Just days after a powerful Arizona government watchdog group threatened possible legal action, the City of Phoenix repealed a controversial ordinance that had passed the previous month.
On Wednesday, the Phoenix City Council voted to repeal the prevailing wage ordinance, 6-3, after a change of two councilmembers. Councilmembers Kesha Hodge Washington, Jim Waring, Ann O’Brien, Kevin Robinson, Debra Stark, and Mayor Kate Gallego voted for the repeal; while Councilmembers Yassamin Ansari, Laura Pastor, and Betty Guardado voted to maintain the ordinance.
After the vote, Mayor Gallego took to Twitter to explain her decision, writing, “Workers deserve a living wage – and we can deliver that through a robust, public process that doesn’t put the city in legal and financial jeopardy. That’s why I voted with a majority of Council to direct city staff to find legally viable ways to increase wages on city projects. I believe in doing things the right way, not the fast way, and that’s what we decided to do today. I am optimistic that we will find a path forward for better pay for construction workers while, at the same time, put sound policy on the books that survives legal challenges.”
Workers deserve a living wage—and we can deliver that through a robust, public process that doesn’t put the city in legal and financial jeopardy. That’s why I voted with a majority of Council to direct city staff to find legally viable ways to increase wages on city projects.
The Goldwater Institute, which had sent a letter to the Council earlier in the month, championed the news out of Phoenix. John Thorpe, a staff attorney with Goldwater, stated, “Yesterday’s repeal is good news for businesses, their employees, and all taxpayers – and it’s a reminder that Goldwater will never stop fighting to hold government accountable and to defend Americans’ economic freedom from burdensome, counterproductive regulations.”
It's a VICTORY for small businesses, minorities, younger workers, and taxpayers! 🎉
The Phoenix City Council repealed its illegal “prevailing wage” ordinance—a mandate that restricts small businesses and imposes burdensome requirements: https://t.co/47D3oNbsI8
Thorpe wrote that the ‘Prevailing Wage Ordinance for City Projects’ law, “introduced on short notice with almost no chance for public scrutiny from anyone it would impact, required businesses that contract with the city for construction projects costing more than $250,000 to follow a slew of new requirements: they would have had to provide their employees with wages and benefits based on complicated formulas produced by the federal government, keep painstaking records, and comply with a host of other rules and regulations. Worse still, all these regulations came with the risk of heavy fines and potentially crippling lawsuits, even for minor infractions.”
On March 21, three Phoenix City Councilmembers – Carlos Garcia, Betty Guardado, and Laura Pastor, sent a letter to City Manager Jeff Barton, requesting a Special Meeting the following day to consider the Prevailing Wage Ordinance for City Projects. The three councilmembers wrote, “We believe it is time for leadership to address the lack of skilled construction workers needed to fill the rising demand for labor in Phoenix. We know that areas of the country with prevailing wages for city projects have a greater supply of apprentices and pathways for young people to find and join a skilled trade. A prevailing wage ordinance for city projects will ensure that our development growth is matched with the skilled labor we urgently need when we invest in the growth of our communities.”
The next day, the Ordinance was approved by a vote of 5-4. Councilmembers Garcia, Guardado, Pastor, Sal DiCiccio, and Yassamin Ansari voted in favor of the Ordinance. Garcia and DiCiccio have since left the Phoenix City Council, being replaced by Kevin Robinson and Kesha Hodge Washington.
On April 13, the Goldwater Institute, representing the Arizona Builders Alliance and the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, sent a letter to the Phoenix City Council to “express serious concerns” about the Ordinance passed on March 22. Thorpe, writing again for Goldwater, informed the City that if “the enacted version of the ordinance regulates matters that are expressly pre-empted by state law, it exposes the City to a high risk of litigation.” Thorpe outlined that “when the Legislature enacts a law on a matter of statewide concern, that law pre-empts and overrides any conflicting municipal provision. In this instance, voter-approved state law dating back to 1984 expressly provides that ‘prevailing wage’ requirements for public works contractors are a matter of statewide concern and may not be imposed by municipalities.”
Thorpe also found “it troubling that this ordinance was enacted after providing the public barely twenty-four hours’ notice and without any meaningful input from the many stakeholders it will affect.” He also pointed out that “the final version (of the ordinance) enacted by the Council has not yet been made publicly available,” which he questioned the existence of “any legal authority the City possesses to withhold a duly enacted ordinance from public inspection.”
Democrat Senator Catherine Miranda also waded into the discussion on the City of Phoenix’s action in March, submitting a 1487 request to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes on April 17, to “clarify the apparent conflict between two statutes and consequently determine whether Phoenix has the authority to enact prevailing wage at the municipal level.”
