Ordinance No. O2026.20 would amend Tempe\u2019s nuisance code to add target certain recurring activities on private property.<\/p>\n
Under the ordinance, a nuisance would be established only if three conditions are met simultaneously:<\/p>\n
A regular or ongoing distribution of food, beverages, goods or other items on private property;<\/p>\n
A demonstrated link between that activity and criminal or public safety issues in the surrounding area;<\/p>\n
A substantial interference with neighboring properties\u2019 use and enjoyment.<\/p>\n
City Attorney Eric Anderson emphasized the narrow scope, noting the language is drawn directly from long-standing Arizona case law.<\/p>\n
\u201cAll of these things would have to be present for there to be a nuisance situation,\u201d Anderson told the council. \u201cWe\u2019ve taken this definition directly out of court cases that have existed for over 40 years.\u201d<\/p>\n
The intent, he said, is not to prohibit any specific activity \u2013 such as food distribution \u2013 but to address situations where otherwise legal activities repeatedly lead to broader public safety or quality-of-life impacts.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
By codifying what courts already recognize as a nuisance, Anderson said, the city gains the ability to act proactively \u2014 rather than waiting for legal challenges.<\/p>\n
A state reality<\/strong><\/p>\n Mayor Corey Woods acknowledged during the discussion that the ordinance is, in part, a response to state law \u2014 which he personally opposed.<\/p>\n \u201cI didn\u2019t think it was actually going to solve the issues that it was trying to address,\u201d Woods said of Proposition 312, adding that he had concerns it would expose cities to liability.<\/p>\n \u201cBut at the end of the day, it passed overwhelmingly,\u201d he said. \u201cSo we now kind of find ourselves in this situation.\u201d<\/p>\n Woods framed the ordinance as a practical response to that reality \u2013 a way to ensure the city can address ongoing problems tied to repeated activities, not isolated incidents.<\/p>\n Using a hypothetical example, he said a one-time gathering or event would not trigger enforcement.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s only\u2026 if I\u2019m doing something on a consistent basis and it\u2019s causing problems,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n (YouTube)<\/p>\n Council members also noted the ordinance could help address chronic issues tied to short-term rentals and \u201cparty houses,\u201d where repeated disturbances affect surrounding neighborhoods.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n He also said that unlike the ordinance, the proposition says, \u201cReimbursements 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Emotions run high<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Some of those residents were near tears as they described vagrants approaching youngsters with drugs, defecating in alleys and sleeping on their front lawn.<\/p>\n Speakers who described themselves as devout Christians were also on both sides of the issue.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cI have asked so many times,\u201d one defender of the feeding programs said. \u201cThis is a time where we should be working together, not against each other. This nuisance law is just horrific. It\u2019s just awful. It extends. It\u2019s so vague, and it extends to so many different areas.\u201d<\/p>\n She was followed by a homeowner who said, \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n She continued, \u201cWe\u2019re tired, and we need help, and we\u2019ve been asking for help, and it just hasn\u2019t happened. We just get treated like we\u2019re part of the problem. We\u2019re not. We\u2019re very sympathetic loving people who want people to feel and we want people to be kind to each other. We\u2019re the quiet ones. We\u2019re not yelling and screaming.\u201d<\/p>\n Speakers repeatedly emphasized that their concerns were not rooted in opposition to helping people in need.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have always seen the homeless as part of our Tempe life. They are not invisible to our family,\u201d said longtime resident Susie Sharkey Johnson, whose family has lived in the neighborhood for decades.<\/p>\n \u201cTheir plight is often heartbreaking, and they need help in many ways,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n But Johnson said the scale and frequency of food distribution in recent months \u2014 including daily efforts at one church and additional weekly feedings nearby \u2014 have had unintended consequences.<\/p>\n \u201cWe now need you,\u201d she told council members. \u201cAfter our neighborhood has kindly asked\u2026 to discontinue the Monday through Saturday food distribution, it has continued.\u201d<\/p>\n She framed the issue not as compassion versus enforcement, but as how best to deliver help.<\/p>\n \u201cCare for the homeless\u2026 requires love coupled with wisdom,\u201d Johnson said. \u201cGiving someone a bag of food and removing personal accountability\u2026 is doomed to fail.\u201d<\/p>\n Steve Kisiel, chair of the Daley Park Neighborhood Association, said neighbors have experienced a steady increase in disruptions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe church\u2026 supplies free food regularly to the homeless, which has brought in serious nuisances and crime in our neighborhood,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n He and others cited issues including public drug use, trespassing, car burglaries and safety concerns in public spaces.<\/p>\n He added that the goal is not to eliminate services, but to ensure they are delivered responsibly.<\/p>\n \u201cA good ordinance does not ban compassion,\u201d he said. \u201cIt structures compassion so that the children in the neighborhood and the people being served are safe.\u201d<\/p>\n City officials stressed that the ordinance is not targeted at any single organization or activity, and could apply to a wide range of scenarios \u2014 from commercial operations to short-term rentals \u2014 if they meet the three-part test.<\/p>\n Still, the debate highlighted a deeper tension: how cities manage humanitarian efforts when their impacts are felt unevenly across neighborhoods.<\/p>\n Residents acknowledged the importance of outreach programs and city services already in place, including shelters and coordinated care efforts.<\/p>\n At the same time, many said informal or decentralized efforts \u2014 particularly those operating at high frequency \u2014 can create challenges when not paired with broader support systems.<\/p>\n The council voted unanimously to move the ordinance forward for a second and final public hearing scheduled for May 14.<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0<\/p>\n Nuisance ordinance<\/p>\n When does it apply?<\/strong><\/p>\n A violation would only be found if all three conditions are met:<\/p>\n Ongoing activity: Regular or repeated distribution of food, goods or other items on private property.<\/p>\n Public impact: A demonstrated connection to criminal activity or public safety concerns nearby.<\/p>\n Neighborhood effect: A substantial interference with neighbors\u2019 ability to use and enjoy their property.<\/p>\n What it does NOT do:<\/strong><\/p>\n Does not ban food distribution or charitable activity<\/p>\n Does not apply to one-time events<\/p>\n Requires a pattern of activity, not isolated incidents<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Why the city is proposing it<\/strong><\/p>\n To give Tempe clearer authority to address chronic nuisance situations.<\/p>\n In response to Arizona Proposition 312, which allows property owners to seek tax relief if cities fail to address nuisances.<\/p>\n To align city code with existing state legal standards.<\/p>\n How it would be enforced<\/strong><\/p>\n Evaluated case by case.<\/p>\n Requires evidence linking activity to ongoing impacts.<\/p>\n Could apply to a range of situations, including:<\/p>\n Repeated gatherings tied to crime or disruption.<\/p>\n Problematic short-term rentals.<\/p>\n Other recurring uses affecting nearby residents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A\u00a0proposed Tempe ordinance aimed at addressing recurring nuisances tied to activities on private property drew intense, often emotional…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":779414,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5131],"tags":[5229,5643,1587,50,1589,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-779413","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-phoenix","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-arizona","10":"tag-az","11":"tag-news","12":"tag-phoenix","13":"tag-united-states","14":"tag-united-states-of-america","15":"tag-unitedstates","16":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","17":"tag-us","18":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116532818044680933","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/779413","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=779413"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/779413\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/779414"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=779413"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=779413"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=779413"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/p>\n