In a direct response to the recent Supreme Court decision that could reshape the landscape of homelessness, officials in Pima County are pushing back, opting for empathy over enforcement. Following the Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling, which grants cities the power to ban the unhoused from sleeping in public spaces, Pima County Attorney Laura Conover spoke out against the notion of arrests as a panacea for homelessness. During a press conference on Tuesday, Conover articulated her office's values, stating, "To create the healthiest and safest environment possible," and maintained that causing fear among the homeless population was not on the agenda. "Spreading fear through very vulnerable communities about getting arrested for falling asleep is the last thing we want to be doing," Conover told attendees, according to AZPM.
With over 1,200 people estimated to be homeless in the area, and a deficit of approximately 800 shelter beds, the situation in Pima County is critical. At the same event, Pima County Board of Supervisors Chair, Adelita Grijalva, pointed to a fluid situation, saying "But we don’t know where they are as far as needing resources," acknowledging the county’s inability to arrest its way out of the problem its community faces.
Jennifer Darland, the director of the office of housing opportunities and home solutions in Piazza County, reinforced the shortage issue, relaying that the dearth of beds is a night-to-night variable. "But that fluctuates on a nightly basis," Darland said in a statement obtained by AZPM.
The focus now turns to long-term strategies, Grijalva emphasized investments in policies that prevent homelessness, increase housing affordability, and seek alternatives to incarceration. "The Supreme Court’s ruling will not affect our efforts to continue seeking humane and just ways to work with individuals facing this issue," Grijalva expressed. As Pima County stakeholders confront these challenges, their stand is clear: humanitarian aid trumps handcuffs, and a judicious approach is essential in the laissez-faire landscape post-ruling.
