The Phoenix City Council approved several ordinances that will hold the homeless accountable for crimes committed in public parks and spaces.
The council approved ordinances prohibiting certain behaviors most often done by the homeless.
One ordinance puts more restrictions on public parks: no more entering areas closed to the public, drinking liquor, smoking, bathing, or obstructing guests or amenities.
Park rangers or police officers will be allowed to issue a trespass notice lasting one year, and the court may impose community restitution, education, or treatment programs.
Council member Anna Hernandez was the sole “no” vote on the ordinance.
Hernandez said she “needed to take [the council] to church” on the issue. She called the ordinance “shameful, racist, ineffective policy.”
“This is a huge step in aligning our city in Trump’s war on homelessness. We need more beds [and support services], not more criminalization,” said Hernandez.
Parks and Recreation Director Cynthia Aguilar clarified this ordinance was about aligning park code of conduct with city ordinances — not a new effort to criminalize behaviors, or target the homeless specifically.
“The consequences or the penalties that exist already existed prior to this when it comes to the ordinances, but there were clarifications in where that language was placed,” said Aguilar.
The council also approved, unanimously, an ordinance increasing the punishment for remaining on road medians and obstructing traffic. Rather than requiring law enforcement to give a warning for the first violation, law enforcement may issue a civil traffic offense amounting to a class one misdemeanor.
By far the most controversial ordinance passed prohibits the public provision of medical care or treatment, sale or exchange of needles and syringes, and the sale or distribution of harm reduction, or drug usage, kits. First responders, family members, individuals rendering aid during an emergency, and administration or distribution of naloxone are exempt.
Parks and Recreation Director Cynthia Aguilar cited the need for the ordinance to address “safety, potential harm, and [bio]hazard [concerns]” for park users.
Again, Hernandez was the sole “no” vote on the ordinance.
Opponents to the ordinances said they amounted to “criminalization” of poverty and “fascism.” They argued the city had a duty to address the underlying causes of unlawful behaviors by the homeless and provide alternatives, such as more public showers, rather than holding them accountable for their crimes.
Supporters of the ordinances testified to the dangers posed by the transients, especially to the children: bathing publicly in the nude, open-air drug usage, discarding drug paraphernalia, dealing drugs, blocking traffic, and harboring dogs that roam unleashed in public spaces and roadways.
State Senator Lauren Kuby (D-LD8), speaking on behalf of constituents and “mutual aid groups” claimed the behaviors that would be punished were actually constitutionally protected activities. Kuby also argued that it was “basic human behavior” for the homeless to bathe in public.
“Phoenix parks are not just recreational spaces. Under the Constitution, they are traditional public forums — places where people gather, speak, assemble, pray, protest, and exist in public life,” said Kuby.
State Representative Mariana Sandoval (D-LD23) and Senator Analise Ortiz (R-LD24) issued a joint letter criticizing the ordinances as “criminalizing poverty” that would cost taxpayers more without reducing crime or overdoses.
Council member Betty Guardado implied that families in affected neighborhoods should use their “means” to go elsewhere to enjoy public spaces and have their children play.
Council member Jim Waring criticized the opponents of the ordinances as supportive of preserving currently dangerous environments.
“Some of you are clapping. You think you’re on the side of truth and justice. Well, I’ve got some bad news: you’re not. You’re wrecking it for the rest of these people who are also paying taxes. When do we start thinking about them?” asked Waring.
Waring also criticized the hands-off approach to the homeless. He expressed a desire for the homeless to be made to accept services to get off the street and cease drug usage in public.
“We spend a fortune on the homeless — way more than we used to,” said Waring. “You guys think the homeless should just take over the parks and do whatever they want.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Supreme Court held a hearing on Monday to decide whether the city of Phoenix can hide certain public records.
The city is being sued by the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based public policy and litigation organization, over its hiding of records concerning union negotiations.
