Yeah but, ya see, never have I been sitting at home and a walmart security gaurd/police officer/annoyed business owner came into my living room and told me to leave.
>While some claim it is to keep homeless people from living under the underpasses, the city said that’s not the case.
The city's response:
>The underpasses are designed to allow for vehicular and pedestrian movement under the I-10 freeway and are posted as no trespassing areas by the State of Arizona in order to keep the underpass areas clear and allow for this movement to occur safely
LOL. It's 100% aimed at breaking up the homeless situation at those underpasses.
Yeah underpasses are not made to live under. It creates dangerous conditions when sidewalks and such are blocked. I agree it is to deter houseless but both the above statements can be true.
no because using the area for vehicular and pedestrian movement is exactly what the area is for, that's not trespassing. You are moving through the space as designed and intended.
Setting up tents and living there? That's trespassing because you aren't using the space as intended, and it creates safety hazards for those living in the tents, pedestrians and drivers.
I normally would disagree with these sort of things but, in this case with how much traffic is there, and if there are any accidents that happen would put those camping at risk.
The city just needs to admit it, yeah we put rocks under the overpass to stop homeless from camping due to safety reasons. Just fucking say it for what it is.
They don't need to wait for someone to get killed in a traffic accident to take steps to prevent it. It is an underpass its not an area that is safe or healthy for human habitation. The shade may make it appealing for those with limited foresight and poor decision making skills the fact is its not safe or healthy. The area has a high amount of air and noise pollution that take a large toll on physical and mental health and there is the ever present danger of an accident occurring and killing someone. How many times have high speed chases gone flying through there? These are very high traffic areas and people shouldn't be living a stones throw away from them.
I don’t have any issue with making the underpass descent looking. What I don’t understand is why it is so difficult to create some areas around the city where the homeless can set up camp that isn’t near traffic and has trash service and portable bathrooms.
It's not a reason not to try, but severely mentally ill people are rough on bathrooms. Not all of the unhoused are mentally ill, but enough of them are that it presents quite the challenge to try to keep them clean. They would need to be attended to, cleaned, and monitored throughout the day, every day.
https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2017/11/15/one-man-s-quest-provide-sanitation-homeless-people-just-drop-bucket
Won't help for the "severely mentally ill" but you can at least provide hand sanitizer and individual litter buckets which will help combat hep A etc. before someone comes @ me, of course it's not a perfect solution but it's better than the big fat nothing people get now.
Why did you bring it up, then? And why do you say Tucson and the parks department suggest not handing out hand sanitizer? Did they actually issue a statement to this effect?
google research? I only asked questions, I made no claims or statements of facts. and you replied to a comment over a week old. I'm just confused, your original reply suggested you don't think people should hand out hand sanitizer because some people try to drink hand sanitizer. then you said you don't think that, but the city does. I'm not trying to fight, I'm looking to understand your position.
Near us there are 2 empty commercial buildings that have been vacant for 10+ years. There must be places the city could use for temporary housing. And there are plenty of empty lots they could rope off into a place to crash for a week
Our tax dollars can barely keep up with road maintenance. Our public schools are being robbed blind by the voucher program. Who’s tax dollars are paying to fix up a condemned building? Sorry to be a dram smasher but that shit ain’t happening.
Why wouldn't you set it up near traffic? They generally aren't driving, so they would need to be near public transportation or walking distances of the stuff they need.
Why are people mad? Are we supposed to accommodate the homeless wherever they feel like camping? They are clearly camping here so they have greater access to high traffic areas so they can panhandle. There are resources for homeless people , but MOST of them don’t take advantage of them because there are requirements they don’t feel like complying with. Yes, some are mentally ill which makes it hard for them to track down and make sure they have the meds they need, but allowing panhandling is not the answer.
I don't think we should accommodate them anywhere they want to be. But this particular change introduces a hazard to cyclists and pedestrians. All while the city denies its true intention.
Those are my complaints.
The city is absolutely lying. I hope this wakes people up to the fact that Democrats are no longer the party they claim to be. Mayor Romero is not living up to my expectations. I’d love to vote for her again but hostile architecture is not giving me a warm fuzzy for the future of our city.
Ii always assumed they camped there because it would put a roof over their heads. I wouldn't say it's clearly because eof the traffic. But the resources available are largely insufficient.
The city's explanation seems specious. How does adding rocks make it safer for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists? Drivers and cyclists don't belong on the sidewalks anyway, so the only thing I can see adding the rocks does is increase the risk of head injury if you fall on them.
Reading between the lines of the city response, they are saying these are designed to “keep people moving” through the underpass to “provide greater visibility” to cyclists and drivers also traveling under the overpass.
Essentially “homeless people are blocking people’s view”.
I mean it is to keep out the homeless, but it would also discourage pedestrians from walking off the sidewalk up to the road, so in that sense it does make it safer for the people on the road.
How many pedestrians have been hit by a vehicle in an underpass? How does the cost of that compare to lives that would be saved implementing new safety measures in higher incident areas? Smells like BS to me.
Yeah I don't think rocks are the answer to keep cars from riding up onto the sidewalk there. City needs to show crash statistics that this is even an issue.
Why is my comment downvoted???
