Another Tale of Two Cities

My home base is in Tucson, Arizona. There’s a problem with homelessness in Tucson. The metro population is just over a million people, and the homeless population is estimated at around 7500. The city recently teamed up with a few homeless service providers to create the STAR program (Serving Together and Rebuilding), an outdoor “safe sleeping” area for women and non-binary homeless folks–25 of them. It’s a beta test program, so don’t be too harsh. Hopefully, if the program has some degree of success, a larger program will kick off. There will be organizations present to help people with the things people need when they’re living in the tunnel, and again, hopefully, there will be some degree of success. Of course, the ultimate goal is getting people out of the tunnel, and the safe space is meant to create something of a captive audience where the professionals can solicit the dream of a self-reliant, drug-free life in a permanent housing situation. Washington DC has a problem with homelessness. The population is just over 700,000, and the homeless population is estimated at around 17,000. The federal government under President Trump has brought in the National Guard to “clean up” the streets of Washington and bring homelessness and lawlessness to levels below the national average–like, 0. The PIT count in DC was 5,138 in 2025, and “they” say 15% of those people live on the street, while the vast majority are in shelters. Strangely, the PIT count only counts people who are in shelters, so the 15% statistic is odd to state. Unlike so many people who do not understand the difference between homeless people and criminals, President Trump has opted to utilize the popular technique of forcing the homeless to leave the city, while saying the criminals don’t have to leave because they’re going to end up behind bars anyway. He’s asked the homeless to leave the city. Or what? Right? That’s the $25,000 question, but in the end, it won’t matter. Moving homeless people from one place to some unfamiliar place obviously isn’t going to put them in a better situation. The goals are safety and aesthetics. While I’m quite certain he will achieve both, they will be short-lived and ultimately exacerbated.

The STAR program’s cost is said to be borne by the city, local non-profits, and charitable donors, though the actual cost of the program to these entities is unclear. As is the way of things, I think we can safely assume that the cost will be many thousands of dollars per beneficiary, and the success rate of people becoming self-sufficient members of society will be less than 10% as the vast majority of women and non-binary people who are going to see STAR as their best option will be drug addicts.

Which city’s methods for addressing homelessness will have a more positive effect in the short term? Tucson–they may actually convince a handful of people to take advantage of the services available to them and eventually get back on their feet, whereas DC will have only displaced thousands of people who will have to learn how to subsist in new places and compete with the homeless folks in those new places for already limited services. Long-term efficacy, though? Tucson–no question. While at best, only a handful of people will have ultimately transitioned into permanent housing in Tucson, DC’s efforts will undoubtedly create havoc in the surrounding cities, resulting in violence and overrun shelters, soup kitchens, medical facilities, etc. The big takeaway from this comparison is: if there are any mayors or council members of other cities here looking for ideas on how to address homelessness in their cities, don’t look to either one of these for solutions.