Before the new coalition voted to repeal the Prevailing Wage Ordinance, another Democrat Senator, Anna Hernandez, voiced her disapproval with Mayor Gallego’s pending action, tweeting, “(Mayor Gallego) is once again turning her back on our union brothers and sisters.” Hernandez also shared an excerpt from a questionnaire that Gallego filled out during her mayoral run, where she wrote, “At the end of the day, prevailing wage laws are good for working families in the city of Phoenix and I will do what I can to support the enforcement of federal prevailing wage law, and advocate for a reintroduction of Arizona’s state or city prevailing wage law.”
As expected, the agenda for today’s Phx City Council mtg added on the Repeal to Prevailing Wage. @MayorGallego opposes this ordinance and has now ensured that it will be repealed with her new council.
Arizona’s bet on universal school choice is already paying off. At the same time that enrollment in the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program is surging, the state’s revenue surplus has gone through the roof.
In the first four months of 2023 alone, enrollment in Arizona’s ESA program has soared by 7,000 students, bringing the total number of children served to over 51,000. And now, new data released this past week by the nonpartisan Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) show that over a similar period, the state’s estimated revenue surplus has surged by an extra $750 million, putting the total state budget surplus this year at $2.5 billion.
Before Arizona’s historic universal ESA expansion took effect, just 12,000 students were participating in the program. This means that during the first school year where every family in the state can use their child’s public education dollars to customize that student’s schooling, nearly 40,000 new students have received ESA support for private or at-home learning opportunities. And all this is happening as state coffers have overflown with over $1 billion dollars more in revenue than originally forecast.
Sources: Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) FY 2023 Appropriations Report: $1,077,036,700 projected FY 2023 ending balance based on enacted budget. Arizona JLBC Finance Advisory Committee April 2023 Briefing Materials: $2,530,157,100 projected FY 2023 ending balance (revised). Arizona Department of Education ESA Program 2022 Quarter 4 Report: 12,127 ESA students. Arizona Department of Education ESA Program Homepage as of April 17, 2023: 51,849 ESA students.
Indeed, this extraordinary economic momentum comes in the wake of Arizona enacting the nation’s first fully universal ESA program. Sponsored by state Representative Ben Toma and signed into law by former Governor Doug Ducey last summer, the new legislation took effect in September 2022.
Since then, leftwing activist organizations such as Save Our Schools (SOS) Arizona have attempted to portray the program as financially ruinous. Yet this same organization—whose leaders were forced to admit that they had miscounted the number of signatures they collected in opposition to the program last fall by more than 50,000—has again opted for partisan wish-fulfillment rather than numerical reality.
With a typical ESA scholarship award around $7,000 per student—that is, about half of the roughly $14,000 spent on average per student in a public district school—the ESA program now serves roughly two kids for the cost of each one in a traditional public school district.
Unsurprisingly, when compared to the roughly $15 billion now spent each year on Arizona public schools, the ESA program makes up only a sliver of total K-12 spending. Scholarship awards for students who’ve joined the program under the universal ESA expansion amount to roughly 2% of the total spending on public school students. In fact, despite claims by SOS and other opponents of school choice that ESAs have drained public schools of funding, state lawmakers increased ongoing public school funding by more than $600 million in the same year that the universal ESA expansion took effect.
In short, the ESA program makes up only a small share of the state’s spending on education, but with over 50,000 participants and growing, it will continue to provide a lifeline for all students in need. It’s already done just that for students with special needs and other vulnerable populations ever since Goldwater created the nation’s first ESA program in Arizona more than a decade ago—delivering life-changing results at lower costs than public school offerings.
Despite such real-world impacts on families, critics have doubled down to suggest that the program’s success is a sign of failure and financial unsustainability. Indeed, teachers union-aligned groups have suggested that because more students have opted into the ESA program than originally estimated, it must be too expensive. (Note the sharp contrast to their usual take on education spending, which is only ever portrayed as an investment, rather than a cost.)
It is true that demand for ESAs has already beaten initial estimates, and it is true that the expansion, which passed in the final days of last year’s legislative session, was enacted separately from the state budget—meaning ESA awards were not incorporated into the projected costs of the original budget. But ESA award amounts have already been factored into the state’s updated budget projections released this January for the current and upcoming fiscal year. In fact, it’s the very same state budget analysts who assume that the program will grow even further to 57,000 students by the end of this school year who also report the state is now sitting on a $2.5 billion cash surplus for next year. (Of note, that surplus is in addition to the state’s $1.4 billion rainy day fund, which former Governor Ducey and conservative lawmakers also accumulated to cushion the state from any future economic turbulence.)
