Arizona’s unprecedented crackdown on homeless encampments
In a key test of public attitudes toward homelessness after the Supreme Court greenlit broader camping bans this past summer, Arizona voters approved a measure that will allow property owners to claim tax refunds if their local governments fail to clear out encampments.
Proposition 312, which passed this week with 58 percent of the vote, was born from a bitter fight in Phoenix over “The Zone,” an area where more than 1,000 homeless people once camped near the state capitol. It marks conservatives’ latest effort to push local governments toward tougher and less discretionary enforcement of outdoor homelessness. Its success with voters suggests openness to more aggressive enforcement of public camping as cities grapple with their recently affirmed powers.
The measure will create a new system allowing property owners to recoup expenses like 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 the refund, property owners must prove that lax enforcement reduced their property values or led to costs related to addressing public “nuisance” issues.) Those refunds would come directly from money that cities get from the state, effectively penalizing local governments that don’t crack down on encampments. Individuals will be allowed to submit one claim per year, for up to 10 years.
Proponents, led by the conservative Goldwater Institute, promoted the measure as a way to prevent another crisis like “The Zone.” Opponents, however, argue it will divert already scarce resources from shelters, public services, and law enforcement, ultimately diminishing cities’ ability to tackle homelessness on a broader scale.
“Ever heard the saying, ‘the beatings will continue until morale improves?’” asked two local leaders in arguments submitted to Arizona’s secretary of state. “Why would we try to force cities to do something they can’t do, then punish them for not being able to do it?”
“Arizona voters approved a harmful, counterproductive, and shortsighted ballot initiative that will make homelessness worse,” said Jesse Rabinowitz, the 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 drive up legal costs that will be passed on to taxpayers.”
The initiative will take effect as Arizona faces one of the nation’s most severe affordable housing shortages, with some 14,000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night.
“The voters sent a clear message this election cycle: they demand their tax dollars be used to enforce the law and address rampant homelessness,” Goldwater President and CEO Victor Riches said in a statement Wednesday morning. “Now that Prop 312 is law, business and property owners will not be left holding the bag when municipalities refuse to do their job.”
Conservatives want clearing homeless tent encampments to be non-negotiable
The Arizona measure represents conservatives’ most ambitious attempt yet to remove local discretion from homeless enforcement. While the Supreme Court’s ruling in June cleared the way for more uninhibited camping bans, local officials are still left with significant flexibility over whether and how to clear encampments. For advocates frustrated with what they see as progressive cities’ reluctance to act, Proposition 312’s tax refund mechanism offers a template for forcing their hands.
“Many cities have used legal uncertainty as an excuse — they throw up their hands and say, ‘Our hands are tied,'” Ilan Wurman, a law professor who helped craft early lawsuits against Phoenix over “The Zone,” told me this summer. “The Supreme Court took that argument away, but it still doesn’t require them to do anything. That’s why we need tools … to ensure enforcement actually happens.”
The push for non-discretionary enforcement has been gaining momentum. Florida recently enacted a law allowing residents and businesses to sue cities that don’t clear encampments, and Missouri now permits its attorney general to take legal action against local governments that fail to enforce camping bans. Arizona’s approach of targeting municipal budgets marks a new addition to these litigation-based strategies. Wurman, who recently filed a new public nuisance lawsuit in Berkeley, California over tent encampments, told me Prop 312 will “certainly help put pressure on cities.”
The Cicero Institute, an Austin-based conservative think tank known for helping cities and states draft public camping bans and advocating for a shift away from the bipartisan “Housing First” approach to homelessness, voiced its support for Proposition 312 on Wednesday.
“The Cicero Institute supports community-approach solutions to homelessness that balance the needs of unhoused individuals with the rights of their housed neighbors,” Stefani Buhajla, the director of communications, told Vox. “Proposition 312 offers a mechanism for citizens to hold municipalities accountable when they fail to ensure public safety or leave vulnerable people to life on the streets.”
But critics, including law enforcement leaders, warn the approach could backfire. “I think they really want to force the hand of government to do what they want. But you cannot arrest away homelessness,” Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos told The Marshall Project last month, noting that jails are already straining to provide mental health and addiction resources.
Joe and Debbie Faillace, two business owners who worked in downtown Phoenix, say the spiraling 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 not allow another ‘Zone’ to happen, but that even [if] it does, the government will have to compensate small businesses like ours for failing to protect our rights.”
What comes next
The measure now sets up a complex implementation challenge for Arizona cities, which must balance their reduced discretion against practical and legal constraints. The initiative’s language leaves key questions unanswered: What constitutes a “pattern” of non-enforcement? Which expenses qualify as reasonable? How will cities prove they’re adequately enforcing the law?
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 the claims will consume city resources, she added – resources that might otherwise go toward expanding shelter capacity or funding outreach workers. Gallego was reelected on Tuesday night.
The city’s experience clearing “The Zone” offers a preview of the balancing act ahead. When Phoenix finally dismantled the encampment last year, it did so block-by-block over several months, offering indoor alternatives and storage for belongings. That systematic approach 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 may extend far beyond managing encampments. The initiative represents a fundamental shift in how cities approach homelessness policy — leveraging public budgets, rather than court orders or state laws, to compel enforcement.
But even the measure’s supporters acknowledge that enforcement alone won’t solve the underlying crisis. Arizona has one of the nation’s most severe shortages of affordable housing, with only Nevada having fewer affordable units per capita for extremely low-income renters, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
“Arizona must focus on the true solution to homelessness — housing and optional services — not punishing people who sleep outside because they have nowhere else to go,” said Rabinowitz, of the National Homelessness Law Center. “As similar anti-homeless bills spread across the country, we demand that our elected officials not only reject these simple-minded and backward half measures and focus on what works: housing, not handcuffs.”