Camp Hope Loveland – How Did We Get Here? 2
Critical Discourse Analysis is a Social Science Research Method that helps us understand what language is doing. I will be partnering with Copilot to interrogate the rhetoric surrounding #CampHopeLoveland
It’s also an incredible tool for digesting anything that you’re hearing or seeing. Let me show you how it works.
Subject: Update from the listening sessions for downtown business owners
From: Tim Doran Tim.Doran@cityofloveland.org
Date: 20 hours ago Tue, 16 Sep 2025 15:36:54 -0600
To: City Council CCouncil@cityofloveland.org
CC: Multiple Recipients
Attachments: 16 image files
Folder: Email-Public-Review*
Madam Mayor and City Council,
I recently held two Chief of Police listening sessions for downtown business owners facilitated by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). While there was a call for more visible presence from our police department to support business owners, employees, and patrons’ safety, nearly everything I gathered from the event tied back to a central issue: the disruptive behavior of the homeless and transient community. There were five themes:
- Most were upset about safety issues and the impact of negative transient behavior, amplified by the closing of the South Railroad Facility (SRF) and a surge in disruptive behavior issues.
- Many were unhappy the City Council did not amend the camping ban ordinance to remove the shelter requirement, which would have allowed our officers to effectively enforce unlawful camping violations.
- There were measurable losses of quarterly revenue, including one business reportedly losing a contract for $250k related to the ongoing downtown issues.
- Private security employees are hearing from the SRF occupants that transients from neighboring towns are planning to come here when our camping ban is no longer enforceable. Their apparent mission is to create an overabundance-of-campers scenario in…
The next line appears at the top of the next page.
…an attempt to force Loveland to build a permanent homeless shelter.
Ready?
I’ve transcribed the document above so you have full access.
Below is my conversation with Copilot.
This is the first half of page 1.
“Subject: Update from the listening sessions for downtown business owners
From: Tim Doran Tim.Doran@cityofloveland.org
Date: 20 hours ago Tue, 16 Sep 2025 15:36:54 -0600
To: City Council CCouncil@cityofloveland.org
CC: Multiple Recipients
Attachments: 16 image files
Folder: Email-Public-Review*
Madam Mayor and City Council,
I recently held two Chief of Police listening sessions for downtown business owners facilitated by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). While there was a call for more visible presence from our police department to support business owners, employees, and patrons’ safety, nearly everything I gathered from the event tied back to a central issue: the disruptive behavior of the homeless and transient community. There were five themes:”
First can you give a general assessment of the document so far?
- The document is an internal email from Tim Doran to Loveland City Council summarizing two police listening sessions with downtown business owners.
- It frames the sessions as facilitated by the Downtown Development Authority and focused on public safety concerns.
- The central issue identified is the “disruptive behavior” of the homeless and transient community, which is positioned as the dominant concern raised.
- The tone suggests a shift from general safety to targeted discussion of unhoused individuals, potentially setting the stage for policy recommendations or enforcement strategies.
- The mention of 16 image attachments and five emerging themes implies a structured narrative and possible visual framing of the issue.
- The framing risks conflating safety with displacement, and may reflect institutional bias or symbolic targeting.
Why did this document have a “take my word for it” feel?
- The email presents Tim Doran’s interpretation of the sessions without direct quotes, transcripts, or participant data.
- It frames the issue as consensus-driven (“nearly everything I gathered”) without evidentiary support.
- The language shifts quickly from general safety to a singular narrative about homelessness, implying causality without substantiation.
- The phrase “there were five themes” suggests a curated summary, but the lack of detail so far invites skepticism.
- The absence of dissenting voices, alternative perspectives, or methodological transparency reinforces a unilateral tone.
Thank you. What are the impacts of a “More Visible Presence?” Does more policing solve homelessness?
A “more visible presence” often increases surveillance and displacement, but does not solve homelessness. Policing tends to shift visibility, not resolve root causes.
📍 Impacts of a “More Visible Presence”:
- Increased police visibility often leads to displacement of unhoused individuals rather than resolution of underlying issues.
- Public perception of safety may improve temporarily, but long-term community trust can erode, especially among marginalized groups.
- Law enforcement resources are stretched thin, diverting attention from violent crime and overburdening officers with social service roles they aren’t trained for.
- Encounters with police can escalate, sometimes resulting in injury or death, especially when mental health crises are involved.
- Visible policing may reinforce stigma, framing homelessness as criminality rather than a systemic failure.
🚫 Does More Policing Solve Homelessness?
- No—policing does not address root causes like lack of affordable housing, mental health care, or income support.
- Punitive approaches often worsen homelessness, pushing people into jails, emergency rooms, or more precarious conditions.
- Effective solutions require supportive housing and services, not criminalization or forced relocation.
- Collaborative models with outreach workers and trauma-informed care show more promise than enforcement-led strategies.
Without including voices of the vulnerable, and considering his position and power, is it possible he’s generating this SCRRIPPTT of “Safety?
- Yes, it is possible Tim Doran is generating a SCRRIPPTT of “Safety” that centers institutional authority while excluding vulnerable voices.
- His framing positions police visibility as a solution, while defining the unhoused as the primary threat—without presenting their perspectives or systemic context.
