There will be a long list of ballot measures for Arizona to vote on come November, from expanding abortion rights to giving local law enforcement immigration powers.
But while you might not have heard of it yet, there will also be another hot button issue on your ballot: homelessness.
Proposition 312 would refund property owners some of their property tax payments if a city fails to enforce public nuisance laws like loitering, panhandling and illegal camping — the same kinds of laws that are often broken by people experiencing homelessness.
Just last week, an appeals court upheld a major decision on homelessness here in Phoenix, the one in which a judge ordered the city to dismantle “The Zone,” the city’s large homeless encampment downtown that was known for all kinds of public nuisances.
But Abe Kwok says this measure will do more to send a political message than fix a real homelessness need. Kwok is an opinion columnist for the Arizona Republic, and he joined The Show along with editorial page editor Elvia Díaz to talk more about it.
Full conversation
LAUREN GILGER: Abe, let’s start with you and your critique of this measure. What do you make of it?
ABE KWOK: I think it’s always bad public policy to create laws based on one particular case. And that’s essentially what we have here. This is in response to the area on the encampment called “The Zone,” just west of downtown. And as most people know, the last two, three years, there was a huge number of people setting up camp and pitching tents and temporary structures and living off in the streets — hundreds of them, at one point, I think, topping a thousand people.
And that created just a lot of havoc for the area businesses and some residential owners in that largely industrial area. And I believe it was in 2022, they sued the city for not enforcing the laws, the public nuisance laws. They were having people loitering. They were having people urinating and defecating and open drug use.
And so this is a response to that. But I think the argument against this proposition is that this matter has been settled in court, first by a superior court judge and then affirmed by the appellate courts. And so this is really unnecessary.
GILGER: Elvia, let me turn to you and ask you about the idea here. Is it a bad idea, you think, to allow people who own property and are in these kinds of circumstances — whether it’s people in “The Zone” or in a neighborhood where people are camping in the alley, things like that — is it a bad idea to allow them to have some recourse?
ELVIA DÍAZ: Well, here’s the thing. From my point of view, what we’re seeing here is a power grab by the state Legislature, by the Republican state Legislature, to control what cities can do and not do, essentially taking away their power in dealing with their own issues. So I don’t agree with this proposition for that reason.
But on the other hand, I keep thinking about this idea of why do property owners pay taxes to begin with? So there is a discussion to be had. We pay property taxes on homes and on businesses, and then that money goes into a general fund of different cities. In return, cities and municipalities are responsible for protecting the public safety, for better roads, for all the stuff that comes with being a city government.
The city of Phoenix absolutely failed property owners, business owners and homeowners, right? Residents around it. So there is a bigger discussion to be had about what, what is their responsibility. We don’t pay property taxes as businesses or homeowners to get what we want, right? We send it to a general fund for the collective good. But we do have to make sure that city governments are responsible for maintaining the public good. And not just for businesses, but for residents as well.
My biggest concern here — as you can see, there are many — with “The Zone,” it doesn’t exist anymore, not in downtown. But that doesn’t mean that the unhoused have disappeared. They’re somewhere. They’re somewhere around Phoenix or around the Valley, and so where are they? Who’s dealing with that? They’ve just shifted the situation to someone else.
GILGER: Right. So Abe, along those lines like, let me ask you about that. Because you’re saying this only affects a very few homeowners in a specific area. It’s only about “The Zone.” But is it only about “The Zone” anymore now that “The Zone” has been cleaned up? And as Elvia points out, these folks have probably kind of scattered across the Valley and may be affecting other people’s homes.
KWOK: Yeah, it’s a point well taken. And I do think that the problem is in the enforcement of this proposition. Cities and towns would pretty much be put on the defensive. They either can approve the application for a property tax break, or they can challenge and say, “this is not worthy,” reject it. And that would put the burden on the plaintiff to file a legal action.
Cities … waiting a day to clean up a mess in front of somebody’s private property. Do you even have an obligation to? If police are not responding within a certain number of hours, does that constitute a failure to enforce a law? So I think this opens up a can of worms for both the property owners as well as for municipalities.
GILGER: So let me ask you lastly — both of you, but I’ll start with you, Elvia — the idea here. Your critique, Abe, is that this is not the right fix, but there is a problem. What do you both think the better solution would be? Should it be more shelter? Should it be more community services? How would you rather us, as a community, address this kind of issue?
DÍAZ: That’s the larger question, and I think the biggest one. Abe in his column is asking whether local governments are so unresponsive that they’re likely to repeat Phoenix’s failure. And my answer to that is, in some cases, yes. And we have seen it, not not just with the unhoused situation, but with many situations.
So what can possibly be done if not this? I do not have a specific answer, but it is something that we need to discuss. I don’t necessarily like this proposition because it is a power grab, but on the other hand, we have a problem, and someone has to be responsive.
KWOK: A couple of asides. One is the timing, right? This was sent to the ballot by the Legislature back in the early spring, in March, long before the appellate court said, “Hey city, your appeal doesn’t resonate. You guys don’t have a leg to stand on.”
And then secondly, there was a Supreme Court ruling this summer that basically said, “Hey cities, you have the power to enforce anti-camping, anti-public nuisance laws. And you don’t need to demonstrate that the homeless don’t have a shelter to go to. Just enforce the law.” And so I think municipalities — including Phoenix — probably heard loud and clear on that message.
And so the question then just becomes, what can they do to prevent another massive encampment that won’t just flood back into the area and create havoc?