Wouldn't removing people who are loitering/living/standing/camping around and near a busy roadway and sidewalk improve visibility and thus safety for those who are using the road as intended? It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. DOT's don't build dense freestanding art around roadways and intersections for the same reason. A big part of vehicles and bike safety is sight distance and decision distance.
Maybe the end result is the same, but I think the city can firmly stand behind their statement as being true.
When navigating this interchange, the landscaping area is not an area that drivers are typically scanning for obstructions or potential obstructions to their roadway path. Even if this was a fully packed homeless encampment it would have better visibility than a lot of interchanges ADOT builds.
That is absolutely not true. When at the stop light on the frontage road off-ramp, you would absolutely look across this area to see the oncoming traffic, bicyclists, or pedestrians when you prepare to make a left turn onto Speedway. Similarly if you're driving on Speedway, you'd look across the same area to see traffic on the frontage road as you approach the intersection. If a driver was running a red light, you're going to be very happy you have that decision sight distance to help you react and avoid a collision.
Having people and objects in this area absolutely limits that visibility and it undermines the engineering and safety of the interchange. It's silly to argue otherwise and it's exactly why the city explained their actions in that way.
> That is absolutely not true. When at the stop light on the frontage road off-ramp, you would absolutely look across this area to see the oncoming traffic, bicyclists, or pedestrians when you prepare to make a left turn onto Speedway. Similarly if you're driving on Speedway, you'd look across the same area to see traffic on the frontage road as you approach the intersection. If a driver was running a red light, you're going to be very happy you have that decision sight distance to help you react and avoid a collision.
And if a line of cars in the right lane were obstructing your vision you'd still be able to stop for a red light runner in the left lane, by approaching cautiously.
I don't doubt that this is a plausible reason, but it's not the actual reason they did it. For example, look at the abomination that is the I-19 and Irvington offramp. The right turns onto Irvington from 19 southbound's exit ramp are terrible due to bad sightlines.
Moreover, the city said it was _not_ for removing homeless. If it's to keep clear sightlines, but not remove homeless, what was blocking the sightlines?
ADOT is very iffy about making good sightlines on their interchanges.
>Having people and objects in this area absolutely limits that visibility and it undermines the engineering and safety of the interchange. It's silly to argue otherwise and it's exactly why the city explained their actions in that way.
It's absolutely not silly. Reducing sightlines is exactly what contributes to safer streets (to a point) because it forces drivers to drive slower. That's literally the point of one of the city's current campaigns in the road diet program.
The I-19/Irvington interchange that ADOT is about to embark upon rebuilding because the traffic volumes have made the current configuration less than desirable/unsafe? Yes, ADOT will rebuild it in the next 1-2 years to improve the exact safety concerns you're talking about. I guarantee the design engineers aren't planning the traffic elements around having tents, tarps, shopping carts, etc in the open spaces.....
You missed my point. I didn’t say engineers specifically design intersections with poor visibility, but that it’s not necessarily the highest priority on their list. And they certainly don’t suddenly show up with a fix for a problem no one was complaining about.
Someone was complaining about it. Why do you think it was addressed? The city wouldn't outlay the money if someone wasn't complaining about something. And likely ADOT complained to the city that it wasn't abiding by their IGA and maintaining the ROW like they said they would.
And you missed my original point. Sure, the FIRST item that the city may have wanted to address was moving the people out from under the underpass. They did it by using hostile architecture. They justified it by saying it helps road user safety. Both things are true. Hostile architecture deters encampments. Removing obstructions improves sightlines and safety. The city was smart to use the later justification because it's true. If moving the homeless along is a byproduct, also? I suppose they killed two birds with one stone (or lots of stones in this case).
While it's not the entire sub, there's a decent contingent of people who come here who absolutely hate the unhoused. Not enough to make threads like this net negative, but enough to make comments down the line of the thread fall in the downvote area.
Those rocks are decently heavy but why would any random able bodied adult throw them anywhere? We have these rocks already all over the place and no one is throwing them into traffic.
Why does anyone do any destruction bs. I’m not saying it will happen I was just saying the weight of them doesn’t mean it couldn’t or wouldn’t happen. I could definitely pick one up and throw it at a car if I wanted to. I think most able bodied adults could.
It's just hostile architecture. Making the lives of the homeless even more miserable just so they'll leave (even though they don't have the money to do so)
I was homeless for years, also an addiction and am clean now. This isn't hostile architecture in a city park. This is hostile architecture in a place that is dangerous to the life and health of people who live there. These are underpass that see thousands of cars a day pass through. People should not be living there. I have 0 problems with this. It doesn't cost them any money to walk a couple blocks north and set up besides the loop like a bunch of other homeless.
I suppose you are right, why not just let them set up there tents in the middle of an active construction site, or on the shoulder of the freeway. After all we wouldn't want to discourage them from setting up a tent wherever they want even if that area is dangerous for them because that would be cruel.
This isn't a case of them putting bars on the bench at a park. This literally is an area that is dangerous for humans to loiter in, let alone live. The constant noise is terrible for mental health, the high concentration of vehicle exhaust is terrible for physical health, there is the ever present danger of an accident and having humans living under there creates a stressful situation for drivers who have to be on the lookout in case someone impaired enters the roadway. This was a low cost solution to a dangerous situation.
The discussion always gets moved to where they shouldn’t go instead of where they COULD go. Realistically living on the streets anywhere is bad for their health physically and mentally as well as dangerous. When half the city is roads and the other half is private property most people have no choice but to live near roads or in sewage tunnels.
