ARIZONA ELECTIONS 2024
All breeds| Chairman | US Senate | American house | Voting measures| State House | State Senate | Maricopa County | Pinal County | City| Schools| Justice | To vote
Arizona residents who incur costs to alleviate the effects of homelessness on their private property can apply for reimbursements from their city or county if voters approve State Proposition 312 in November.
The ballot measure will allow residents to request an annual property tax refund beginning in 2025 when municipalities create a public nuisance on resident’s property or when municipalities fail to enforce laws against homeless encampments, loitering, panhandling, public urination or defecating, or public resources. use or alcohol consumption.
Municipalities that do not respond to the requests within 30 days are automatically obligated to pay the resident, but the amount cannot exceed what the resident paid in property taxes to the entity the previous year.
Supporters say the measure is intended to encourage cities to be more proactive in maintaining public health and safety and to reimburse residents who have suffered because of government inaction.
But opponents argue that will leave less money for cities to address homelessness, which will worsen the problem and create a tax break for wealthy entrepreneurs.
Here’s what you need to know about Proposition 312.
What Proposition 312 does:
If approved, Proposition 312 would allow residents to apply for tax refunds between 2025 and 2035 for the costs they incurred in mitigating the impact of homelessness on their properties. Specifically, it says, “to mitigate the effects of the policy, pattern or practice or public nuisance on the property.”
The resident would file an application with the Arizona Department of Revenue, and that agency would forward the request to the appropriate city, town or county — it would go to counties if residents live on unincorporated land. The municipality would accept or reject the request. If the request is denied, the resident must take legal action to challenge the decision. A judge would decide the outcome.
The ballot measure does not prescribe any criteria for municipalities to accept or reject requests. It also doesn’t specify what is eligible for a refund, leaving the door open for a wide range of refund requests. Supporters of the measure cite the devaluation of property, security systems and the installation of fences to guard the property.
The proposal puts the burden on the municipality to prove that “its actions are lawful” and prohibits a city, municipality or county from seeking attorney fees or attorney fees from the resident. However, residents would be able to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the municipality.
A resident could not be reimbursed for more than what he paid in primary property taxes the previous year and would have to show documented expenses. If expenses exceeded what they paid in primary property taxes, the resident could reapply for the remaining refund the following tax year.
What do the proponents of Proposition 312 say?
Supporters of Proposition 312 say homelessness will continue to be a problem across the state and that the measure is necessary to hold cities accountable and treat taxpaying residents who suffer as a result fairly.
They point to Phoenix’s complicity in “The Zone,” the Valley’s largest homeless camp, which at its peak housed a thousand people in tents. City officials allowed the camp to remain until property owners sued, and a judge ordered Phoenix to clean it up.
More: Simultaneous legal battles over Phoenix homeless camp will continue, judge rules
The location was and remains bright, but “there was nothing that could compensate us for the loss of property value, nor for the costs our small business had to incur to contain costs. In the meantime, we paid taxes for public health and safety services that we did not receive.” wrote Debbie and Joe Faillace in the state election pamphlet.
The Faillaces formerly owned the Old Station Sub Shop at 13th Avenue and Jefferson Street, in the heart of The Zone. They were part of a group of property owners who sued Phoenix in 2022 over the encampment.
Officials in Phoenix repeatedly said their hands were tied by a federal appeals court ruling that said criminalizing homelessness without available shelter violated the Constitution’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling in a 6-3 vote in June.
Kevin Daily of the Tucson Crime Free Coalition wrote: “Citizens, property owners and business owners have been saddled with the enormous financial burden of paying for property repairs, the cost of replacing stolen goods and higher costs of goods and services. These expenses also include costs for upgrading surveillance systems, fencing and even hiring private security.”
Supporters of Proposition 312 include elected leaders, conservative groups such as the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the Arizona Restaurant Association, the Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, small business owners and residents.
What do opponents of Proposition 312 say?
Opponents say Proposition 312 would unfairly penalize cities, reduce the revenue needed to address homelessness, criminalize the unhoused and worsen the cycle of poverty. It would also be a tax gift to wealthy entrepreneurs, including foreign stock companies that helped spark the housing crisis, they say.
Opponents argue that Proposition 312 would hurt the efforts it claims to help.
“Proposition 312 reduces the tax revenue that towns, cities and counties can collect from property owners if they claim the municipality is not properly enforcing public nuisance laws. It opens the door for municipalities to face exorbitant legal and administrative costs – expenses that are likely to result in cuts to basic services that many Arizonans depend on,” wrote Scott Greenwood, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
They also argue that it would encourage cities to address homelessness through policing and arrests, which could lead to officers violating the constitutional rights of unhoused people and further entrench the unhoused individuals in poverty.
“Tackling them with the police eliminates a homeless individual’s path to stability, health, gainful employment and housing options. Criminalization reduces their chances of ever escaping the cycle of homelessness,” wrote Dominique Medina, deputy director of the Fuerte Arts Movement.
Some also say the measure punishes cities unfairly because cities have had to deal with multiple conflicting legal orders that have made it difficult to tackle encampments.
“Have you ever heard the saying, ‘The beatings will continue until morale improves?’ Why try to force cities to do something they can’t do, and then punish them for not being able to do it?” wrote Catherine Sigmon, co-founder of Civic Engagement Beyond Voting.
Taylor Seely covers Phoenix for The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com. Reach her at tseely@arizonarepublic.com or by phone at 480-476-6116.
View all races for Arizona
Voter guide: Election day is November 5. Here’s a guide to help you learn about all the candidates and the voting and tabulation process.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Proposition 312: Should Arizona taxpayers get refunds for the homelessness crisis?