The state budget analysts were characteristically cautious in their recommendations to spread out the massive war chest. They suggested that if all $2.5 billion were spent this year, the state budget would simply break even next year, before the balance increases again to an estimated $600 million surplus by 2026. But in any case, their projections make clear that the same Arizona lawmakers who unleashed universal school choice have helped steward robust economic vitality and have created a situation where Arizona lawmakers are again weighing how best to spend or return excess tax revenues. Indeed, as the JLBC analysts reported in January—even before the latest upward revisions—the state has enjoyed “an increase of $1.06 billion over the original revenue estimate included in the FY 2023 budget enacted in June 2022” due to “significantly stronger revenue growth than originally projected.”
There is no doubt that global financial uncertainty, the risk of fiscal and monetary mismanagement from Washington D.C., and warnings of mild or severe recessions should perennially weigh on the minds of state legislators. But when it comes to ESAs and the state’s financial solvency, one thing is clear: universal school choice and successful economic stewardship easily go hand in hand.
Arizona has just proven it.
Matt Beienburg is the Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute. He also serves as director of the institute’s Van Sittert Center for Constitutional Advocacy.
Downtown Phoenix’s residents experienced a glimmer of hope in the ongoing homeless crisis last month after a court declared the city to blame. If the city doesn’t appeal the court’s order, it may be the end of the massive encampment known as “The Zone.”
The decision flies in the face of the precedent set by other cities: plans and spending that yield no favorable results, ultimately forcing the residents to learn to live with the crime and squalor. Yet, Phoenix may no longer be resigned to the same fate borne by most other major cities. Downtown property and business owners were vindicated in their belief: city officials’ plans, spending, and promises alone don’t qualify as results.
Requiring results of the city could mean The Zone may cease to exist in the near future — restoring a square mile of the current wasteland of city-sanctioned slums into a healthy business district — but only if the city of Phoenix decides to follow through on the court-ordered action to resolve the homeless crisis. Cleaning up The Zone would mean finding shelter and services for around 800 homeless residing in the area, according to a census conducted by the Human Services Campus late last month.
Homeless sit outside a business in The Zone.
The first bout of legal relief came for The Zone’s residents and business owners after the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled last month that the city of Phoenix was at fault for The Zone. The court ordered the city to show that it’s taking “meaningful steps” toward fixing The Zone. They have until July 10 to do so, with a trial date scheduled for June.
The ruling came days after the city of Phoenix promised to finally meet to fix The Zone, a promise prompted by back-to-back murders in the encampment.
Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, Timothy Sandefur, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, told AZ Free News that this ruling was a good first step toward remedying The Zone — but that the city has a ways to go.
“I think this is a first step and a very important one,” said Sandefur.
Sandefur said that the superior court indicated the best next steps for the city would be to build structured campgrounds and establish treatment programs, rather than continue with their current “housing first” approach.
However, notice of a settlement in a separate, federal case issued recently may complicate matters in finally getting the city of Phoenix to fix The Zone.
In the Arizona District Court case, the ACLU and the city held mediation about three weeks ago.
Details of the settlement weren’t made public. The Phoenix City Council plans to convene April 18 in an executive session — a meeting not open to the public — to discuss the terms of the settlement. At some point after, the Phoenix City Council will announce the settlement terms during a public meeting.
Of note, the city attempted to dismiss the superior court case — but not the federal case. The city also spent just shy of $100,000 fighting the superior court case.
Ilan Wurman, another lawyer on the lawsuit against the city, told AZ Free News that the court’s order to fix The Zone was thorough to the point where he imagined it would be difficult for the city to fight it.
“The court’s ruling is such a thorough victory for the business and property owners that it will be very hard for the city to overcome it at a full trial on the merits,” said Wurman. “We hope the city does the right thing and considers a settlement or simply follows through on the court’s instructions — that will save a lot of expense to taxpayers and it will be better for the unsheltered community as well.”
In remarks to the press, the city stresses that it has allocated around $140 million to solve the homeless crisis. However, there’s a difference between commitment and spending. Of the $120 million in COVID-19 relief funds received to address the homeless crisis, the city has only spent about 10 percent.
Of what little the city has spent for the homeless crisis, the Maricopa County Superior Court assessed that none of this spending has actually mitigated the crisis.
Homeless use drugs inside Phoenix’s sprawling encampment known as The Zone.