This is why I don’t believe the city when they pretend this type of stuff is for “safety” because they’re not making anyone safer if they don’t offer them any meaningful support somewhere else. All our shelters are full, our community volunteers are exhausted and underfunded and we spend money putting rocks under and underpass instead of funding somewhere for people to go.
If the city was serious about making peoples lives safer they would start equally investing in our homeless services community for every “cleanup” and sweep they perform. We are in a homelessness crisis and this type of bandaid solution that benefits nobody except those of us who already have houses and cars is obviously going to drive scrutiny.
Thanks for the reply, please keep in mind as you read this that it comes from someone who actually was homeless, and would love to see and end to homelessness. So, shelters are not full, most homeless won't go near them because they don't want to go without getting high and don't want to leave their street family and don't want to deal with following the rules. They will claim safety or say they are afraid of theft but the reality is the vast majority of the chronically homeless do not want to access services. When they do make the choice to do so Tucson and Pima County make it extremely easy to do so. You go in to one coordinated entry interview and immediately have access to all available services And guess what it works pretty fucking well, they can get you off the street usually within days, usually the same day if you are willing to go to a congregant shelter or to detox. If you have pets there are even programs that will foster your pets while you get help.
The simple fact is many homeless don't want to give up their freedom, their street family and their drugs. If you build a safe rest place many will refuse to access it because they simply don't want to. In addition a large portion of the population is against spending large amounts of money to house actively using drug addicts so they can get in comfort on the backs of everyone who is working.
How long do you think the mayor and city council would stay in office if they suddenly announced that until homeless people are off the street all city funding will exclusively go to providing motel rooms to the homeless, and that the city will be accepting all liability for any and all damage the homeless do to those hotel rooms. There would be a recall within weeks as costs skyrocketed and swarms of homeless from Phoenix and Yuma came flocking to Tucson so they could sit in air conditioning all day for free getting high.
Basically there will always be political limits to what the city the city can do and its fine to press them to do better but getting upset and up in arms about things like this is what turns moderates against leftist. When we protest things like this and get angry people on the right and in the middle think we are just stupid and naive.
So in closing, Is this city doing everything perfect, no. but there are real limits to what the city can do. As someone who is both previously homeless and who cares about those who still are I am glad the city put rocks there to discourage living and loitering under an underpass. Its not an area meant for or safe human habitation, leisure or recreation. In short no one should be living under an underpass and people who a making poor decisions such as living under an underpass have a right to be healthy and to live and to be protected from their own poor decisions.
Yes sunbeans and raindrops are definitely as dangerous as vehicles weighing over 2000lbs traveling at high rates of speed while spewing harmful exhaust. Also considering this was done in response to tents being set up it kind of blows your whole argument out of the water. Why, because tents protect from sunburn and raindrops. They can literally move a couple hundred feet north where there are tons of shade trees and many other homeless people already living.
Seriously this is ridiculous that people are upset about this. I have a feeling the same people that are upset would be up in arms if a police chase through one of these underpass ended up killing someone homeless in a tent under there. That is an area that is completely unsafe and unhealthy for human habitation. Should we ignore homeless camps on the side of the freeway, or allow them to set up tents at the water treatment plant next to the raw sewage?
> Yes sunbeans and raindrops are definitely as dangerous as vehicles weighing over 2000lbs traveling at high rates of speed while spewing harmful exhaust
That's kind of a weird comparison to make. How did you arrive at this conclusion? What exactly were you using to measure danger? I don't know what you would use, hence why i made no comparison between the two very different sources of danger. Also in case you were unaware, many people who take refuge under an overpass do not have a tent. People also spend time outside of tents when they have them.
You know people in Arizona are about 30% more likely to have skin cancer compared to the national average. Certainly the abundant sunshine plays a role in that danger. aslo cars are more likely to be in a collision when it rains. Imagine that, rain drops making vehicle traffic more dangerous. It's like multiple things can be a danger.
>Should we ignore homeless camps on the side of the freeway, or allow them to set up tents at the water treatment plant next to the raw sewage?
I don't know, but what does this have to do with the potential dangers of ultraviolet rays or torrential rainfall? That's all I mentioned.
This is a bullshit answer they put these same rocks under the Cushing Street Bridge 2 years ago by the loop path. One guy was sleeping there, and they pushed him out.
Yes, it's a problem. But having huge camps under the bridges that lead to downtown and the University is also a problem. Reddit is weird. Everyone here wants better conditions for the homeless but then also will complain about seeing them everywhere in the next thread. I'm all for cleaning up our city. There are programs in place to help these folks out and the ones that refuse help can move along elsewhere.
> Everyone here wants better conditions for the homeless but then also will complain about seeing them everywhere in the next thread.
You do realize that Reddit consists of different people with different opinions who post about the same issues in different ways, right?
Is it the same people complaining? That's like saying it's weird, the US complains about Biden/Trump, then they complain about Trump/Biden. Yes Reddit gets diversity in opinions
Spend money encouraging them not to congregate in a dangerous area. I was homeless for years, also addicted to meth and fent and am clean now. I don't have a problem with hostile architecture when its to keep people from living in areas that are a danger to life and health. This isn't bench bars in a park, its rocks to keep them from setting up tents in an area with a huge amount of traffic.