In Goldwater v. Phoenix, the Goldwater Institute argued the city of Phoenix has a duty to disclose those records in order to allow the public to have an informed decision, and because they serve as the entity negotiating on behalf of the public.
The organization filed their lawsuit in March of 2023 after the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) declined to provide a draft memoranda of understanding (MOU) for public input at the end of 2022. PLEA had provided its MOU drafts in preceding years.
Per the city’s “Meet and Confer” ordinance, unions must submit MOUs by Dec. 1 in the year before the expiration of an operative agreement so that the public may provide input prior to negotiations between the union and city.
Despite not having a draft MOU available for the public to review, the Phoenix City Council moved forward with a meeting to collect public comment on an unsubmitted draft.
The city then began negotiations in January 2023.
The city of Phoenix refused to give PLEA’s draft MOU to the Goldwater Institute upon request, claiming the records were exempt from public records disclosure because public scrutiny would burden negotiations.
The city claimed they were protected under the state’s public records law exemption allowing the withholding of records should they prove detrimental to a government’s best interest.
“Releasing those types of materials would create a chilling effect on the parties’ willingness to candidly engage with each other and it would hinder the negotiations process,” said the city in their denial message.
The city also expressed concerns that public access to MOUs would politicize union negotiations.
Parker Jackson, Goldwater Institute staff attorney, disagreed that these records were covered by the best interests exemption.
“With few exceptions, public records must be made available to the public,” said Jackson in a press release. “When there’s a need to protect things like personal privacy or public safety, the government must be able to show that specific and significant harm is likely to result from public disclosure. It cannot simply withhold information based on self-interested speculation that some minimal inconvenience ‘might’ occur.”
In January, the Arizona Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Arizona Superior Court so that court could privately review unredacted and redacted versions of the contested MOU documents, and determine whether the documents deserved exemption from public disclosure according to the best interests of the state.
The Arizona Supreme Court is considering two issues in this case:
Did the Court of Appeals err by not requiring the City, after it invoked the “best interests of the state” exception, to establish a probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure, as Mitchell v. Superior Court requires?
Did the Court of Appeals err by not applying the Carlson v. Pima County balancing test de novo to independently determine whether the City’s purported interests in nondisclosure outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure?
The public may watch the archived video of Goldwater v. Phoenixhere.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Developers looking to build in the Phoenix area may soon be mandated to install art.
The Phoenix City Council may vote on a draft of the proposed ordinance in the spring.
Phoenix City Council’s Economic Development and the Arts Subcommittee discussed the creation of an “Art in Private Development” ordinance last week.
The city’s outgoing Arts and Culture Director, Mitch Menchaca, presented the proposed ordinance. Menchaca said developers would be made to allocate a percentage of their project’s construction costs to original, site-specific art.
Menchaca was hired earlier this month by the Greater Columbus Arts Council in Ohio to be its CEO and president. They reportedly will be paying Menchaca “double” what he was paid by the city of Phoenix.
Sedona, Scottsdale, and Tempe all have variants of public art in private development requirements.
Sedona passed its requirement in 1995. Developments exceeding 5,000 square feet of gross floor area and expansions of existing structures over 2,500 square feet of gross floor area must have art.
Scottsdale passed its requirement in 1985. Planned block developments in the downtown area must have art approved by the Scottsdale Public Art Board.
Tempe passed its requirement in 1991. City-wide developments over 50,000 square feet must either install art approved by the Tempe Arts and Culture Department or contribute fees to the Tempe Municipal Arts Fund.
Per the Public Art Archive, at least 18 states have municipalities with public art in private development requirements.
Currently, the city of Phoenix has an incentive program which rewards businesses that install art with earning density or height bonuses and an alternative to meeting standards.
Catrina Kahler, ArtLink Inc nonprofit CEO and Democratic donor, expressed support for a mandate. ArtLink is behind monthly events to support local artists downtown such as the popular First Fridays.
