If the main concern related to 312 is minimizing financial liability from unenforced public nuisance ordinances, why create more ordinances? Why not get rid of all related ordinances? Nothing to enforce, nothing to be liable for, right?
Not that I think this would best serve our community. However, it's super annoying that the legislature creates problems for cities, then limits what they can do about those problems.
Rankin is being overly cautious about Prop312, IMO. To be fair, his job is to advise the Council in such a way as to protect the city from any possible legal risks, but that is NOT the Council's job. The Council's job is to protect and aid our residents - housed or unhoused. So far as I'm aware, no municipality, or any other taxing jurisdiction, has yet been assessed a single dollar of damages based on the new law. I would be strongly in favor of thoroughly testing the new statute in the courts -all the way up to the AZSC - before responding to it with any new ordinances that target our most vulnerable and precarious residents. We should not capitulate to the bullies in the state legislature who put this on the ballot expressly to force this sort of choice and risk on Arizona's local jurisdictions. It's always a bad idea to capitulate to tyranny in advance. Fight!
Why aren’t the city and county talking about allowing camping on the numerous vacant public lots sprinkled all over town?? Why are washes and parks even being discussed?
To be fair, they are talking about banning camping in washes and parks. There is no clear law on sleeping in washes and all city park close at night.
In this instance, the city (the county isn't discussing these issues at the moment but will revisit their own ordinances in time) has control over publicly owned land - key word is public - and can be held liable (theoretically until it is challenged in court) for not enforcing what some call public nuisance laws.
On privately owned lots they have to have a complaint from the property owner.
Things get complicated really quick when those properties are owned by out-of-state owners, private corporations (good luck finding a phone number for some LLCs) and if the ownership of the land is in dispute (probate is a great example) it can take weeks to get a response.
Uhlich’s proposal for city parks is in the most nascent of phases. I don't expect a formal discussion at the council level (where they would take action) for several weeks.
I like the Tucson Agenda but was wondering why you have ignored the 3-4 weeks of Saturday Tesla protests in Tucson -- 300 one week, 1000 the next and 2000+ last Saturday. Seems newsworthy.
Hi! Pamela. For the record, I've personally been to three of the Tesla protests as a reporter, talking to residents and taking photos. I missed one, but Patty (who contributes to the Agenda) went to that rally.
If the main concern related to 312 is minimizing financial liability from unenforced public nuisance ordinances, why create more ordinances? Why not get rid of all related ordinances? Nothing to enforce, nothing to be liable for, right?
Not that I think this would best serve our community. However, it's super annoying that the legislature creates problems for cities, then limits what they can do about those problems.
Rankin is being overly cautious about Prop312, IMO. To be fair, his job is to advise the Council in such a way as to protect the city from any possible legal risks, but that is NOT the Council's job. The Council's job is to protect and aid our residents - housed or unhoused. So far as I'm aware, no municipality, or any other taxing jurisdiction, has yet been assessed a single dollar of damages based on the new law. I would be strongly in favor of thoroughly testing the new statute in the courts -all the way up to the AZSC - before responding to it with any new ordinances that target our most vulnerable and precarious residents. We should not capitulate to the bullies in the state legislature who put this on the ballot expressly to force this sort of choice and risk on Arizona's local jurisdictions. It's always a bad idea to capitulate to tyranny in advance. Fight!
Why aren’t the city and county talking about allowing camping on the numerous vacant public lots sprinkled all over town?? Why are washes and parks even being discussed?
To be fair, they are talking about banning camping in washes and parks. There is no clear law on sleeping in washes and all city park close at night.
In this instance, the city (the county isn't discussing these issues at the moment but will revisit their own ordinances in time) has control over publicly owned land - key word is public - and can be held liable (theoretically until it is challenged in court) for not enforcing what some call public nuisance laws.
On privately owned lots they have to have a complaint from the property owner.
Things get complicated really quick when those properties are owned by out-of-state owners, private corporations (good luck finding a phone number for some LLCs) and if the ownership of the land is in dispute (probate is a great example) it can take weeks to get a response.
Uhlich’s proposal for city parks is in the most nascent of phases. I don't expect a formal discussion at the council level (where they would take action) for several weeks.
I like the Tucson Agenda but was wondering why you have ignored the 3-4 weeks of Saturday Tesla protests in Tucson -- 300 one week, 1000 the next and 2000+ last Saturday. Seems newsworthy.
Hi! Pamela. For the record, I've personally been to three of the Tesla protests as a reporter, talking to residents and taking photos. I missed one, but Patty (who contributes to the Agenda) went to that rally.
Ok, just found it. March 17th, down at the bottom is a big section on the Tesla protests.
I’m pretty sure they covered it in a segment they called “The People’s Agenda” just a few days ago. I’ll see if so can find it.
I don't subscribe to the sub-Agendas. Thanks.
Hey, Pamela, it's a section in the Tucson Agenda. I'm curious, why don't you subscribe to the sub-Agendas?
It wasn’t in a sub agenda. It was in the regular March 17th agenda under a title called “The People’s Agenda.”