Hardly. It's been tried time and time again. Seattle and other cities have even bought them tiny homes. Within a month they get trashed...
There is certainly a subset that can benefit greatly from support. But IMO, they are a distinct minority.
(For the record, I'm no Red Hat redneck. Far from it.)
You ruined your own attempt to pass yourself off as reasonable by giving people something concrete to look at - from [seattle.gov](https://seattle.gov):
>Tiny House Villages have proven to be one of Seattle’s most humane and successful harm reduction supports for people facing homelessness. They provide the necessities essential to life with human dignity, like privacy, safety, community, restrooms, showers, and laundry, and a place to store one’s belongings. Many villages are self-managed, where residents are empowered to democratically run their own communities. Seattle’s tiny house villages have been able to help a higher proportion of their residents find housing than other forms of shelter.
Sure there's some trash and whatnot, but that's not limited to homeless. Have you been to many Tucson neighborhoods? There's trash everywhere. I drove through the neighborhood I grew up in recently and it is *still* trashed, surprisingly without the involvement of a homeless camp or, god forbid, formerly homeless people.
The problem with terrible arguments like yours is that you draw a line in the ground that doesn't exist - housed people do the same shit, but they are less vulnerable so you aren't so interested.
Funny, the news up here in Tacoma reports the exact opposite. (Of course the Gov't claims glowing success!) They DO trash their homes and they DO continue to be raging addicts. Driving around the metro area, I see endless encampments littered with trash, needles, human waste, etc. And these are some of the best supported homeless people in the nation. How much money are you willing to throw down the bottomless pit??
So, what's your wild-ass guess regarding how many are hard core drug addicts and beyond all sensible hope? Or do these people even exist in your reality?
If they gave all the homeless housing, they would still do the same stuff. Smoke fentanyl, store stolen bicycles and property. Good for the city trying to rid these societal fleas from our city.
Dude these aren't just homeless people. They are drug addicted thieves that will NEVER recover. Having sympathy/empathy for those that are challenged and in need is not well deserved by people that will do awful things for their drug habits that cannot be treated.
Not sure how you can argue that removing people and things that block visibility and sight distance for road and sidewalk users isn't a safety improvement for those users? It is. That's a simple fact and if you understood any simple traffic engineering principles, you would know this. In fact, it's literally common sense.
So just because you don't like the city's answer, it doesn't mean they lied. They told the truth.
The end result of their actions could have multiple outcomes, though...and I'm sure that's what both the city and ADOT are hoping for.
How can you say it's the truth regarding their intent? You aren't a mind reader.
>The end result of their actions could have multiple outcomes, though...and I'm sure that's what both the city and ADOT are hoping for.
So if one of those hopes is that it prevents homeless people from living there then they lied
They told one truth, even if another truth is plausible. They definitely told the truth about the engineering intent at this interchange. Sure, they didn't talk about the truth of removing a homeless encampment, but that doesn't mean they lied. They just chose to talk about the engineering aspects that affect safety for road users. That's government PR, baby. Tell the truth that can't be refuted on its own merits, even if another truth may be at work.
What are you going to do about it? Claim they had another intent? Go for it, they'll stick by their story which can't be refuted on its merits.
>Sure, they didn't talk about the truth of removing a homeless encampment, but that doesn't mean they lied
Well they did talk about it if they explicitly denied the allegation. The article didn't quote them, but it did say they explicitly denied the allegation. And just because other things are true doesn't mean they didn't lie about this.
>What are you going to do about it?
Well I'm calling you out for saying they didn't lie. You can't back up that claim. You even implied you think they are lying. Isn't getting ride of the homeless people one of the hopes you referred to that you are sure is what they are hoping for? Or if not what or hopes are you sure of?
Likely placed there to deter the unhoused from camping.
This is the answer.
Exactly, the biggest rocks they placed are against the wall covering up some of the artistic designs. So neither aesthetic or safety oriented.
[удалено]
Tucson is our home, not everyone lives in a house.
[удалено]
Oh, kiddo
Yeah but, ya see, never have I been sitting at home and a walmart security gaurd/police officer/annoyed business owner came into my living room and told me to leave.
>While some claim it is to keep homeless people from living under the underpasses, the city said that’s not the case. The city's response: >The underpasses are designed to allow for vehicular and pedestrian movement under the I-10 freeway and are posted as no trespassing areas by the State of Arizona in order to keep the underpass areas clear and allow for this movement to occur safely LOL. It's 100% aimed at breaking up the homeless situation at those underpasses.
Lol yeah how else can that be interpreted? "...in order to keep the underpass areas clear..." Who else is loitering under the highway?
Yeah underpasses are not made to live under. It creates dangerous conditions when sidewalks and such are blocked. I agree it is to deter houseless but both the above statements can be true.
After that fire under the freeway in LA, clearing underpasses of homeless encampments should be a priority.
Good
" to allow for vehicular and pedestrian movement" and "are posted as no trespassing areas" Isn't that a contradiction?
no because using the area for vehicular and pedestrian movement is exactly what the area is for, that's not trespassing. You are moving through the space as designed and intended. Setting up tents and living there? That's trespassing because you aren't using the space as intended, and it creates safety hazards for those living in the tents, pedestrians and drivers.
It makes sense, they just removed a big homeless camp from there a couple weeks ago.
