The controversial practice of using large boulders as a deterrent to homeless encampments in public spaces continues to draw criticism, with prominent homeless advocate Kevin Dahlgren recently asserting that such measures "just exacerbates the problem." This statement, shared via his social media, highlights a long-standing debate over the effectiveness and ethics of "hostile architecture" in addressing the complex issue of homelessness across American cities.
Cities nationwide have increasingly deployed large rocks and other physical barriers in parks, underpasses, and along sidewalks where unhoused individuals previously sought shelter. These installations, often part of broader efforts to manage public spaces, have been implemented in locations such as San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Tacoma, and Oklahoma City. The stated aim is typically to prevent encampments and associated issues like litter and public health concerns.
However, these initiatives come with significant financial costs to taxpayers. For instance, Oklahoma City spent nearly $44,000 on boulders under one bridge, while a project in Washington state incurred over $643,000 for boulders, placement, and transportation. Critics, including Dahlgren, argue that these substantial funds could be better allocated to providing actual housing, mental health services, or shelter, which they contend are more effective and humane solutions to homelessness.
Kevin Dahlgren, a vocal figure in homeless advocacy and a former homeless services specialist for the City of Gresham, has consistently challenged what he terms the "homeless industrial complex." His recent tweet underscores his view that physical deterrents merely displace individuals rather than resolving the underlying causes of their homelessness. Dahlgren, who recently pleaded guilty to charges including first-degree theft and aggravated identity theft stemming from his work, maintains a public platform to critique current approaches.
Homeless advocates widely contend that hostile architecture, including the use of boulders, is a temporary measure that fails to address the root causes of homelessness, such as lack of affordable housing, mental health support, and addiction services. Instead, they argue, it pushes vulnerable populations into less visible or more dangerous areas, making it harder for outreach workers to connect them with essential services. The ongoing debate emphasizes the deep divisions in how communities approach and respond to the growing homelessness crisis.