- As Chief of Police, his narrative carries symbolic weight and policy influence, shaping public perception and council response.
- The absence of direct quotes, community testimony, or trauma-informed framing suggests a curated script rather than a participatory account.
- This aligns with SCRRIPPTT patterns: Surveillance, Criminalization, Repetition, Policing, Presence, Targeting, and Theater—all under the guise of “Safety.”
- The document risks reinforcing performative care and aesthetic militarization, while obscuring structural abandonment and lived experience.
Who Benefits From This Type of Framing?
- Law enforcement agencies benefit by justifying increased budgets, staffing, and surveillance infrastructure under the guise of public safety.
- City officials and developers gain political cover to advance displacement strategies, zoning changes, or aesthetic “revitalization” without addressing systemic harm.
- Business owners may feel temporarily protected, reinforcing a consumer-friendly narrative that prioritizes visibility and commerce over equity.
- Media outlets and political actors can amplify simplified narratives that obscure root causes, reinforcing fear-based engagement and policy inertia.
- Institutions facing scrutiny benefit from redirecting public attention away from structural failures toward individualized blame.
- Those invested in performative governance gain symbolic legitimacy by appearing responsive, while avoiding transformative accountability.
We should Keep that in mind while we look at the second half of the page .
Most were upset about safety issues and the impact of negative transient behavior, amplified by the closing of the South Railroad Facility (SRF) and a surge in disruptive behavior issues.
Many were unhappy the City Council did not amend the camping ban ordinance to remove the shelter requirement, which would have allowed our officers to effectively enforce unlawful camping violations.
There were measurable losses of quarterly revenue, including one business reportedly losing a contract for $250k related to the ongoing downtown issues.
Private security employees are hearing from the SRF occupants that transients from neighboring towns are planning to come here when our camping ban is no longer enforceable. Their apparent mission is to create an overabundance-of-campers scenario in an attempt to force Loveland to build a permanent homeless shelter.
Do you find any patterns in the language of this section?
- The language repeatedly frames unhoused individuals as disruptive, strategic, and threatening, reinforcing a narrative of invasion and manipulation.
- Economic impact is emphasized through anecdotal loss (“$250k contract”), suggesting financial urgency without systemic context or verification.
- The term “transients” is used pejoratively and repeatedly, dehumanizing individuals and distancing them from local belonging.
- The phrase “apparent mission” implies intentionality and coordination, casting unhoused people as political actors rather than survivors of systemic failure.
- The narrative relies heavily on hearsay (“private security employees are hearing”), which undermines evidentiary rigor and amplifies fear.
- The document constructs a causal chain: SRF closure → surge in behavior → economic loss → policy failure → external threat—without presenting data or alternative interpretations.
- There is no inclusion of unhoused voices, trauma-informed framing, or acknowledgment of structural drivers like housing scarcity or service gaps.
- The tone shifts from concern to alarmism, reinforcing SCRRIPPTT patterns of Surveillance, Criminalization, and Theater under the guise of civic protection.
Why would he amplify fear?
- Amplifying fear can justify increased policing, surveillance, and budget allocations under the banner of public safety.
- It shifts attention away from structural failures—like housing scarcity or service gaps—toward individualized blame.
- Fear narratives consolidate institutional power, allowing leaders to appear decisive while avoiding systemic accountability.
- They create urgency that pressures policymakers to act quickly, often bypassing inclusive or trauma-informed solutions.
- Fear can suppress dissent by framing alternative perspectives as naïve, dangerous, or complicit.
- It reinforces a binary of “us vs. them,” which simplifies complex issues and garners public support for punitive measures.
- In this context, fear becomes a tool of narrative control—part of the SCRRIPPTT of Safety that masks symbolic abandonment as civic action.
That’s a lot for one page.
One more thing before we go- Who benefits from this narrative framework? Aren’t Police, Fire, and shelter all under the Public safety part of the budget? (Use as many bullet points as necessary)
Absolutely—and you’re right to connect narrative framing to budget architecture. Here’s a breakdown:
🧩 Who Benefits from This Narrative Framework:
- Police departments gain justification for increased funding, staffing, and equipment under the guise of “visible presence” and “public safety.”
- City leadership can redirect scrutiny away from structural failures and toward individualized blame, appearing responsive without systemic reform.
- Downtown developers and business owners benefit from displacement of unhoused individuals, preserving commercial aesthetics and consumer flow.
- Private security firms may see increased contracts as fear escalates and enforcement is outsourced.
- Media and political actors can amplify simplified, fear-based narratives that drive engagement and suppress dissent.
- Budget architects can consolidate discretionary spending under “public safety,” shielding it from deeper equity audits or reallocation demands.
🏛️ Budget Context: Police, Fire, and Shelter
- Yes—Police, Fire, and Emergency Shelter often fall under the “Public Safety” umbrella in municipal budgets.
- This allows cities to bundle punitive and supportive services, masking imbalances in funding or priorities.
- Shelter funding may be minimal or symbolic, while police and fire receive the bulk of allocations.
- Narrative framing of homelessness as a safety threat enables cities to justify enforcement spending while underfunding housing-first solutions.
- Public Safety becomes a rhetorical shield, allowing aesthetic militarization and symbolic care to coexist in the same line item.
Operation **Reclaim** Loveland 
What do you think?