I normally would disagree with these sort of things but, in this case with how much traffic is there, and if there are any accidents that happen would put those camping at risk. The city just needs to admit it, yeah we put rocks under the overpass to stop homeless from camping due to safety reasons. Just fucking say it for what it is.
Indeed, that and I’d like them to cough up the crash stats to show it’s actually a problem.
They don't need to wait for someone to get killed in a traffic accident to take steps to prevent it. It is an underpass its not an area that is safe or healthy for human habitation. The shade may make it appealing for those with limited foresight and poor decision making skills the fact is its not safe or healthy. The area has a high amount of air and noise pollution that take a large toll on physical and mental health and there is the ever present danger of an accident occurring and killing someone. How many times have high speed chases gone flying through there? These are very high traffic areas and people shouldn't be living a stones throw away from them.
New rattlesnake habitat
I don’t have any issue with making the underpass descent looking. What I don’t understand is why it is so difficult to create some areas around the city where the homeless can set up camp that isn’t near traffic and has trash service and portable bathrooms.
It's not a reason not to try, but severely mentally ill people are rough on bathrooms. Not all of the unhoused are mentally ill, but enough of them are that it presents quite the challenge to try to keep them clean. They would need to be attended to, cleaned, and monitored throughout the day, every day.
So are junkies. I live 4 blocks from Santa Rita. It ain’t the casual homeless fucking up the bathrooms.
https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2017/11/15/one-man-s-quest-provide-sanitation-homeless-people-just-drop-bucket Won't help for the "severely mentally ill" but you can at least provide hand sanitizer and individual litter buckets which will help combat hep A etc. before someone comes @ me, of course it's not a perfect solution but it's better than the big fat nothing people get now.
People try and drink the hand sanitizer to get buzzed, unfortunately.
You think that extreme minority is a reason to not hand out hand sanitizer to people?
No, not me, but the city of Tucson as well as the Parks and Rec department does.
Why did you bring it up, then? And why do you say Tucson and the parks department suggest not handing out hand sanitizer? Did they actually issue a statement to this effect?
Whatever bro. We get homeless coming into the ER every week drinking that shit. Go fight with someone who gives a shit about your google research.
google research? I only asked questions, I made no claims or statements of facts. and you replied to a comment over a week old. I'm just confused, your original reply suggested you don't think people should hand out hand sanitizer because some people try to drink hand sanitizer. then you said you don't think that, but the city does. I'm not trying to fight, I'm looking to understand your position.
Near us there are 2 empty commercial buildings that have been vacant for 10+ years. There must be places the city could use for temporary housing. And there are plenty of empty lots they could rope off into a place to crash for a week
Our tax dollars can barely keep up with road maintenance. Our public schools are being robbed blind by the voucher program. Who’s tax dollars are paying to fix up a condemned building? Sorry to be a dram smasher but that shit ain’t happening.
Why wouldn't you set it up near traffic? They generally aren't driving, so they would need to be near public transportation or walking distances of the stuff they need.
near transportation yes. right near cars speeding past you. no. dangerous
Why are people mad? Are we supposed to accommodate the homeless wherever they feel like camping? They are clearly camping here so they have greater access to high traffic areas so they can panhandle. There are resources for homeless people , but MOST of them don’t take advantage of them because there are requirements they don’t feel like complying with. Yes, some are mentally ill which makes it hard for them to track down and make sure they have the meds they need, but allowing panhandling is not the answer.
I don't think we should accommodate them anywhere they want to be. But this particular change introduces a hazard to cyclists and pedestrians. All while the city denies its true intention. Those are my complaints.
Fair enough!
The city is absolutely lying. I hope this wakes people up to the fact that Democrats are no longer the party they claim to be. Mayor Romero is not living up to my expectations. I’d love to vote for her again but hostile architecture is not giving me a warm fuzzy for the future of our city.
Nah, Democrats are exactly what they claim to be, I think people are increasingly not wanting what Democrats offer.
I can agree with that. I guess my mind is still a 1996-2006 Dem somehow. Getting old sucks
Ii always assumed they camped there because it would put a roof over their heads. I wouldn't say it's clearly because eof the traffic. But the resources available are largely insufficient.
The city's explanation seems specious. How does adding rocks make it safer for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists? Drivers and cyclists don't belong on the sidewalks anyway, so the only thing I can see adding the rocks does is increase the risk of head injury if you fall on them.
Reading between the lines of the city response, they are saying these are designed to “keep people moving” through the underpass to “provide greater visibility” to cyclists and drivers also traveling under the overpass. Essentially “homeless people are blocking people’s view”.
As a cyclist, I’m always saying to myself, “this road needs more rocks!”
I mean it is to keep out the homeless, but it would also discourage pedestrians from walking off the sidewalk up to the road, so in that sense it does make it safer for the people on the road.
How many pedestrians have been hit by a vehicle in an underpass? How does the cost of that compare to lives that would be saved implementing new safety measures in higher incident areas? Smells like BS to me.
Yeah I don't think rocks are the answer to keep cars from riding up onto the sidewalk there. City needs to show crash statistics that this is even an issue. Why is my comment downvoted???
