This column was originally published on 7/29/16 in the Denver Business Journal.

In any discussion of improving perceptions of the 16th Street Mall, it is essential to remember that the Mall is a public space, and therefore must be open to all segments of the public.  Any attempt to drive away some people because of how they look or how much money they have is an unacceptable abuse of individual freedom and civil liberties.
It is also important to remember that for the most part, the 16th Street Mall is doing well, especially compared to pedestrian malls in many other cities.  It is bustling with people, it is lined with businesses, not empty store fronts, and the free shuttle plays a valuable role not only on the Mall itself but as an essential part of Denver’s transportation system.
To the extent there is concern, it seems to be primarily directed at people on the Mall who are visibly poor or homeless, and the discomfort or perception of a lack of safety that some people feel as a result. In response to perceived safety concerns, police presence on the Mall has increased, and city officials have promised an increased crackdown on harmless activities like sitting, lying down, or leaning against walls. Ordinances that turn these non-violent behaviors into crimes lend themselves to discriminatory enforcement based purely on how people look, which should have no place in our city.
In any case, policy should not be based on false or exaggerated perceptions. Just as crime rates are down nationally by quite a bit yet some people imagine that crime is rapidly rising, the idea that the Mall is dangerous is much more a matter of perception than reality.  Quick response to actual violent crime should be the priority of police, not ticketing people or moving them along because they look  poor and their presence makes people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.  To the extent that perception matters, a large, visible police or private security presence is intimidating and can backfire on public perception, giving the impression that the Mall must be a dangerous place to require so much policing.
So what to do about the concerns and discomfort that some people feel?  It would help to recognize that as Denver grows it should be expected to feel like a larger city, not a controlled suburb.  Older and grittier East Coast cities thrive as tourist destinations because of all they have to offer, not because they feel pristine.  It would be better to highlight the attractions of Denver and the Mall rather than to highlight exaggerated dangers or perceptions of crime. One of Denver’s attractions is as a city of freedom and rights, not heavy-handed government, and that should be preserved.
As for homelessness, the solutions lie not in criminalization and aggressive policing, but in serious - not token - investments in housing and services.  Many cities and nations in the world have essentially eliminated homelessness, so it is not impossible to do. As a thriving city in a wealthy nation, Denver can do much more than it is doing or proposing now.  And the tax money that is currently being spent to sweep up, force out, arrest, and even jail people for simply existing would be much better spent investing in solutions to the root causes of poverty and homelessness.
In the meantime, we may need to feel some discomfort about the presence of people who are homeless or living in poverty.  Not because they are a great danger—it is people without a home who are in the most vulnerable situation—but because we have not yet found the will to truly address poverty and homelessness as a city or as a nation.  As a great city feeling growing pains, Denver should address challenges in ways consistent with our values, not by sweeping away people we don’t want to see and pretending that doing so solves anything at all.
Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, and ordained Unitarian Universalist minister, is the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado.  

DENVER – Adams State University has agreed to rescind a “No Trespass Order” banning Danny Ledonne, a former professor who publicly criticized administration practices, from its Alamosa, CO campus and to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Colorado based on claims that the university violated Ledonne’s free speech and due process rights.

“The ACLU of Colorado brought this suit to vindicate Danny Ledonne’s First Amendment rights and his right to due process of law,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein.  “By summarily banning Danny from a public campus and falsely labeling him a security threat, without providing any opportunity to rebut the false allegations, the university deprived him of due process and unjustifiably retaliated against him for his constitutionally-protected criticism of university practices.”

From May 2011 to June 2015, Ledonne taught in the Mass Communications program and performed video production work for Adams State University.  In September 2015, after his employment at the university had ended, he launched WatchingAdams.org.  On October 12th, Ledonne posted a series of articles on the site criticizing the pay disparity between faculty and the administration and alleging that the university had violated the Colorado Wage Act by not making timely payments to adjunct professors.

Two days later, University President Beverlee McClure issued a “No Trespass Order” to Ledonne.  The order declared that for “an indefinite period of time,” Ledonne was prohibited from being on Adams State University property and that his presence on campus “would result in his immediate arrest for trespass.”
In an attempt to justify the ban, university officials, including McClure, made multiple unsubstantiated public claims that Ledonne had engaged in “harassment,” “direct and indirect threats,” and “terrorism.”

“Throughout the course of the litigation, Adams State University was not able to produce a single piece of evidence that Danny Ledonne ever engaged in any threats of violence, direct or indirect, toward anyone or anything at the university,” said Silverstein.  “The University had no legitimate basis for banning Mr. Ledonne from campus, nor did university officials have any factual basis for the stigmatizing and derogatory characterizations of Mr. Ledonne that they communicated to the university community and the public.”

The ACLU of Colorado filed suit in February challenging the campus ban.  As depositions were about to begin, the parties participated in a mediation before a former federal judge that resulted in a settlement agreement, which was finalized and signed last week.

“We hope that, as a result of this lawsuit, Adams State University recognizes that the public areas of its campus are a valuable cultural and educational resource not just for ASU faculty, staff, and students, but also to the residents of the greater San Luis Valley,” said ACLU cooperating attorney Reid Neureiter of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP, who represented Ledonne on a pro bono basis.  “We also expect that Adams State will take appropriate steps in the future to ensure that any person subject to being barred from campus will receive fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to challenge the decision before an impartial decision-maker.”

“I sought this legal action to challenge the university’s heavy-handed attempt to discourage me and others who disagree with the administration from speaking out.  I could not have done so without the incredible support and assistance of the ACLU of Colorado, and the pro bono lawyers from Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell,” said Ledonne. "I am very satisfied with the settlement and look forward to continuing my work in this community.”

Ledonne was represented by cooperating attorneys Neureiter, Kayla Scroggins, and Kendra Beckwith from Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell and Silverstein and Sara Neel from the ACLU of Colorado.

more on this case

As we do after every legislative session, we prepared a legislative scorecard so you, our members and supporters, can see where each legislator stands on civil liberties issues.
View the 2016 ACLU of Colorado Legislative Scorecard.

This year, we picked six bills to score on the scorecard. The ACLU was of course involved in many other legislative initiatives, but these six represent a cross section of civil liberties issues we work on – mass incarceration, economic justice, solitary confinement and immigrant rights – and those we played a significant role in as they made their way to the Governor’s desk.
Thanks to the hard work of our dedicated bill sponsors, staff, members, and volunteers, each of the six top priority bills passed through the legislature with bipartisan support and are now law.
As in other years, the ACLU championed and defeated many bills that are not reflected on the scorecard. For example, for the second year in a row, the Right to Rest Act was defeated in its first committee hearing. The bill prohibited Colorado municipalities from enacting laws that criminalize our growing homeless population. We also advocated in favor of a law that would make it easier for transgender individuals to change their gender on their birth certificate. This, too, was defeated on a party line vote in a Senate committee, after gaining bipartisan support in the House chamber.
We were successful working in coalition to defeat the many bills attempting to limit a woman’s access to reproductive health options, to limit access to voting through photo ID bills and the like, and to create enhanced penalties for already existing crimes. Finally and with the help of Senate Republicans, we were able to again defeat an attempt to expand the State’s DNA database by collecting DNA from individuals convicted of committing certain misdemeanors.
Find out how your legislators voted in the 2016 ACLU of Colorado Legislative Scorecard.