A proposed Tempe ordinance aimed at addressing recurring nuisances tied to activities on private property drew intense, often emotional reactions from residents and church members, particularly in the Daley Park neighborhood.
Speakers at City Council’s April 30 meeting reflected the divisions between homeowners and advocates for the unsheltered that erupted last year when the city tried to ban feeding the homeless in parks.
While city officials are gathering public input to craft a new ordinance for the parks, the one up for discussion last week is unrelated. That measure will come up for a final vote at Council’s May 14 meeting.
City officials say the measure is narrowly crafted to give Tempe new enforcement tools for recurring disturbances on private property that threaten neighborhoods’ quality of life.
For Daley Park residents, it represents long-awaited relief from ongoing problems they say have worsened in recent months as the result of two local churches feeding homeless people.
For members of one of those churches, University Presbyterian, however, the proposed ordinance raises concerns about how the city balances enforcement with compassion for people experiencing homelessness.
The ordinance
Ordinance No. O2026.20 would amend Tempe’s nuisance code to add target certain recurring activities on private property.
Under the ordinance, a nuisance would be established only if three conditions are met simultaneously:
A regular or ongoing distribution of food, beverages, goods or other items on private property;
A demonstrated link between that activity and criminal or public safety issues in the surrounding area;
A substantial interference with neighboring properties’ use and enjoyment.
City Attorney Eric Anderson emphasized the narrow scope, noting the language is drawn directly from long-standing Arizona case law.
“All of these things would have to be present for there to be a nuisance situation,” Anderson told the council. “We’ve taken this definition directly out of court cases that have existed for over 40 years.”
The intent, he said, is not to prohibit any specific activity – such as food distribution – but to address situations where otherwise legal activities repeatedly lead to broader public safety or quality-of-life impacts.
The ordinance also responds in part to Proposition 312, approved by Arizona voters in 2024, which allows property owners to seek tax refunds if cities fail to adequately address nuisance conditions.
By codifying what courts already recognize as a nuisance, Anderson said, the city gains the ability to act proactively — rather than waiting for legal challenges.
A state reality
Mayor Corey Woods acknowledged during the discussion that the ordinance is, in part, a response to state law — which he personally opposed.
“I didn’t think it was actually going to solve the issues that it was trying to address,” Woods said of Proposition 312, adding that he had concerns it would expose cities to liability.
“But at the end of the day, it passed overwhelmingly,” he said. “So we now kind of find ourselves in this situation.”
Woods framed the ordinance as a practical response to that reality – a way to ensure the city can address ongoing problems tied to repeated activities, not isolated incidents.
Using a hypothetical example, he said a one-time gathering or event would not trigger enforcement.
“It’s only… if I’m doing something on a consistent basis and it’s causing problems,” he said.
University Presbyterian Church member Katherine May said there were other ways to address problems some vagrants are creating in the Daley Park neighborhood besides treating them as criminals.
(YouTube)
Council members also noted the ordinance could help address chronic issues tied to short-term rentals and “party houses,” where repeated disturbances affect surrounding neighborhoods.
Taking issue with Woods was council candidate Bobby Nichols, an assistant state attorney general, who said the proposed ordinance not only contradicted the language of the proposition but also put bars at risk for violation if patrons were to create disturbances.
He also said that unlike the ordinance, the proposition says, “Reimbursements cannot be claimed in response to the existence of a public nuisance which does not occur upon and or has no effect upon their own private property.”
Emotions run high
Much of the public testimony focused on conditions in the Daley Park neighborhood, where residents described ongoing challenges tied to regular food distribution efforts by nearby churches.
Some of those residents were near tears as they described vagrants approaching youngsters with drugs, defecating in alleys and sleeping on their front lawn.
Speakers who described themselves as devout Christians were also on both sides of the issue.
Several neighbors rejected claims by opponents of the ordinance, who had argued there were other ways to deal with any problems stemming from the church feedings than to target homeless people with an enforcement action.