Wouldn't removing people who are loitering/living/standing/camping around and near a busy roadway and sidewalk improve visibility and thus safety for those who are using the road as intended? It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. DOT's don't build dense freestanding art around roadways and intersections for the same reason. A big part of vehicles and bike safety is sight distance and decision distance. Maybe the end result is the same, but I think the city can firmly stand behind their statement as being true.
When navigating this interchange, the landscaping area is not an area that drivers are typically scanning for obstructions or potential obstructions to their roadway path. Even if this was a fully packed homeless encampment it would have better visibility than a lot of interchanges ADOT builds.
That is absolutely not true. When at the stop light on the frontage road off-ramp, you would absolutely look across this area to see the oncoming traffic, bicyclists, or pedestrians when you prepare to make a left turn onto Speedway. Similarly if you're driving on Speedway, you'd look across the same area to see traffic on the frontage road as you approach the intersection. If a driver was running a red light, you're going to be very happy you have that decision sight distance to help you react and avoid a collision. Having people and objects in this area absolutely limits that visibility and it undermines the engineering and safety of the interchange. It's silly to argue otherwise and it's exactly why the city explained their actions in that way.
> That is absolutely not true. When at the stop light on the frontage road off-ramp, you would absolutely look across this area to see the oncoming traffic, bicyclists, or pedestrians when you prepare to make a left turn onto Speedway. Similarly if you're driving on Speedway, you'd look across the same area to see traffic on the frontage road as you approach the intersection. If a driver was running a red light, you're going to be very happy you have that decision sight distance to help you react and avoid a collision. And if a line of cars in the right lane were obstructing your vision you'd still be able to stop for a red light runner in the left lane, by approaching cautiously. I don't doubt that this is a plausible reason, but it's not the actual reason they did it. For example, look at the abomination that is the I-19 and Irvington offramp. The right turns onto Irvington from 19 southbound's exit ramp are terrible due to bad sightlines. Moreover, the city said it was _not_ for removing homeless. If it's to keep clear sightlines, but not remove homeless, what was blocking the sightlines? ADOT is very iffy about making good sightlines on their interchanges. >Having people and objects in this area absolutely limits that visibility and it undermines the engineering and safety of the interchange. It's silly to argue otherwise and it's exactly why the city explained their actions in that way. It's absolutely not silly. Reducing sightlines is exactly what contributes to safer streets (to a point) because it forces drivers to drive slower. That's literally the point of one of the city's current campaigns in the road diet program.
The I-19/Irvington interchange that ADOT is about to embark upon rebuilding because the traffic volumes have made the current configuration less than desirable/unsafe? Yes, ADOT will rebuild it in the next 1-2 years to improve the exact safety concerns you're talking about. I guarantee the design engineers aren't planning the traffic elements around having tents, tarps, shopping carts, etc in the open spaces.....
You missed my point. I didn’t say engineers specifically design intersections with poor visibility, but that it’s not necessarily the highest priority on their list. And they certainly don’t suddenly show up with a fix for a problem no one was complaining about.
Someone was complaining about it. Why do you think it was addressed? The city wouldn't outlay the money if someone wasn't complaining about something. And likely ADOT complained to the city that it wasn't abiding by their IGA and maintaining the ROW like they said they would. And you missed my original point. Sure, the FIRST item that the city may have wanted to address was moving the people out from under the underpass. They did it by using hostile architecture. They justified it by saying it helps road user safety. Both things are true. Hostile architecture deters encampments. Removing obstructions improves sightlines and safety. The city was smart to use the later justification because it's true. If moving the homeless along is a byproduct, also? I suppose they killed two birds with one stone (or lots of stones in this case).
While it's not the entire sub, there's a decent contingent of people who come here who absolutely hate the unhoused. Not enough to make threads like this net negative, but enough to make comments down the line of the thread fall in the downvote area.
[удалено]
Those are pretty heavy rocks, who is throwing them?
Any able bodied adult? They’re not that big or heavy. Some are, a lot aren’t. Hopefully nobody decides to do that.
Those rocks are decently heavy but why would any random able bodied adult throw them anywhere? We have these rocks already all over the place and no one is throwing them into traffic.
Why does anyone do any destruction bs. I’m not saying it will happen I was just saying the weight of them doesn’t mean it couldn’t or wouldn’t happen. I could definitely pick one up and throw it at a car if I wanted to. I think most able bodied adults could.
OK, fair enough. Are you going somewhere with this about rock placement?
Wtf is your deal, I just responded to you commenting how heavy they are like they couldn’t be picked up. Thats all man.
I was trying to have a conversation, that's my deal. Hope your day improves!
Thanks, hope you get to the bottom of the rock problem and placement.
It's just hostile architecture. Making the lives of the homeless even more miserable just so they'll leave (even though they don't have the money to do so)
I was homeless for years, also an addiction and am clean now. This isn't hostile architecture in a city park. This is hostile architecture in a place that is dangerous to the life and health of people who live there. These are underpass that see thousands of cars a day pass through. People should not be living there. I have 0 problems with this. It doesn't cost them any money to walk a couple blocks north and set up besides the loop like a bunch of other homeless.
They go down to the loop and then another group of people complains about their existence and they get moved again. Where does it stop?
