Tempe sidewalk sitting ban proposal discussion once again (Phoenix, Tucson: 2014, lawyers)

[stevek64]

Sidewalk-sitting could be banned in Tempe, again - ABC15 Arizona

Sounds like this ban was in place as law for some time in the past in Tempe, then they lifted the ban, now considering reinstating it again. We haven't been on Mill Ave in the past few years but did notice at the time there were quite a few homeless hanging about sitting on the ground panhandling so from a businesses perspective, I can see where they are coming from as it can potentially chase out some business. And people just not wanting to be hassled on a night out.

What do you think about it? Something that should be put into law? Lawsuit potential with someone complaining their "rights" are being infringed upon? Sounds almost like shades of panhandlers on medians around the metro but perhaps there is another element of legality involved here that I'm missing.

[TempeAZnative]

It's not just Mill Ave there seems to be an increase of tweekers panhandling all over the Valley. It seems every corner, entrance to grocery store, freeway entrance and exit. It seems there was a memo that went out that hey you can make more money begging then actually being productive in life. I never give them anything and if they approach me I tell them to f-off, but I can see where other are intimidated and give them money. Something should be done about it in general.

[Ponderosa]

Sidewalks are Arizona's mental health facilities. They have nowhere else to go. If Tempe harasses them, they move to Mesa?

[BIG CATS]

Good. Seems most of them want to do nothing to improve themselves. Ive seen the same bum for nearly 3 years on the same corner, morning and night. If they dont want to be productive members of society, then we need to remove them from areas where people are trying to conduct business and make a living.

[jaredC]

I've gone into the Burton Barr library recently. Drunk homeless people spread out in all areas around the entrances and sidewalks leading to the library. I get tired of the panhandlers.



Like another poster had said, our sidewalks are our mental health facilities now. This, I believe, is true.

[JGMotorsport64]

Vagrancy laws are almost universally overturned in court. This is no exemption. It targets people as a status instead of a crime.

In Tucson they banned homeless from camping in downtown parks, so what did they do? They built wooden protest boxes and slept on the sidewalks in the middle of downtown. It smelled like human waste outside for a month. The solution? Tucson allocated a tract of empty desert land adjacent and made a tent city out of it and let them go back to the park.


Downtown receives 6 new homeless pods, despite recent battle for - KVOA | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona

I guess there is a difference, the homeless are more organized down there. It is noteworthy that as a state we are still actively closing homeless shelters. Maricopa County had a significant funding shortfall to keep its current overflow shelters open.

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

Vagrancy laws are almost universally overturned in court. This is no exemption. It targets people as a status instead of a crime.

In Tucson they banned homeless from camping in downtown parks, so what did they do? They built wooden protest boxes and slept on the sidewalks in the middle of downtown. It smelled like human waste outside for a month. The solution? Tucson allocated a tract of empty desert land adjacent and made a tent city out of it and let them go back to the park.


Downtown receives 6 new homeless pods, despite recent battle for - KVOA | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona

I guess there is a difference, the homeless are more organized down there. It is noteworthy that as a state we are still actively closing homeless shelters. Maricopa County had a significant funding shortfall to keep its current overflow shelters open.

I was wondering about the legal aspect of it. It appears Tempe lifted the ban in 2014 but created the sidewalk sitting ordinance in some form sometime back in 1999 if I'm understanding the wording of the article correctly.

Tempe code clears the sidewalks, stirs outcry

Sounds like careful wording is the reason it lasted so long without being challenged legally:

"Mitchell and other council members who supported the measure said it was not aimed at people who are homeless. It was a public-safety measure meant to clear alleys and other public rights of way and had support from the downtown Tempe business community that has been frustrated with loitering in front of stores, Mitchell said."

"In this case, I think we've got a law that's written clearly enough for the (police) officer who reads it and does it and applies it, as it's written. It means Warren Buffett is as likely to get a citation as some guy with dreadlocks, because the issue isn't who you are but what you're doing now," Granville said. "That's why I think it is a far better rule than we had before."

Also interesting the article mentions Phoenix, Mesa, and Gilbert have a similiar ordinance.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by stevek64

I was wondering about the legal aspect of it. It appears Tempe lifted the ban in 2014 but created the sidewalk sitting ordinance in some form sometime back in 1999 if I'm understanding the wording of the article correctly.

Tempe code clears the sidewalks, stirs outcry

Sounds like careful wording is the reason it lasted so long without being challenged legally:

"Mitchell and other council members who supported the measure said it was not aimed at people who are homeless. It was a public-safety measure meant to clear alleys and other public rights of way and had support from the downtown Tempe business community that has been frustrated with loitering in front of stores, Mitchell said."

"In this case, I think we've got a law that's written clearly enough for the (police) officer who reads it and does it and applies it, as it's written. It means Warren Buffett is as likely to get a citation as some guy with dreadlocks, because the issue isn't who you are but what you're doing now," Granville said. "That's why I think it is a far better rule than we had before."

Also interesting the article mentions Phoenix, Mesa, and Gilbert have a similiar ordinance.

The ordinance that Phoenix, Mesa and Gilbert are more narrow than Tempes proposal. First three seem to narrow it down to where a persons loitering is blocking some public thoroughfare, but those not in the way would be out of reach by it.

The act of merely sitting out of the way isn't a problem in the other cities. I'd also contend (although without knowledge of the issue directly) that they have escaped legal challenge because most homeless people don't have lawyers on retainer. However, careful wording could escape a lot of this I'd have to see the actual proposal being pushed.

I'd also contend that that is why the first three escape challenges, obstruction of right of way for pedestrians making impediment a crime. Whereas merely sitting out of the way could be construed as a status and has in the past, it also discriminates against a group more than others.

I do agree that Tempe should do something, careful drafting could make me completely wrong. But I think that with organization certain elements might create some problems for Tempe, namely the fine.

[stevek64]

The sitting ban has passed:

Tempe City Council Bans Sidewalk Sitting In Downtown Business District | KJZZ

Doesn't seem to prevent people standing/panhandling though so will it really make much of a difference?

[Colt AZ]

Originally Posted by stevek64

The sitting ban has passed:

Tempe City Council Bans Sidewalk Sitting In Downtown Business District | KJZZ

Doesn't seem to prevent people standing/panhandling though so will it really make much of a difference?

Probably not.

There will always be those who lurk, loiter and linger longer than most others for whatever reasons.