“I have asked so many times,” one defender of the feeding programs said. “This is a time where we should be working together, not against each other. This nuisance law is just horrific. It’s just awful. It extends. It’s so vague, and it extends to so many different areas.”
She was followed by a homeowner who said, “We have tried to speak to members of the church and we have been very terribly treated. We have been treated with complete disrespect, complete disregard. We have tried and tried and tried. So for you all to come now and tell us that we come to the table, we have been trying, and we have been through a lot.”
She continued, “We’re tired, and we need help, and we’ve been asking for help, and it just hasn’t happened. We just get treated like we’re part of the problem. We’re not. We’re very sympathetic loving people who want people to feel and we want people to be kind to each other. We’re the quiet ones. We’re not yelling and screaming.”
Speakers repeatedly emphasized that their concerns were not rooted in opposition to helping people in need.
“We have always seen the homeless as part of our Tempe life. They are not invisible to our family,” said longtime resident Susie Sharkey Johnson, whose family has lived in the neighborhood for decades.
“Their plight is often heartbreaking, and they need help in many ways,” she added.
But Johnson said the scale and frequency of food distribution in recent months — including daily efforts at one church and additional weekly feedings nearby — have had unintended consequences.
“We now need you,” she told council members. “After our neighborhood has kindly asked… to discontinue the Monday through Saturday food distribution, it has continued.”
She framed the issue not as compassion versus enforcement, but as how best to deliver help.
“Care for the homeless… requires love coupled with wisdom,” Johnson said. “Giving someone a bag of food and removing personal accountability… is doomed to fail.”
Steve Kisiel, chair of the Daley Park Neighborhood Association, said neighbors have experienced a steady increase in disruptions.
“The church… supplies free food regularly to the homeless, which has brought in serious nuisances and crime in our neighborhood,” he said.
He and others cited issues including public drug use, trespassing, car burglaries and safety concerns in public spaces.
He added that the goal is not to eliminate services, but to ensure they are delivered responsibly.
“A good ordinance does not ban compassion,” he said. “It structures compassion so that the children in the neighborhood and the people being served are safe.”
City officials stressed that the ordinance is not targeted at any single organization or activity, and could apply to a wide range of scenarios — from commercial operations to short-term rentals — if they meet the three-part test.
Still, the debate highlighted a deeper tension: how cities manage humanitarian efforts when their impacts are felt unevenly across neighborhoods.
Residents acknowledged the importance of outreach programs and city services already in place, including shelters and coordinated care efforts.
At the same time, many said informal or decentralized efforts — particularly those operating at high frequency — can create challenges when not paired with broader support systems.
The council voted unanimously to move the ordinance forward for a second and final public hearing scheduled for May 14.
City officials also plan additional public outreach sessions. There will be a virtual briefing at noon Tuesday, May 5, and an in-person meeting that day at 6 p.m. at the Pyle Adult Recreation Center, 655 E. Southern Ave. To sign up for the Zoom session: mailchi.mp/tempe/meetings-for-proposed-nuisance-ordinance-updates.
Nuisance ordinance
When does it apply?
A violation would only be found if all three conditions are met:
Ongoing activity: Regular or repeated distribution of food, goods or other items on private property.
Public impact: A demonstrated connection to criminal activity or public safety concerns nearby.
Neighborhood effect: A substantial interference with neighbors’ ability to use and enjoy their property.
What it does NOT do:
Does not ban food distribution or charitable activity
Does not apply to one-time events
Requires a pattern of activity, not isolated incidents
Why the city is proposing it
To give Tempe clearer authority to address chronic nuisance situations.
In response to Arizona Proposition 312, which allows property owners to seek tax relief if cities fail to address nuisances.
To align city code with existing state legal standards.
How it would be enforced
Evaluated case by case.
Requires evidence linking activity to ongoing impacts.
Could apply to a range of situations, including:
Repeated gatherings tied to crime or disruption.
Problematic short-term rentals.
Other recurring uses affecting nearby residents.