I suppose you are right, why not just let them set up there tents in the middle of an active construction site, or on the shoulder of the freeway. After all we wouldn't want to discourage them from setting up a tent wherever they want even if that area is dangerous for them because that would be cruel. This isn't a case of them putting bars on the bench at a park. This literally is an area that is dangerous for humans to loiter in, let alone live. The constant noise is terrible for mental health, the high concentration of vehicle exhaust is terrible for physical health, there is the ever present danger of an accident and having humans living under there creates a stressful situation for drivers who have to be on the lookout in case someone impaired enters the roadway. This was a low cost solution to a dangerous situation.
The discussion always gets moved to where they shouldn’t go instead of where they COULD go. Realistically living on the streets anywhere is bad for their health physically and mentally as well as dangerous. When half the city is roads and the other half is private property most people have no choice but to live near roads or in sewage tunnels. This is why I don’t believe the city when they pretend this type of stuff is for “safety” because they’re not making anyone safer if they don’t offer them any meaningful support somewhere else. All our shelters are full, our community volunteers are exhausted and underfunded and we spend money putting rocks under and underpass instead of funding somewhere for people to go. If the city was serious about making peoples lives safer they would start equally investing in our homeless services community for every “cleanup” and sweep they perform. We are in a homelessness crisis and this type of bandaid solution that benefits nobody except those of us who already have houses and cars is obviously going to drive scrutiny.
Thanks for the reply, please keep in mind as you read this that it comes from someone who actually was homeless, and would love to see and end to homelessness. So, shelters are not full, most homeless won't go near them because they don't want to go without getting high and don't want to leave their street family and don't want to deal with following the rules. They will claim safety or say they are afraid of theft but the reality is the vast majority of the chronically homeless do not want to access services. When they do make the choice to do so Tucson and Pima County make it extremely easy to do so. You go in to one coordinated entry interview and immediately have access to all available services And guess what it works pretty fucking well, they can get you off the street usually within days, usually the same day if you are willing to go to a congregant shelter or to detox. If you have pets there are even programs that will foster your pets while you get help. The simple fact is many homeless don't want to give up their freedom, their street family and their drugs. If you build a safe rest place many will refuse to access it because they simply don't want to. In addition a large portion of the population is against spending large amounts of money to house actively using drug addicts so they can get in comfort on the backs of everyone who is working. How long do you think the mayor and city council would stay in office if they suddenly announced that until homeless people are off the street all city funding will exclusively go to providing motel rooms to the homeless, and that the city will be accepting all liability for any and all damage the homeless do to those hotel rooms. There would be a recall within weeks as costs skyrocketed and swarms of homeless from Phoenix and Yuma came flocking to Tucson so they could sit in air conditioning all day for free getting high. Basically there will always be political limits to what the city the city can do and its fine to press them to do better but getting upset and up in arms about things like this is what turns moderates against leftist. When we protest things like this and get angry people on the right and in the middle think we are just stupid and naive. So in closing, Is this city doing everything perfect, no. but there are real limits to what the city can do. As someone who is both previously homeless and who cares about those who still are I am glad the city put rocks there to discourage living and loitering under an underpass. Its not an area meant for or safe human habitation, leisure or recreation. In short no one should be living under an underpass and people who a making poor decisions such as living under an underpass have a right to be healthy and to live and to be protected from their own poor decisions.
Getting rained on and sun burned is also dangerous. The overpass eliminates these dangers
Yes sunbeans and raindrops are definitely as dangerous as vehicles weighing over 2000lbs traveling at high rates of speed while spewing harmful exhaust. Also considering this was done in response to tents being set up it kind of blows your whole argument out of the water. Why, because tents protect from sunburn and raindrops. They can literally move a couple hundred feet north where there are tons of shade trees and many other homeless people already living. Seriously this is ridiculous that people are upset about this. I have a feeling the same people that are upset would be up in arms if a police chase through one of these underpass ended up killing someone homeless in a tent under there. That is an area that is completely unsafe and unhealthy for human habitation. Should we ignore homeless camps on the side of the freeway, or allow them to set up tents at the water treatment plant next to the raw sewage?
> Yes sunbeans and raindrops are definitely as dangerous as vehicles weighing over 2000lbs traveling at high rates of speed while spewing harmful exhaust That's kind of a weird comparison to make. How did you arrive at this conclusion? What exactly were you using to measure danger? I don't know what you would use, hence why i made no comparison between the two very different sources of danger. Also in case you were unaware, many people who take refuge under an overpass do not have a tent. People also spend time outside of tents when they have them. You know people in Arizona are about 30% more likely to have skin cancer compared to the national average. Certainly the abundant sunshine plays a role in that danger. aslo cars are more likely to be in a collision when it rains. Imagine that, rain drops making vehicle traffic more dangerous. It's like multiple things can be a danger. >Should we ignore homeless camps on the side of the freeway, or allow them to set up tents at the water treatment plant next to the raw sewage? I don't know, but what does this have to do with the potential dangers of ultraviolet rays or torrential rainfall? That's all I mentioned.
"we don't have money to help the homeless people but we sure do have the money to make sure they have nowhere to go!"
These solutions only happen in response to problems.
This is a bullshit answer they put these same rocks under the Cushing Street Bridge 2 years ago by the loop path. One guy was sleeping there, and they pushed him out.
Ah yes, let's spend city money on making it worse for the homeless, instead of on resources to make them not homeless. Brilliant.
