcoholism and mental illness almost inevitable.

In terms of cures, we as a society must acknowledge our unhoused and impoverished citizens are humans — ones  with friends, families, hopes and dreams — and they deserve places in society, not just shelters and rehabs. Between 2019 and 2022, 114 unhoused people died in Boulder. What about their safety? If Boulder wants to affect real change, we must create the conditions for human flourishing: providing diverse, affordable housing options, meaningful work with living wages, low-barrier mental health and substance abuse services, and societal roles for every socioeconomic strata. No one is safe until everyone is safe.

Franciscan Friar Richard Rohr wrote, “The person who is poor outside is an invitation to the person who is poor inside.” Indeed, Boulder’s failure to address the root causes of its homeless situation stems from an inner poverty of its wealthy citizens. Rather than demanding more police sweeps, bigger, out-of-sight shelters, and more judgment and scorn, socioeconomically advantaged Boulderites can work towards building and co-creating a city that works for everyone, especially its least fortunate citizens.

David Friedlander is a housing innovation consultant and founder of Run Haus, a running and performance-oriented community platform. He lives in unincorporated Boulder County.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators in the Article

1. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.
• Indicator 11.1.1: Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlements, or inadequate housing.

2. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1: No Poverty

• Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.
• Indicator 1.2.2: Proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.

3. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the population at a rate higher than the national average.
• Indicator 10.1.1: Growth rates of household income per capita among the bottom 40 percent of the population and the total population.

Analysis

1. SDGs addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article:

The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 1 (No Poverty), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

2. Specific targets under those SDGs identified based on the article’s content:

• Under SDG 11, the specific target is Target 11.1: ensuring access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services and upgrading slums.
• Under SDG 1, the specific target is Target 1.2: reducing the proportion of men, women, and children living in poverty in all its dimensions.
• Under SDG 10, the specific target is Target 10.1: achieving and sustaining income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the population at a rate higher than the national average.

3. Indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

• Indicator 11.1.1: Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlements, or inadequate housing.
• Indicator 1.2.2: Proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.
• Indicator 10.1.1: Growth rates of household income per capita among the bottom 40 percent of the population and the total population.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: dailycamera.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.