In a key test of public attitudes toward homelessness after the Supreme Court greenlit a sprawling camping ban last summer, Arizona voters A measurement is allowed It would also allow property owners to claim tax refunds if their local government fails to clean up the encampments.
Proposition 312, which passed this week 58 percent votePhoenix was born out of a bitter struggle Above “Zone”. An area where more than 1,000 homeless people once camped near the state capitol. It marks the latest attempt by the Conservatives to push local governments towards tougher and less discretionary enforcement of outdoor homelessness. Its success with voters suggests an openness to more aggressive enforcement of public camping as cities grapple with their recently confirmed powers.
The measure would create a new system that would allow property owners to recover costs such as security cameras, cleaning services and protective fencing when cities demonstrate a “pattern or practice” of not enforcing laws against camping, loitering or public drug use. (To claim refunds, property owners must prove that lax enforcement has reduced their property values or led to costs associated with solving public “nuisance” problems.) These refunds will come directly from money that cities will receive from the state, effectively giving local governments Do not crack the camp that will punish. Individuals will be allowed to submit one claim per year for up to 10 years.
Proponents, led by the conservative Goldwater Institute, touted the measure as a way to prevent another “Zone”-like crisis. Opponents, however, argue that it would divert already scarce resources from shelters, public services and law enforcement agencies, ultimately reducing cities’ ability to address homelessness on a larger scale.
“Ever heard the saying, the beating will continue until morale improves? Arguments submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State. “Why should we try to force cities to do something they can’t do, then penalize them for not being able to do it?”
“Arizona voters approved a harmful, counterproductive, and short-sighted ballot initiative that will make homelessness worse,” said Jesse Rabinowitz, director of outreach and communications for the National Homelessness Law Center. “Proposition 312 fails to address the lack of affordable housing that causes homelessness, burdens local governments, and will drive legal costs that will be passed on to taxpayers.”
This initiative will come into play as Arizona faces one of the most critical conditions in the country Lack of affordable housingwith About 14,000 people Facing homelessness on any given night.
“Voters this election cycle sent a clear message: They demand that their tax dollars be used to enforce laws and address mass homelessness,” Goldwater President and CEO Victor Riches said. said in a statement Wednesday morning. “Now that Prop 312 is law, business and property owners won’t be left holding the bag when municipalities refuse to do their jobs.”
Conservatives want homeless tent clearing to be non-negotiable
The Arizona measure represents conservatives’ most ambitious attempt to remove local discretion from homeless enforcement. Although a Supreme Court ruling in June cleared the way for more unrestricted camping bans, local officials still have significant flexibility over how and when to clear encampments. For advocates frustrated by what they see as progressive cities’ reluctance to act, Proposition 312’s tax refund mechanism provides a template for forcing their hand.
“A lot of cities have used the legal uncertainty as an excuse — they’ve thrown their hands up and said, ‘Our hands are tied,'” Ilan Warman, a law professor who helped file the initial lawsuit against Phoenix over “The Zone,” told me this summer. “The Supreme Court has taken up that argument, but they don’t need to do anything yet. That’s why we need tools … to ensure implementation in practice.”
For non-discretionary applications the push has to get velocity. Florida recently passed a law that allows residents and businesses to sue cities that don’t clean up encampments, and Missouri now allows His attorney general to take legal action Against local governments for failing to enforce camping bans. Arizona’s approach to targeting municipal budgets marks a new addition to these case-based strategies. Wurman, who recently filed a new Berkeley, California Public Nuisance Lawsuit Over the tentacles, told me Prop 312 “will definitely help put pressure on cities.”
The Cicero Institute, an Austin-based conservative think tank known for advocating for cities and states to draft public camping bans and move away from the bipartisan “housing first” approach to homelessness, endorsed Proposition 312 on Wednesday.
“The Cicero Institute supports community-approach solutions to homelessness that balance the needs of homeless individuals with the rights of their housing neighbors,” Stephanie Buhajla, director of communications, told Vox. “Proposition 312 provides citizens with a mechanism to hold municipalities accountable when they fail to ensure public safety or put people’s lives at risk on the streets.”
But critics, including law enforcement leaders, warn that this approach could backfire. “I think they really want to force the government’s hand to do what they want. But you can’t stop the homeless,” Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos told The Marshall Project last monthNote that prisons are already pushing to provide mental health and addiction resources
Joe and Debbie Fales, two business owners who worked in downtown Phoenix, said the homelessness crisis forced them to sell their sandwich shop. The couple applauded the passage of Prop. 312, saying, “It gives us hope that not only will the city of Phoenix allow another ‘Zone’ to happen, but even [if] By doing so, the government must compensate small businesses like us for failing to protect our rights.”
What comes next?
The measure now poses a complex implementation challenge for Arizona cities, which must balance their reduced discretion against practical and legal constraints. The language of initiatives leaves key questions unanswered: What constitutes a “pattern” of non-initiation? What expenses qualify as reasonable? How can cities demonstrate that they are adequately enforcing the law?
Earlier this year, Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego told the LA Times The proposal’s impact could range from minimal to “devastating to our budget.” Even processing the claims would consume city resources, he added — resources that could otherwise go toward increasing shelter capacity or funding outreach staff. Gallego was re-elected Tuesday night.
The city’s experience cleaning up “The Zone” offers a preview of the balancing act ahead. When Phoenix finally broke the canopy last year, it did So block by block for monthsOffers interior options and accessories storage. That methodical approach helped the city avoid legal challenges over property rights, but similar caveats or delays could now expose Phoenix to tax refund demands.
As other states see Arizona’s experiment unfold, the measure’s impact could extend beyond operating camps. The initiative represents a fundamental shift in how cities approach homelessness policy — using public budgets rather than court orders or state laws to force enforcement.
But even proponents of the measure acknowledge that enforcement alone will not solve the underlying crisis. Arizona has the nation’s most severe shortage of affordable housing, with only Nevada having fewer affordable units per capita for very low-income renters. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
“Arizona must focus on real solutions to homelessness — housing and optional services — not punishing those who sleep outside because they have nowhere else to go,” said Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center. “As similar anti-homeless bills proliferate across the country, we demand that our elected officials not simply reject these simplistic and backward half-measures and focus on what works: housing, not handcuffs.”
