The city of Tucson has made a pattern of wasting resources and taxpayer money on expensive, inefficient, and dangerous responses to homelessness, instead of creating and funding actual models of care that would help houseless folks, neighbors, local businesses and our communities as a whole. 

The city frequently justifies their responses as improving safety, but most likely will result in worse outcomes. In the latest example, as reported by the Tucson Sentinel, the city chose to invest almost $200,000 in materials and labor to pile up large rocks and boulders throughout two Interstate-10 underpasses frequented by unhoused Tucsonans, making it impossible to sit in these shaded areas. More money could go toward similar measures in the future, with the city calling this a “pilot project,” and similar installments popping up along the Loop near Cushing Street.

City spokesperson Andy Squire said in the Sentinel article that the rocks were not placed there to target unhoused people, but rather for pedestrian safety. “It’s a high traffic area and the rocks were also placed to help cars not hop over the curb.” Despite several email requests, the city never responded with any data regarding pedestrian accidents at the underpasses to justify the exorbitant price tag.

According to the city of Tucson’s open data, only 8 of 2,236 accidents involving pedestrians in the city since 2012 occurred at one of these underpasses. Squire also offered no explanation for why rocks were placed along the Loop near Cushing Street, where there are no cars. Filling an area with jagged rocks is a nonsensical safety measure that is somehow only ever deployed in areas where unhoused people tend to rest.   

This use of hostile architecture is just one example of several harmful practices the city employs, which undercut the beneficial programs that are in place. For example, the city recently reported that it has spent an incredible $3.2 million on sweeps of homeless encampments in less than two years, which only chases unhoused people from one spot to the next.

It is well-known that hostile architecture, sweeps, and other dehumanizing responses to homelessness not only don’t work, but actually exacerbate the social issues surrounding homelessness, and lead to deaths of unhoused folks. 

A study from the Journal of the American Medical Association found, “encampment sweeps, bans, move-along orders and cleanups that forcibly relocate individuals away from essential services will lead to substantial increases in overdose deaths, hospitalizations and life-threatening infections as well as hinder access to medications for opioid use disorder (along with other detrimental impacts). 

In hundreds of different projections, the model showed no feasible scenario—in any city—where continual involuntary displacement has a neutral impact or improves health outcomes. Instead, the practice would likely result in a significant increase in morbidity, mortality and a shortened life expectancy.”

So, why is the city spending millions on these tactics when housing and services have been underfunded and inadequate for years? City officials consistently contradict each other, saying that responses like the rocks or sweeps are justified because social services and shelter are available (although they can never specify what exactly is offered), while at the same time bemoaning the lack of funding for sufficient services.

Assistant City Manager Liz Morales recently told KOLD that “the amount of need, and the amount of ability for us to reach out to people is not matched yet.” 

A 2023 city survey of hundreds of unhoused folks found that of those interviewed who had a housing assessment conducted, “58% were still waiting to hear back, 13% were offered services but were not able to access them, and another 13% reported that they received the services they were seeking.” 

Even when folks are contacted by an outreach worker, the majority don’t receive immediate services, and certainly not immediate shelter or housing.

If the city is truly concerned about the health and wellness of unhoused folks in underpasses and encampments, why not invest funds in more outreach, services, and other humane solutions like new cooling centers with expanded hours, especially in face of the possible closure of four County libraries? 

The city could also invest in more mobile showers (the city only operates one), which are greatly needed by unhoused folks, especially in summer. More “one-stop shops” could be funded to provide immediate access to needs like first aid, water, and navigators to help fill out benefits and housing applications, and help with accessing medical and mental health treatment.

There are many effective options out there. If the city is serious about real solutions for our unhoused and housed community alike, they’ll stop spending funds on harmful practices like hostile architecture and camp sweeps and focus on the root causes of the problem.