That ‘Uncomfortable’ Situation: Where Economic and Social Interests Converge

Originally posted by BizWest, June 23, 2025. 

I was meeting with some local restaurant owners on one of their service patios and listening intently as they lamented some of the conditions that are making it difficult for businesses in Boulder, when we heard the first bellow. It was a guttural call from down the street, projecting a somewhat threatening tone. As I turned to see what was causing the distressing sound, I fixed on a shirtless man sitting in a streetside bench, leaning forward and continuing to holler as pedestrians timidly passed by.

“He’s been there all week,” said one of the restaurant owners. “In one night, he’ll easily scare off $300 in sales. I’ve asked the city to respond, and I’m still waiting for them to do something.” That evening, city staff ultimately removed the bench as a surrender to the discomforting situation. No bench, no place for the troubled individual to sit and no offending noise. At least not there . . . but probably somewhere else nearby.

This is a reality that plays out frequently across Boulder and in many other urban communities. A person in obvious mental distress acting in a manner that can invade our sense of security and/or create an uncomfortable environment.

“Uncomfortable” because everyone recognizes this individual needs some sort of mental-health intervention. “Uncomfortable” because no one wants to worry that this might be the time a threatening gesture turns into an actual act of violence. And “uncomfortable” because no one wants local businesses to suffer the consequences of our failure to act. And let’s face it, surrendering a public amenity, like a bench, is a terribly unsatisfying solution. Where is the help for this mentally distressed individual and who is he off to offend now?

We need a comprehensive approach in these situations that directly addresses the individual human crisis, while gaining more control over our civic environment.

Boulder Police Chief Steve Redfearn tells me there is a protocol for such conditions. First the Crisis Intervention Response Team, or CIRT, takes a stab at it. But without a clear sign of risk to personal safety for the individual, the CIRT officials can’t force them into treatment through a mental-health hold. Similarly, unless they pose a clear threat of physical harm or actually commit a crime, the police can’t arrest these distressed individuals. And, as Redfearn notes, they’ll often end up back on the street in short order due to state legal parameters and Boulder County jail capacity limits.

In a city as innovative as Boulder, I’m confident we can devise creative, efficient and effective solutions to this common situation. The obvious solutions likely will entail more funding for emergency mental health services, increased law enforcement personnel and expanded mental health treatment facilities. I’m sure there are other approaches worthy of exploring based on sound behavioral health and public safety research findings and practices. We can even learn from our neighbors in Fort Collins, where they report a drop in crime following Larimer County’s investment in a behavioral health campus.

Of course, funding will be a consideration. It’s never easy to find new resources, especially as we face the prospect of significant government budget cuts. Yet, as I mentioned in a recent column, there’s a special duty to prioritize our civic investments in lean times. When it comes to the conditions of our downtown and other business districts, let alone compassion for individuals in obvious distress, it’s clear that our community’s social and economic interests converge, and present a sign of where to prioritize resources.

I often make a similar investment argument associated with the general upkeep of our local business zones. We currently face many economic headwinds, from cuts to federally funded research and a decline in consumer spending. It’s all having a dampening impact on municipal tax receipts that pay for our city services. Throw in increased regional competition for dining and shopping dollars, and you have the recipe for a further decline in municipal financial coffers.

It’s time to double-down on investments that keep our civic spaces safe and welcoming as enticing entertainment centers.

As I write this, though, I can already hear the editorials criticizing the callous juxtaposition of an economic argument with a tragic human condition. But that’s exactly my point. Both issues cry out for thoughtful and effective solutions.

This week, we removed the bench. It merely dislodges the discomforting bellow of an individual in need of our care at the expense of a pleasant place for the brief respite of a visitor or resident. It’s a poor outcome. Let’s devise and implement strategies that demonstrate our sincere care for mentally distressed individuals, provide a safe and comfortable environment for our visitors, and keep our local business zones thriving. That’s where our interests converge.