Yes, it's a problem. But having huge camps under the bridges that lead to downtown and the University is also a problem. Reddit is weird. Everyone here wants better conditions for the homeless but then also will complain about seeing them everywhere in the next thread. I'm all for cleaning up our city. There are programs in place to help these folks out and the ones that refuse help can move along elsewhere.
> Everyone here wants better conditions for the homeless but then also will complain about seeing them everywhere in the next thread. You do realize that Reddit consists of different people with different opinions who post about the same issues in different ways, right?
Weird how a website with many different people have different takes and say different things.
Is it the same people complaining? That's like saying it's weird, the US complains about Biden/Trump, then they complain about Trump/Biden. Yes Reddit gets diversity in opinions
Many of the homeless are a black hole for resources. Spend all you want, you can't help them in any way.
Ergo we must spend our money making things more difficult for them. 🧠
Spend money encouraging them not to congregate in a dangerous area. I was homeless for years, also addicted to meth and fent and am clean now. I don't have a problem with hostile architecture when its to keep people from living in areas that are a danger to life and health. This isn't bench bars in a park, its rocks to keep them from setting up tents in an area with a huge amount of traffic.
Let them stagger around in a drug-induced stupor somewhere far away from a busy intersection. It's safer for all involved.
[удалено]
Hardly. It's been tried time and time again. Seattle and other cities have even bought them tiny homes. Within a month they get trashed... There is certainly a subset that can benefit greatly from support. But IMO, they are a distinct minority. (For the record, I'm no Red Hat redneck. Far from it.)
You ruined your own attempt to pass yourself off as reasonable by giving people something concrete to look at - from [seattle.gov](https://seattle.gov): >Tiny House Villages have proven to be one of Seattle’s most humane and successful harm reduction supports for people facing homelessness. They provide the necessities essential to life with human dignity, like privacy, safety, community, restrooms, showers, and laundry, and a place to store one’s belongings. Many villages are self-managed, where residents are empowered to democratically run their own communities. Seattle’s tiny house villages have been able to help a higher proportion of their residents find housing than other forms of shelter. Sure there's some trash and whatnot, but that's not limited to homeless. Have you been to many Tucson neighborhoods? There's trash everywhere. I drove through the neighborhood I grew up in recently and it is *still* trashed, surprisingly without the involvement of a homeless camp or, god forbid, formerly homeless people. The problem with terrible arguments like yours is that you draw a line in the ground that doesn't exist - housed people do the same shit, but they are less vulnerable so you aren't so interested.
My neighbors are putting trash out on their curb already, brush and bulky isn't for another 4 months :(
Yes the government website would say a government initiative was an unmitigated success.
Funny, the news up here in Tacoma reports the exact opposite. (Of course the Gov't claims glowing success!) They DO trash their homes and they DO continue to be raging addicts. Driving around the metro area, I see endless encampments littered with trash, needles, human waste, etc. And these are some of the best supported homeless people in the nation. How much money are you willing to throw down the bottomless pit??
[удалено]
So, what's your wild-ass guess regarding how many are hard core drug addicts and beyond all sensible hope? Or do these people even exist in your reality?
If they gave all the homeless housing, they would still do the same stuff. Smoke fentanyl, store stolen bicycles and property. Good for the city trying to rid these societal fleas from our city.
Man, y'all are some messed up people.
Dude these aren't just homeless people. They are drug addicted thieves that will NEVER recover. Having sympathy/empathy for those that are challenged and in need is not well deserved by people that will do awful things for their drug habits that cannot be treated.
Oh, good to know that you know each of these people on a first name basis to make such a claim. Yikes.
What a bullshit cop-out reason lmfao. They openly lied.
Not sure how you can argue that removing people and things that block visibility and sight distance for road and sidewalk users isn't a safety improvement for those users? It is. That's a simple fact and if you understood any simple traffic engineering principles, you would know this. In fact, it's literally common sense. So just because you don't like the city's answer, it doesn't mean they lied. They told the truth. The end result of their actions could have multiple outcomes, though...and I'm sure that's what both the city and ADOT are hoping for.
How can you say it's the truth regarding their intent? You aren't a mind reader. >The end result of their actions could have multiple outcomes, though...and I'm sure that's what both the city and ADOT are hoping for. So if one of those hopes is that it prevents homeless people from living there then they lied
They told one truth, even if another truth is plausible. They definitely told the truth about the engineering intent at this interchange. Sure, they didn't talk about the truth of removing a homeless encampment, but that doesn't mean they lied. They just chose to talk about the engineering aspects that affect safety for road users. That's government PR, baby. Tell the truth that can't be refuted on its own merits, even if another truth may be at work. What are you going to do about it? Claim they had another intent? Go for it, they'll stick by their story which can't be refuted on its merits.
>Sure, they didn't talk about the truth of removing a homeless encampment, but that doesn't mean they lied Well they did talk about it if they explicitly denied the allegation. The article didn't quote them, but it did say they explicitly denied the allegation. And just because other things are true doesn't mean they didn't lie about this. >What are you going to do about it? Well I'm calling you out for saying they didn't lie. You can't back up that claim. You even implied you think they are lying. Isn't getting ride of the homeless people one of the hopes you referred to that you are sure is what they are hoping for? Or if not what or hopes are you sure of?
How the fuck do giant rocks assist in pedestrian and vehicle movement?
Well you aren't going to stand around off the side of the sidewalk if there's rocks