Giving Compass' Take:
- Geoff Hing and Pascal Sabino discuss Arizona's debate on homelessness, examining the potential impacts of a proposed tax refund measure for property owners.
- How can we ensure that homelessness initiatives are both compassionate and effective, addressing community concerns and providing long-term support for people experiencing homelessness?
- Learn more about key issues in homelessness and housing and how you can help.
- Search our Guide to Good for nonprofits focused on homelessness in your area.
What is Giving Compass?
We connect donors to learning resources and ways to support community-led solutions. Learn more about us.
In November, Arizona's debate on homelessness will come to a head as voters decide on Proposition 312, a ballot measure that would allow property owners to claim a tax refund for costs they’ve incurred to address people illegally camping, using drugs, or defecating in public.
The measure was put forth by critics of the homelessness policies of many Arizona cities, and can be understood by looking at two legal standoffs over unhoused camping in public spaces. One was a massive encampment in Phoenix called “The Zone,” which, at its peak, was home to over 1,000 unhoused people. The other: a mostly dry riverbed in Tucson called Navajo Wash.
Arizona's Debate on Homelessness: Providing Supportive Solutions for Unhoused Community Members
Over the past few years, dozens of unhoused people have taken up camp in a city-owned section of Navajo Wash, which was once dotted with palo verde and mesquite trees that provided some relief from the scorching desert sun. But some neighbors cut many of them down, without the city’s approval, leaving behind over 50 twisted stumps scattered across the patch of land. Those same neighbors later sued the city, demanding the camps be forcibly dismantled, demonstrating the intensity of Arizona's debate on homelessness. The neighbors claimed they were “negatively impacted by the masses of garbage and human waste.”
Tucson does not have a policy of clearing every homeless encampment following complaints, also creating controversy in the context of Arizona's debate on homelessness. Instead, camps that don’t pose public safety risks are allowed to stay. The city helps remove trash, offers services and monitors the encampment. Law enforcement is only called to encampments when there are reports of violent or criminal activity, which are then swept away.
In court, Tucson’s lawyers insisted the city’s handling of Navajo Wash was adequate. City workers had handed out basic supplies like backpacks, tarps, food and water. They cleaned up trash at the site and referred people to services steering them toward a shelter or permanent living situation. The court agreed, ruling that the city adequately abated the “nuisance” without forcibly clearing people away.
Read the full article about Arizona’s debate on homelessness by Geoff Hing and Pascal Sabino at Bolts.