$40M Playa del Carmen Arch Debate: Priority or Waste?

Playa del Carmen, Q. Roo — The Solidaridad municipal government has inaugurated with great fanfare the new Northern Access Arch of Playa del Carmen, a mega-structure located on the federal highway at the entrance from Cancún. The project, promoted by Mayor Estefanía Mercado, has been classified by the municipal government itself as a "historic and emblematic infrastructure" for the municipality, destined to "beautify the city, strengthen security, and project identity."

The construction involved a public investment of more than 40 million pesos from the Environmental Sanitation Trust Fund. It is equipped with high-tech video surveillance cameras, license plate readers (ANPR), RFID technology, and even facial recognition, all linked to the C4 and C5 centers. The arch measures more than 13 meters high, with a span of 40 meters from one side of the highway to the other, and is covered with finishes inspired by Mayan stone, in addition to having a dynamic lighting system with 15 programmable channels.

From the official discourse, the project has multiple purposes, functioning as a cultural and tourist symbol, as modern road infrastructure, and as a control point for vehicles and citizens entering the destination. However, critical voices and specialists in urban policies point out that the work responds more to propaganda interests and "institutional monumentalism" than to a real urban or security need.

One of the main questions falls on the pertinence of the expenditure: Is it justifiable to allocate 40 million pesos to a welcome structure while potholes, collapsed drains, deficiencies in garbage collection, insufficient transportation, and zones with high insecurity persist in Solidaridad?

The municipal budget for 5 itself amounts to just over 4,300 million pesos, and although this work represents less than 1% of the total, it was highlighted as a "priority of identity and transformation," facing still unresolved deficiencies. Although the 1% may seem marginal in percentage terms, in large budgets like that of Solidaridad it represents a figure that, if well distributed, could generate direct and tangible impacts for the citizenry.

The fact that the resource comes from a trust fund does not exempt the municipal government from accountability on how public funds are applied. The Environmental Sanitation Trust Fund is nourished by the collection of environmental fees from tourists visiting the destination; therefore, it is public money with a specific purpose—to protect the environment, not to beautify highways, especially when each year the tourist destination is severely hit by the arrival of sargassum.

Article 2 of the agreement creating the Environmental Sanitation Trust Fund in Quintana Roo indicates that the resources must be destined for: Mitigation of environmental impacts from tourism; Management of solid waste; Protection of water resources and coastal zones; Reforestation, ecological sanitation, or green infrastructure.

Building a monumental arch with decorative lighting, stylized Mayan finishes, and surveillance cameras could be difficult to justify under these purposes. If other municipalities begin to justify aesthetic works as "environmental" just because they include "cameras for surveillance" or "landscaping of medians," there is a risk of emptying the purpose of the trust funds. The Environmental Sanitation Trust Fund could become a bag of flexible political spending instead of an instrument of ecological protection.

To this is added the lack of public evidence about technical studies or cost-benefit analyses prior to the decision to build the arch. Therefore, the use of the Environmental Sanitation Trust Fund should be subject to consultation with the citizenry and with technical bodies specialized in environmental management; however, there is no evidence that this work went through participatory processes. It was decided from the municipal and state leadership, with a propagandistic narrative that prioritizes the tourist image. There is no open documentation that supports that this structure actually favors accessibility, increases security in a measurable way, or boosts tourism.

But the deepest concerns are not aesthetic, but technological. The surveillance system installed in the arch uses biometric readers, RFID, and facial recognition. The Network in Defense of Digital Rights (R3D) has warned that this type of technology is advancing in Mexico "without an adequate legal framework, without impact assessments, and with a worrying lack of accountability." This implies that the biometric and vehicular data of citizens and tourists could be collected and stored without guarantees of privacy, transparency, or possibility of control by the people.

Furthermore, specialists have documented that systems like ANPR and facial recognition have high error margins, gender and racial biases, and are often used for political surveillance more than to deter real crimes. In countries with stricter regulations, their use has been limited, while in Solidaridad they are implemented without citizen consultation or external audit.

The narrative of the "intelligent arch" is also not accompanied by clear impact indicators.

"It will be necessary to measure the levels of criminal incidence during a short-term period to measure its true efficiency."

Has it been demonstrated that the vehicles identified by the system have served to prevent crimes? What protocols exist to protect the collected data? To date, no local authority has responded to these questions with verifiable data.

For their part, residents consulted by local media and social networks have manifested skepticism or annoyance.

"Playa del Carmen did not need an arch, it needed streets without potholes and safe neighborhoods," wrote a user in a neighborhood group.

Another pointed out: "That money could have been used for cameras in schools, drainage, or more real patrol cars."

Given that behind these official announcements, structural deficiencies persist that affect the quality of life of thousands of inhabitants in the second most important municipality of the state of Quintana Roo. Collapsed public services, saturated landfills, streets full of potholes, persistent insecurity, lack of dignified public spaces, and zones with urban lag are part of a reality that contrasts with the governmental narrative.

What follows is a detailed analysis of the main municipal problems facing Solidaridad and the areas where public investment remains insufficient or misdirected.