“With few exceptions, the action items about which city representatives testified centered around the creation of more bureaucracy, additional staff positions, and obtaining additional funding for programs to vaguely address homelessness in general,” stated Judge Scott Blaney. “The Court received very little evidence — if any — that the City intends to take immediate, meaningful action to protect its constituent business owners, their employees, and residents from the lawlessness and chaos in the Zone.”
However, in a recent interview, Mayor Kate Gallego indicated that the city was attempting to follow through on a “housing first” approach, and claimed that the city was “working very hard” to fix the homeless crisis.
As AZ Free News previously reported, “housing first” — also referred to as “permanent supportive” or “affordable” housing — holds the theory that the homeless will choose to seek employment, become financially responsible, and receive mental health care and/or substance abuse treatment if food and housing are provided. The theory also posits that enabling the homeless to choose their housing and support services will make them more likely to remain in that housing and stick with self-improvement initiatives.
Gallego shared that the city was working on launching seven new shelter options in partnership with various organizations, and that the city is hoping to receive additional help from both the state and federal government. She mentioned that she would meet with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Gallego disclosed that she recently spoke with Gov. Katie Hobbs about the homeless crisis — a conversation that had last occurred during Hobbs’ inauguration week in January. The mayor said that Hobbs was looking for additional resources to provide the city.
“Residents should feel confident that they’re going to see changes,” said Gallego. “The message we want to send to the public is that we recognize it’s a problem and we want to solve it.”
When questioned, Gallego didn’t directly deny that the city wouldn’t appeal the superior court’s decision.
In another interview, Gallego claimed that adequate law enforcement was taking place in The Zone. Gallego’s claim conflicted with the various investigative reports and witness accounts that depicted minimal law enforcement in The Zone.
“We treat every member of our community the same when they commit a crime. We want to be consistent and to enforce breaking the law,” said Gallego. “If you commit a crime, it is the same regardless of your housing status.”
However, the “Gaydos and Chad Show” testified to witnessing a myriad of criminal activity during a recent excursion in The Zone — including drug use, public defecation and urination, and prostitution — but not seeing any police presence. In response, Gallego claimed the city’s police were “too aggressive” when handling the homeless. The mayor cited the Arizona District Court case against the city as justification for her claim. However, that lawsuit concerned whether the city could enforce camping and sleeping bans, as well as whether the city had a right to seize or throw away items from homeless encampments as part of cleanup efforts. The lawsuit does not address police response to criminal activity.
Watch: The Zone – Homelessness and Crime Rampant in Phoenix
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Goldwater Institute announced on Tuesday that they submitted a supportive brief in a lawsuit accusing Washington Elementary School District (WESD) of discriminating against Christians.
WESD decided to end its contract with Arizona Christian University (ACU) earlier this year over the school’s religious beliefs. The lawsuit was filed initially by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of ACU early last month.
WESD is the largest elementary school district in the state, and had partnered with ACU for 11 years without issue, according to court documents.
In their press release, the Goldwater Institute claimed that WESD violated the constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association for both ACU and its students to free speech. The Goldwater Institute further claimed that WESD’s actions ran afoul of the Arizona Constitution’s “religious test” clauses, which prohibit the government from discriminating based on religion when making hiring decisions.
The organization also pointed out that WESD committed the alleged discrimination despite grappling with an ongoing, historic teacher shortage like other districts.
In the Goldwater Institute’s amicus, or “friend-of-the-court,” brief, the organization said that WESD had unconstitutionally conditioned employment based on ACU’s faith.
“Defendants’ hostility toward Christians is apparently so intense that they cut off a long-standing teacher training program during an historic nationwide teacher shortage, simply because the teachers attended Arizona Christian University (ACU)—a school that espouses traditional Christian beliefs on its website,” said the organization.
ACU believes in Biblical teachings on marriage and sexuality, including that “God created man and woman in His image and likeness, that God wonderfully and immutably creates each person as male or female, and that God intends sexual intimacy to occur only between a man and woman who are married to each other,” per court filings.
AZ Free News first broke the story about WESD’s alleged discrimination. The ultimate decision to cut ties with ACU traces back to public comments from WESD Governing Board Member Tamillia Valenzuela.
Valenzuela — a self-described neurodivergent, queer furry — declared during a board meeting that ACU’s mission of prioritizing Jesus Christ’s teachings didn’t align with WESD priorities. In previous board meetings, Valenzuela has decried any Christian presence at WESD. In contemplating whether to continue the district’s contract with Grand Canyon University (GCU), Valenzuela insisted that WESD should cut ties there as well due to the university being a private Christian institution.
