Maricopa County Superior Court Finds City Of Phoenix At Fault For Homeless Crisis

Maricopa County Superior Court Finds City Of Phoenix At Fault For Homeless Crisis

By Corinne Murdock |

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.

READ OUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON THE ZONE

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. 

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.

DEI Is an Attack on Campus Free Speech

DEI Is an Attack on Campus Free Speech

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

Jonathan Haidt is a professor at NYU, an acknowledged leader in the field of social psychology, and a champion of free speech. He recently faced a requirement that all scholars wishing to present research to the Society for Personality and Social Psychology were to submit a statement explaining “whether and how this submission advanced the equity, inclusion, and antiracism goals of SPSP.”

He resigned instead. This was no small sacrifice, but Haidt takes his principles seriously. Moreover, as he pointed out on his way out the door, “Most academic work has nothing to do with diversity.”

Scholars working, for example, on ultra-bright, nano-structured photo emission electron studies would be required to present their “anti-racist” bona fides. Academics in all disciplines, as well as administrators, would be forced to “betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity.”

This is not just another quibble among pointy-headed academics. Refusing jobs to dissenters is meant to quash the last remnant of open debate in American higher education.

Our universities, particularly the elite, were once celebrated as sanctuaries for unpopular ideas, where free discourse was sacrosanct and none need face fear of censure over doctrinal disputes.

But when the Left achieved numerical domination in the majority of universities over recent decades, their mindset evolved into rooting out the few dissenters in their midst, or, better yet, blocking them from getting a job in the first place.

The reason so-called anti-racists feel justified in forcing their views into unrelated disciplines, such as the hard sciences, is that they view the entire world through the lens of race. Ibram S. Kendi, the leading proponent of anti-racism, writes “there is no such thing as a non-racist or race-neutral policy.”

Their opinions on everything from raising taxes (good) to merit-based promotion in schools (bad) are race-based. It follows that if you disagree with their views, then you’re a racist.

The philosophy of anti-racism is profoundly anti-education and anti-merit. Colleges and universities are less and less committed to the search for truth or the transmission of knowledge. Instead, they are in thrall to the endless dictates of the ironically titled “social justice” bureaucracy.

DEI offices, larger than many academic departments (and better paid), are now sprouting in the halls of academia. 25% of all universities now mandate DEI statements from job applicants, and 40% more are considering jumping on the bandwagon.

DEI statements are loyalty oaths to race-based ideologies, similar to those required by authoritarian regimes throughout history. They often demand evidence of the applicant’s past support of such notions as Critical Race Theory, which holds that an individual’s tendency to racial bias can be reliably determined from their skin color.

To our state’s shame, Arizona’s universities have enthusiastically thrown themselves into the front lines of this movement. According to a Goldwater Institute report, Arizona State University last fall required DEI loyalty oaths for 81% of all job applicants. NAU was at 73% while the University of Arizona demanded 28% bend the knee to be considered for a job.

Such required ideological allegiance makes a mockery of the value of any research these aspiring scholars may do. The results are predetermined. In 2020, two major research organizations and 16 scientific societies issued a joint statement that researchers “must stand against the notion that systemic racism does not exist.” No research was cited.

Topics like urban crime, immigration, and welfare fraud are rarely studied when only the approved narrative is permitted anyway. Ignoring data inconsistent with the agenda gives us startling conclusions as when “scientists” proclaimed that family dinners and church services were COVID “superspreaders,” while massive racial protests and pro-abortion rallies were no problem.

The Left has a way with words. Diversity now means rigid conformity. Equity stands for unearned equal outcomes. Inclusion means exclusion of dissenters.

But Americans are starting to catch on. Outraged parents are protesting overt racism in school curricula. A growing number of universities and corporations are pulling back on DEI mandates. In Arizona, SCR 1024 is a proposed constitutional amendment that will hopefully be on the ballot next election. It would eliminate racist instruction in our public schools.

Take heart.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

The People of Arizona Deserve a Chance to Vote on Critical Race Theory

The People of Arizona Deserve a Chance to Vote on Critical Race Theory

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Racist policies have no business in Arizona. And in 2010, our state’s voters made that clear when they passed Proposition 107. This amendment to Arizona’s Constitution banned affirmative action programs in the state that were administered by statewide or local units of government, including state agencies, cities, counties, and school districts. But as we’ve become all too familiar with here in the U.S. and the state of Arizona, politicians and bureaucrats have figured out ways to skirt the language in our constitution. That’s led to where we are today.

Under the guise of words that sound harmless enough like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” (DEI), Critical Race Theory (CRT) and similar programs largely flew under the radar and have been used to indoctrinate our students. Floods of parents eventually caught on, making it their mission to stop the invasion of CRT and DEI in our school districts. And while the newly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, has already taken steps to stop such indoctrination in our schools, there’s more work to be done.

>>> CONTINUE READING >>>

TUSD Accused of Trapping Employees in Public Sector Unions

TUSD Accused of Trapping Employees in Public Sector Unions

By Terri Jo Neff |

The Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) is violating state and federal law by making it too difficult for its employees to leave a labor union, according to a Jan. 18 letter sent to district officials by the Goldwater Institute. 

Parker Jackson, staff attorney with the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, advised TUSD Superintendent Dr. Gabriel Trujillo that a review of five collective bargaining agreements revealed “alarming restrictions” which infringe on the rights of district employees.

“We request that the District immediately act to bring these agreements and policies and practices made pursuant to them into compliance with federal and state law,” Jackson wrote to Trujillo and the district’s governing board. 