Priority Problems in Solidaridad

Collapsed garbage collection and saturation of landfills. Solidaridad, whose head is Playa del Carmen, generates around 500 to 600 tons of solid waste every day. This enormous load is collected through a service concessioned to a private company. Nevertheless, journalistic investigations show that the operation of the landfill has become unsustainable: several open-air dumps have been reported in the surroundings of Puerto Aventuras, and the formal installation registers leaks of leachates that contaminate the aquifer. The same note underlines that in all of Quintana Roo "there is no formal plan" to solve the problem and that local authorities apply short-term palliatives, which highlights the lack of investment in an integral waste management system and environmental infrastructure. Without a long-term project, the municipality will continue to bear a saturated landfill and clandestine dumps.

Peaks of generation during high season. Data disclosed by the local government indicate that in December 2024 nearly 20 thousand tons of urban waste were collected; the Secretary of Public Services reported that the habitual daily average is 600 tons, but during the Christmas and New Year celebrations the figure exceeded 800 and 900 tons respectively. This increase reveals the pressure that tourism exerts on municipal infrastructure and the need to allocate more resources to waste management during holiday periods, as well as to modernize the collection fleet and expand final disposal capacity.

Investment and control of the concessionaire. The collection service in Solidaridad is concessioned; however, journalistic reports point out that in several municipalities the concession has favored companies linked to political actors and media. In the case of Solidaridad, the lack of transparency about the contract, the amounts paid, and the fiscalization of the service generates doubts about the efficacy of the model. Investing in recycling plants, waste separation, and a landfill with national standards could reduce dependence on private companies and mitigate environmental impacts.

Environmental crisis and public health risks. The same report warns that the irregular operation of dumps destroys ecosystems and affects the aquifer of the Peninsula. For a municipality that lives from tourism and boasts its natural wealth, ignoring waste management equates to compromising its own economy and the health of its inhabitants. Leachate leaks contaminate cenotes, mangroves, and the Great Maya Aquifer, putting the water supply at risk. Consequently, investment is needed in leachate management technologies, cell sealing, and environmental supervision.

State of roads and potholes. The road network of Playa del Carmen is deteriorated. In a press conference, Mayor Estefanía Mercado recognized that 3,576 potholes were censused throughout the city; only about 38% (1,072 potholes) have been repaired with 10 brigades working in two shifts. She denounced that previous pavements had a thickness of less than one centimeter, when the norm requires five to seven centimeters, which explains why rains destroy the asphalt so quickly. For 2025, the municipality will allocate 278 million pesos to repave 12 avenues and another 3 million to acquire heavy machinery. This context evidences a historic deficit of investment in road infrastructure, whose current costs are due in part to the poor quality of past works.

Deficient public lighting and urban cleanliness. The creation of the Sectoral Subcommittee of Public Services and Urban Image in November 2024 makes it clear that there is a lag in garbage collection, cleaning of public spaces, maintenance of sports areas, potholes, and lighting. The secretary of Public Services admitted that the city had been for a long time with abandoned streets and pointed out the need to immediately attend to the lag in collection and potholes. The lack of investment in luminaries and maintenance of parks not only generates a bad urban appearance but also affects the security of neighborhoods.

Deficiencies in social infrastructure and community spaces. The municipality announced in 2024 an investment of 900 million pesos in public works to "build parks, rehabilitate streets, lighting, and dignify common spaces" (figure disclosed by the City Council in official reports). Although this plan is ambitious, its implementation is just beginning, and neighborhoods without green areas or sports equipment persist. The inhabitants of settlements like Villas del Sol and the Puerto Aventuras ejido continue to demand paving, drainage, and dignified recreational spaces. The gap between the tourist center and the peripheral neighborhoods translates into urban inequality.

Insecurity and perception of violence. Solidaridad is one of the municipalities with the highest investment in security: local media have reported that the municipal budget allocates hundreds of millions to patrol cars, cameras, and police equipment. However, recent events show that homicides and robberies have not decreased in the same proportion. Human rights organizations accuse the municipal and state police of rights violations, which reflects that investing only in technology and patrol cars does not guarantee an integral security strategy. Social prevention programs, opportunities for youth, and an efficient justice system are required.

Lack of citizen participation in investment decisions. The authorities have launched programs and committees, but there is no robust mechanism for neighborhood consultation. The Public Services Subcommittee plans to collect opinions from the citizenry to prioritize actions; however, until now the big decisions—such as allocating 40 million pesos to the access arch or 278 million to repaving—have been made from the mayor's office without public debate. Greater transparency in the use of resources and community participation in work plans are indispensable for the investment to respond to real needs.

Inequality between tourist image and basic services. Solidaridad promotes symbolic works, like the new northern access arch, as historic achievements; however, the citizenry perceives that money is invested in image projects while there are deficiencies in essential services. The contrast between a 40-million-peso arch and neighborhoods with potholes, accumulated garbage, and lack of lighting reflects a questionable prioritization of public resources. To balance the scale, the municipal administration must reorient spending towards sanitary, road, and social infrastructure that improves the quality of life of all inhabitants.

Solidaridad faces a multifactorial crisis: accumulation of residues, collapsed landfills, road deterioration, insufficient lighting, and inequality in urban services.

The work, although finished and already functional, has remained as a reminder of the abyss that sometimes separates the aesthetics of power and the true urgencies of a city. Turning an arch into a priority may work for the institutional photograph, but not always to solve the problems faced by the more than 300 thousand inhabitants of the municipality.

The Playa del Carmen Access Arch represents a contemporary paradox: a monumental portal to tourism and "technological modernity in security" is built, while the city that supports it continues without resolving many of its social debts. And that, more than a historic achievement, seems a postcard of the imbalance between form and substance in municipal politics.