“I am wondering if there’s other options available, one so we are not actively engaging with an institution that’s causing harm and also so we can have options that are not based on a certain faith,” said Valenzuela.
ADF has asked for a preliminary injunction in the case. Their filing outlined various grievances against WESD in regard to their opposition against ACU for its religious beliefs. This included WESD governing board member remarks accusing ACU student teachers of being “openly bigoted,” causing LGBTQ+ people to feel “unsafe.”
“The School District’s policy therefore is loud and clear: Christians with disfavored beliefs are neither welcome nor allowed to serve in the District,” stated ADF.
There will be oral arguments in the case, Arizona Christian University v. Washington Elementary School District, next Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. at the Sandra Day O’Connor courthouse.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the city of Phoenix is at fault for the homeless crisis, most evident in the massive encampment downtown known as “The Zone.”
Judge Scott Blaney ruled that city officials had done nothing to improve The Zone, declaring it a public nuisance. Rather, Blaney declared that the city had created and maintained The Zone. Blaney added that the actions undertaken by the city, allegedly to address the homeless crisis, had served only to grow its bureaucracy and throw money into government and nonprofit programs that haven’t yielded any discernible results.
“With few exceptions, the action items about which city representatives testified centered around the creation of more bureaucracy, additional staff positions, and obtaining additional funding for programs to vaguely address homelessness in general,” stated Blaney. “The Court received very little evidence — if any — that the City intends to take immediate, meaningful action to protect its constituent business owners, their employees, and residents from the lawlessness and chaos in the Zone.”
Blaney ordered the city to abate The Zone by permanently removing the encampments in public rights of way; cleaning up the biohazardous materials including human feces and urine, drug paraphernalia, and other trash; and removing individuals committing offenses against the public order. Effectively, the judge ordered the city to enforce existing laws.
The city has until July 10 to achieve material results toward compliance with the court’s ruling.
In the 23-page ruling, Blaney agreed with arguments posed by the plaintiffs, made up of residents and business owners in The Zone: that the city stopped enforcing laws within The Zone, resulting in increased violent crime, property crime, prostitution, public indecency, public drug use, a blocks-long biohazard, fire hazards, and environmental destruction.
Notably, Blaney agreed that the owners of Maker Kitchens had the right to install the dinosaur statues on the right of way adjacent to its building to discourage the homeless from re-establishing their encampments after the city did a cleanup to do gas line work. Blaney ruled that the city had arbitrarily enforced its laws so as to ignore violations by the homeless on that land and yet demand removal of the statues.
Blaney ruled that the city couldn’t force the restaurant to remove the dinosaur statues until it cleaned up The Zone or the court issued a further order.
Blaney ruled that the city had “abused its discretion through the arbitrary application of the law and provision of taxpayer funded security in The Zone.” He also ruled that the residents and business owners who filed the lawsuit had a strong possibility of receiving damages on the basis of irreparable injury, should the city not provide relief by mitigating The Zone.
🦕These mysterious dinosaur statues will likely face extinction after the City of Phoenix and nearby homeless population want them removed from ‘The Zone’. They popped up earlier this week along 9th Ave in the public right of way. More tonight @FOX10Phoenixpic.twitter.com/LxfNRZzpwg
Blaney agreed that city leaders erroneously applied the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Martin v. City of Boise, which determined that municipalities couldn’t enforce public camping laws against the homeless when no adequate temporary shelter options existed.
The judge further noted that the city had wholly ignored the residents’ and business owners’ proposals to resolve the homeless crisis, an outdoor shelter space, presented in January 2020 — just before the crisis “really got out of hand.” However, the city ignored all proposed plans to mitigate the crisis until one month before the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, last October. That’s when the city approved the construction of a “sprung structure” containing 200 additional shelter beds.
Yet, Blaney stated that the city’s proposed shelter options were either designed as temporary, being seasonal, or as speciality situations, being intended for domestic violence survivors or COVID-19 response.
At one point in his ruling, Blaney surmised that violent, organized crime had taken root in The Zone. AZ Free News reported that gangs run The Zone, assaulting and charging encampment space rent to the homeless.
“The evidence also strongly suggests that the City created and maintained the dire situation that currently exists in The Zone through its failure, and in some cases refusal, to enforce criminal and quality of life laws in The Zone,” said Blaney. “The City’s refusal to meaningfully enforce statutes and ordinances in The Zone has created a classic ‘siren song’ to certain individuals that are enticed at their peril by The Zone’s drugs, sex, and lack of societal rules.”
The court’s ruling comes days after the city promised it would arrange some kind of meeting on the issue at some point following back-to-back murders in The Zone.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