“This risk is low. The return on investment is very high,” said Kahler. “We are in competition with many other cities, not only across the Valley but across the nation. People have choices about where to live, no matter what sector they engage in in terms of their employment, they want to live in a city that’s creative, thoughtful, and beautiful.”
Phoenix Committee Alliance’s advocacy director Patrick McDaniel also expressed support for the mandate.
Vice Mayor Ann O’Brien indicated support for a proposed ordinance, and that she would like more private developer input prior to establishing the ordinance.
“One of my frustrations with being in the northwest part of the Valley is that the only places we can have art is where something is done with city dollars and we use one percent, which means it might be at a water facility. And not that that’s not a great place but it’s not a place where we see a lot of people hang out,” said O’Brien. “And so my desire to have you all here today was to look at what our options are. It’s important to have art everywhere in our city as we are bringing in more businesses and more people, and we want to continue to do that. Art creates culture. And culture creates community. Art should be throughout our city.”
Councilwoman Debra Stark said she would support a city-wide ordinance but, like the vice mayor, requested the council engage further in talks with the private sector.
Councilwoman Laura Pastor also expressed support for sourcing more funding for the maintenance of existing art installations, possibly within the proposed ordinance.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The idea to extend light rail to the State Capitol has occupied the dusty shelves of bureaucratic transit plans for ages. Phoenix first floated it in their 2000 “Transit 2000” plan, their 2015 Transportation 2050 initiative, and the concept has taken up space in every MAG and regional planning cycle since 2004. The idea’s longevity is not a testament to how good ideas endure; rather how bureaucrats remain unaffected regardless of light rail’s failure; unwilling to change course despite low ridership, high costs, high crime, or changing travel patterns. The world changes but a transit plan apparently never dies.
In fact, it turns out it can’t be stopped from destroying the Capitol corridor even when lawmakers pass a law to stop it.
In 2023, Republican legislators negotiated Proposition 479, Maricopa County’s half cent sales tax for transportation, which included a clause prohibiting the use of any public resources for light rail coming within 150 feet of the State Capitol. The goal of the provision was to insulate lawmakers from the disruption and destruction caused by light rail. This neat trick of making the “Capitol Line” someone else’s problem would likely backfire.
Well, it turns out we were right, and what Phoenix has in store for the Capitol corridor is worse than anyone could have imagined.
According to a new report from the Common Sense Institute (CSI), inflation in the Phoenix metro area rose 1.4% year-over-year in August, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The increase marks a climb from June’s 0.8% reading and ends a four-month stretch where local inflation hovered below 1%.
As noted by the report, the uptick comes as Arizona’s economy shows signs of slowing, with weaker job growth and a cooling housing market. Still, compared with much of the nation, inflation in Phoenix remains subdued. Among the 23 metro areas tracked monthly, Phoenix ranked 20th in year-over-year price growth, continuing a dramatic reversal from 2022 and 2023, when the region routinely topped the list for fastest-rising prices.
Nationally, inflation picked up in August, rising 2.9% from a year earlier after holding steady at 2.7% in the prior two months. Prices across the country have now exceeded the Federal Reserve’s 2% target for more than two years.
Since August 2019, consumer prices in Phoenix have climbed 30.2%, adding about $1,525 in monthly costs for the average Arizona household. Nationally, prices are up 26.3% over the same period. Typically, inflation would run closer to 10% in a five-year span. On a two-month basis, Phoenix saw a 0.9% increase from June to August, tying January for the largest short-term jump of the year. Nationally, prices rose 0.6% over that period.
Housing costs remain a key driver of Phoenix’s relatively low inflation reading. Shelter prices fell 0.1% year-over-year in August, the fourth consecutive month of negative growth. Excluding shelter, inflation in the Valley was 2.3%—still below the national average, but nearly double the headline local figure. The Federal Reserve, which aims to balance price stability with job growth, faces a complicated outlook. While local inflation has hovered below target for nearly a year, national prices have not fallen under 2.3% since 2021.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
