In a key test of public attitudes toward the homeless after the Supreme Court green-lighted broader camping bans last summer, Arizona voters approved a measure this will allow landowners to claim tax refunds if their local governments fail to clean up encampments.

Proposition 312, adopted this week with 58 percent of the voteswas born from a bitter fight in Phoenix on “The Zone”, an area where more than 1,000 homeless people once camped near the state capitol. It’s the latest effort by conservatives to push local governments toward stricter, 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 asserted powers.

The measure will create a new system for property owners to recoup expenses such as security cameras, cleaning services and protective fencing when cities demonstrate a “pattern or practice” of not enforcing anti-camping laws. , loitering or using drugs in public. (To claim the refund, property owners must prove that lax enforcement reduced the value of their properties or resulted in costs related to resolving public “nuisance” issues.) These refunds would come directly from the money that the cities receive from the state, effectively penalizing local governments that do not crack down on encampments. Individuals will be allowed to submit one application per year, for a maximum period of 10 years.

Supporters, led by the conservative Goldwater Institute, presented the measure as a way to prevent another crisis like “the Zone.” Opponents argue, however, that it will divert already scarce resources from shelters, public services and law enforcement, reducing cities’ ability to combat homelessness on a larger scale.

“Have you ever heard the saying: ‘The beatings will continue until morale improves?’ » » asked two local leaders of arguments submitted to Arizona Secretary of State. “Why would we try to force cities to do something they can’t do, and then punish them for not being able to do it?”

“Arizona voters approved a harmful, counterproductive and short-sighted ballot initiative that will only make homelessness worse,” said Jesse Rabinowitz, campaign and communications director at the National Homelessness Law Center. “Proposition 312 fails to address the lack of affordable housing that causes homelessness, burdens local governments, and will increase legal costs that will be passed on to taxpayers. »

The initiative will take effect as Arizona faces one of the most dire situations in the country. shortage of affordable housingwith some 14,000 people being homeless every night.

“Voters sent a clear message this election cycle: They demand that their tax dollars be used to enforce the law and combat rampant homelessness,” said Victor Riches, President and CEO. of Goldwater. said in a statement Wednesday morning. “Now that Proposition 312 has gone into effect, businesses and property owners will not be left behind when municipalities refuse to do their jobs.”

Conservatives want removal of homeless tent encampments to be non-negotiable

The Arizona measure represents conservatives’ most ambitious attempt yet to remove local discretion in enforcing homeless laws. Even though the Supreme Court’s June ruling paved the way for freer camping bans, local officials still have a lot of flexibility on whether and how to vacate encampments. For advocates frustrated by what they see as progressive cities’ reluctance to act, Proposition 312’s tax refund mechanism offers a model for forcing their hand.

“A lot of cities have used legal uncertainty as an excuse — they’ve thrown up their hands and said, ‘Our hands are tied,’” Ilan Wurman, a law professor who helped craft the plan, told me this summer. of the first lawsuits against Phoenix over “The Zone”. . “The Supreme Court rejected that argument, but it still doesn’t force them to do anything. That’s why we need tools… to ensure that enforcement is actually enforced.

The push for non-discretionary enforcement is growing. Florida recently enacted a law allowing residents and businesses to sue cities that don’t vacate their encampments, and Missouri now allows it. his attorney general must take legal action against local governments that do not enforce camping bans. Arizona’s approach to targeting municipal budgets marks a new addition to these litigation-based strategies. Wurman, who recently filed a new public nuisance lawsuit in Berkeley, California on tent encampments, told me that Prop 312 “would definitely help put pressure on cities.”

The Cicero Institute, an Austin-based conservative think tank known for helping cities and states craft public camping bans and advocating a move away from the bipartisan “Housing First” approach to security -shelter, expressed support for Proposition 312 on Wednesday.

“The Cicero Institute supports community-based solutions to homelessness that balance the needs of unhoused people with the rights of their housed neighbors,” Stefani Buhajla, communications director, told Vox. “Proposition 312 provides a mechanism for citizens to hold municipalities accountable when they fail to provide public safety or leave vulnerable people living on the streets.”

But critics, including law enforcement officials, warn that approach could backfire. “I think they really want to force the government’s hand to do what they want. But you can’t stop homelessness,” Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos. told The Marshall Project last monthnoting that prisons are already working to provide mental health and substance abuse resources.

Joe and Debbie Faillace, two business owners who worked in downtown Phoenix, say the growing homeless crisis forced them to sell their sandwich shop. The couple applauded the passage of Proposition 312, saying it “gives us hope that not only will the City of Phoenix not allow the creation of another ‘zone,’ but even (if) it does was doing, the government will have to compensate small businesses like ours for failing to protect our rights.

The measure now poses a complex implementation challenge for Arizona cities, which must balance their reduced discretion with practical and legal constraints. The language of the initiative leaves key questions unanswered: What constitutes a “pattern” of non-enforcement? What expenses are considered reasonable? How will cities prove they are enforcing the law correctly?

Earlier this year, Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego told the LA Times that the effects of the proposal could range from minimal “to devastating to our budget.” Even processing applications will consume city resources, she added — resources that could otherwise be used to increase shelter capacity or fund outreach workers. Gallego was re-elected Tuesday evening.

The city’s experience cleaning up “The Zone” offers a glimpse of the balancing act ahead. When Phoenix finally dismantled the encampment last year, he did so. therefore block by block over several monthsoffering interior alternatives and storage for personal belongings. This systematic approach has helped the city avoid legal challenges over property rights, but similar caution or delay could now expose Phoenix to tax refund claims.

As other states watch Arizona’s experiment unfold, the measure’s impact could extend far beyond encampment management. The initiative represents a fundamental shift in how cities approach homelessness policy – ​​leveraging public budgets, rather than court orders or state laws, to enforce enforcement.

But even supporters of this measure recognize that its application will not be enough to resolve the underlying crisis. Arizona has one of the most severe affordable housing shortages in the country, with only Nevada having fewer affordable housing units per capita for extremely low-income renters, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

“Arizona needs to focus on the real solution to homelessness – housing and voluntary services – not on punishing people who sleep outside because they have nowhere to go,” Rabinowitz said , from the National Homelessness Law Center. “As similar anti-homeless bills spread across the country, we demand that our elected officials not just reject these simple, retrograde half-measures and focus on what works: housing, not the handcuffs.