At issue are memoranda of understanding (MOU) which TUSD has entered into with four labor organizations: the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 449, AFL-CIO (“AFSCME”); the Communications Workers of America (“CWA”); Educational Leaders, Inc. (“ELI”); and the Tucson Education Association (“TEA”) with which there are two agreements.

TUSD employees may freely join a union at any time, but an employee covered by one of the five agreements must receive authorization from union bosses before district officials will process a request to resign from the union. This is unlawful, Jackson wrote, as it restricts when an employee may terminate their union membership and halt union dues deductions from their paychecks.

And then there is the issue of deduction revocation windows and/or deadlines which Jackson’s letter says do not comport with federal or state law. District policies and practices further exacerbate the unconstitutional activity.

For instance, the MOU with AFSCME—which Jackson calls “the worst of the five agreements”—restricts membership cancellation and dues deduction revocations to only two weeks per year, from May 1 to May 15. Similarly, the CWA agreement only permits cancellation of membership and dues deductions in July, while the other MOUs have comparable revocation restrictions.

This often results in an employee revoking their consent to union membership, only to have TUSD continue to deduct dues from each paycheck until the next opt-out period commences or the current membership year ends.

“This is not only unfair and predatory—it is also unconstitutional,” Jackson contends. “An employee revocation is obviously evidence that an employee does not affirmatively consent to pay union dues.”

Jackson’s letter to Trujillo cites Arizona’s Right to Work laws, the U.S. and Arizona constitutions, and various court cases in making its arguments.

“In order to prevent ongoing and future unconstitutional activity, the District must immediately revoke or revise any MOU provision that includes a union dues opt-out period and any requirement that a labor union must approve an employee’s request to stop the deduction of union dues,” Parker wrote. “The District must also revise any policy and procedure that imposes these unconstitutional conditions.”

The Goldwater Institute, which is dedicated to upholding the constitutional rights of all citizens, is a public policy and public interest litigation organization. It frequently initiates lawsuits when government entities do not voluntarily change conduct.

“The Goldwater Institute will always defend the constitutional right of all citizens to associate—or not associate—with whatever private organizations they choose,” Parker said after making the TUSD letter public. “Restrictive dues deduction revocation windows and deadlines, of course, are designed to make it difficult for people to leave powerful labor organizations. Fortunately, the U.S. and Arizona constitutions protect workers and prohibit the school district and the unions’ money grab.”

Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.

Phoenix Rescinds NFL’s Authority To Govern Free Speech Following Court Loss

Phoenix Rescinds NFL’s Authority To Govern Free Speech Following Court Loss

By Corinne Murdock |

On Wednesday, the city of Phoenix rescinded the NFL’s authority to regulate free speech via signage throughout the Super Bowl season. The city’s resolution, issued Wednesday, followed their court loss last week in Paulin v. Gallego, in which a resident challenged the city’s resolution granting the NFL authority to approve or deny residents’ signage. 

The change comes with less than one month left to go before the Super Bowl.

The city has a significant financial incentive to cater to the NFL’s requests. When the city last hosted an NFL game in 2015, they experienced a $700 million boost. Gallego told Scripps News this month that they anticipate over one million visitors to the downtown area. 

“These events and activities will bring significant revenue and media exposure to the City of Phoenix during the event period,” stated the city’s original resolution.

In anticipation of this lucrative opportunity for exposure, the city enacted a resolution in October granting the NFL and Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee the authority to reject signage within a “clean zone” constituting two square miles in downtown Phoenix. 

Direction on whether existing signage had to remain was unclear: the city issued contradictory instructions on its website, in one post declaring that temporary signage had to be removed by last Halloween, while another post declared that the signage rule didn’t take effect until Jan. 15. 

Additionally, the city’s signage rule applied to all types of signage: menus, political yard signs, and trespassing warnings. The ordinance only left alone any permitted permanent signs — not temporary ones. 

Local business owner Bramley Paulin challenged the city’s initial resolution; the rule prevented him from advertising on his property. Paulin wanted to advertise to the upwards of 1.5 million people anticipated to attend a nearby music festival in the week leading up to the Super Bowl. Yet, any potential business partners told Paulin they could not advertise on his property since he was in the city’s “clean zone,” and they were considered non-NFL partners. 

In an email exchange, Coca-Cola informed Paulin that they would receive a cease-and-desist letter if they attempted to advertise within the “clean zone.” 

Any business seen as competition to the NFL couldn’t advertise — effectively giving the NFL a monopoly over their allotted downtown area. 

In response, Paulin sued the city with the help of the Goldwater Institute. In the lawsuit, the Goldwater Institute asserted that the city’s ordinance gave power to unaccountable private actors and stripped Paulin of his right to limited, accountable, and transparent government. 

“The [city’s] resolution further violates the separation of powers by giving the NFL and the Hosting Committee unchecked power to make decisions about Arizonans’ constitutional rights, without the panoply of safeguards by which citizens can hold their governments accountable, such as public hearings, record requests, and elections,” stated the lawsuit. 

READ PAULIN V. GALLEGO HERE

A trial court judge issued a temporary injunction on the city’s ordinance; a more permanent block of the rule was contingent on the city removing it completely in Wednesday’s meeting. 

The Goldwater Institute noted on its online profile of the lawsuit that cities in recent years have begun enacting similar, restrictive “clean zone” ordinances to cater to mega-events like the Super Bowl. 

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.