Proposition 312: Should cities should reimburse Arizona property owners for homelessness crisis?
Arizona residents who rack up expenses from mitigating the effects of homelessness on their private property could apply for reimbursements from their city or county if voters approve state Proposition 312 this November.
The ballot measure allows residents, beginning in 2025, to apply for annual property tax refunds when municipalities maintain a public nuisance on the resident's property or when municipalities fail to enforce laws against homeless encampments, loitering, panhandling, public urination or defecation, or public substance use or alcohol consumption.
Municipalities that fail to respond to the requests within 30 days would be automatically required to pay the resident, but the amount could not exceed what the resident paid in property taxes to the entity the prior year.
Supporters say the measure is intended to encourage cities to more proactively maintain public health and safety and refund residents who've suffered from government inaction.
But opponents argue it leaves less money for cities to address homelessness, which will exacerbate the issue, and creates a tax giveaway for wealthy business owners.
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 costs they incurred trying to mitigate the effects of homelessness to their property. Specifically, it says, "to mitigate the effects of the policy, pattern or practice or the public nuisance on the property."
The resident would apply to the Arizona Department of Revenue, and that agency would forward the request to the relevant city, town or county — it would go to counties when residents live on unincorporated land. The municipality would accept or reject the request. If the request is rejected, the resident would need to file legal action to challenge the decision. A judge would decide the outcome.
The ballot measure does not prescribe municipalities' criteria for accepting or rejecting requests. It also does not outline what qualifies for reimbursement, leaving the door open to a wide range of refund requests. Supporters of the measure have mentioned property devaluation, security systems and fence installation to guard the property.
The proposition puts the burden on the municipality to prove "its actions are lawful" and bans a city, town or county from seeking attorney's fees or costs from the resident. Residents, however, would be allowed to seek attorney's fees and costs from the municipality.
A resident could not be reimbursed more than what they paid in primary property taxes the prior year and would be required to show documented expenses. If the expense exceeded what they paid in primary property taxes, then the resident could re-apply for the remaining reimbursement the next tax year.
What do supporters of Proposition 312 say?
Supporters of Proposition 312 say homelessness will continue to be a problem across the state and that the measure is needed 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 encampment that saw a thousand individuals in tents at its height. City officials allowed the encampment to linger until property owners sued, and a judge ordered Phoenix to clean it up.
The site was and remains clear, but "there was nothing that could compensate us for the loss in property value nor the mitigation expenses our small business endured. All the while, we paid taxes for public health and safety services we did not receive," wrote Debbie and Joe Faillace in the state's election publicity pamphlet .
The Faillaces used to own 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 over the encampment in 2022 .
Phoenix officials 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. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling , however, 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 repairs to property, replacement costs of stolen goods and higher costs of goods and services. These expenses also include costs to upgrade surveillance systems, fencing and even hiring private security."
Supporters of Proposition 312 include elected leaders, conservative groups like the Goldwater Institute and Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the Arizona Restaurant Association, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, small business owners and residents.
What do opponents of Proposition 312 say?
Opponents say Proposition 312 would unfairly punish cities, reduce revenue needed to address homelessness, criminalize unhoused people, and exacerbate the cycle of poverty. It would also be a tax giveaway for wealthy business owners, including out-of-state equity firms that helped create the housing crisis, they say.
Opponents claim Proposition 312 would hurt the very effort it's purporting to help.
"Proposition 312 reduces the tax revenue that towns, cities, and counties may 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 court fees and administrative costs – expenses that would likely result in cuts to basic services many Arizonans depend on," wrote Scott Greenwood, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
They also claim it would encourage cities to crack down on homelessness through policing and arrests, which could lead to officers violating the constitutional rights of unhoused people and further entrench the unhoused individuals into poverty.
"Targeting them with police eliminates a homeless individual's paths to stability, health, gainful employment, and housing opportunities. Criminalization reduces their chances of ever escaping the cycle of homelessness," Fuerte Arts Movement Deputy Director Dominique Medina wrote.
Some also say the measure punishes cities unfairly because cities have had to juggle multiple contradicting legal orders that have made it difficult to address encampments.
"Ever heard the saying, 'the beatings will continue until morale improves?' Why would we try to force cities to do something they can't do, 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 or by phone at 480-476-6116.
