It should come as no surprise that when I get multiple people reaching out to me in regards to a “CPTED” intervention that has and continues to make news (I was requested by a Toronto area television show for an interview on the subject), that I would take an interest in it. Such was the case with respect to what was reported as a CPTED intervention in Oshawa, Ontario involving a sound emitting device under a bridge where homeless people were known to live.
For those who don’t know, CTV Toronto did a story entitled “Crime prevention device installed in Oshawa, Ont. draws accusations of discrimination” on October 11th, 2022. The gist of the story was that “an Oshawa, Ont. activist is hoping her accusations of discrimination will be heard above the sounds blaring from what’s been described as a ‘crime prevention device’ installed underneath a bridge in the city.” It then reported that “the City of Oshawa said the device – which emits an alternating, high-frequency beeping noise audible to anyone in the immediate area – is an example of CPTED, or crime prevention through environmental design”.
Now for anyone who knows me, you know that I get exasperated when a controversial intervention is attributed to CPTED without first determining whether the person who made the recommendation did in fact have CPTED training and, if they did, did they say it was a CPTED intervention. After-all, it could just as easily come from a person without the benefit of CPTED training or a CPTED trained person who more accurately described it as nothing more than a security countermeasure. This brings me to the reason for writing this article in the first place and that is to provide some insight into what I would suggest represents the best solution.
Now before I start, I think that it’s appropriate to offer some insight into on how I addressed the topic of sound while conducting my CPTED courses in the past. In this regard, I do speak to how sound can be used to motivate and influence people which includes the playing of classical music and the use of the Mosquito “device.” For anyone who doesn’t know, the Mosquito device emits a licensed, high-pitched tone that is audible to teenagers and is designed for the purpose of moving them from locations where teen loitering is considered a problem by the agent or owner of the property. It should also be noted that the Mosquito device is considered to be controversial given that it has met significant challenges in many countries and cities in the world notwithstanding that it has never been banned at the national level.
As for my training, I do make mention of the device so that my students are aware of its intended use and the age group for which it was designed. This has never included discouraging or otherwise rooting out homeless persons no matter their age or the location where they may be found.
As to the use of a “sound emitting” device that is used to discourage or otherwise move along homeless people, I am guided by my belief that any intervention, be it from a CPTED trained practitioner or someone without that skillset that ends up on the six o’clock news in a controversial way, should invariably be regarded as a failure no matter the need to act.
So, what would be my response in this situation? It starts with the realization that environmental design was never intended to address the homeless issue. In this regard, I developed a section on my Level II course, several years ago, that directed people to ”seek help with the local provider of Community Services and/or contact the nearest shelter in the area” of the bridge. I then include this warning in the form of a sign to get the point across.
Hopefully, by directing the proper resources towards a problem that is best resolved by developing a rapport and offering assistance, on a repeat basis if necessary, the matter will resolve itself.
And as for my training, I always approach these occasions as a learning experience for CPTED practitioners including their trainers which caused me to revisit, augment and better document my training where the Mosquito device is concerned. That includes documenting the potential for blow-back, controversy and, potentially, negative publicity that may arise from its use as well as a placing more emphasis on less controversial methods.