Prop 312: An Ill-Fated Attempt to Tackle Homelessness and Crime

This November, Arizonans will vote on Proposition 312, a proposal designed to offer property tax refunds to owners dealing with public issues such as homelessness, vandalism, and drug use. However, critics argue that it merely serves as a temporary fix, failing to address the root causes of these widespread issues. Instead of resolution, Prop 312 threatens to impose additional financial burdens on local governments.

Arizona faces a significant homelessness crisis, worsened by rising housing costs and an increase in evictions, mental health issues, and addiction. Proposition 312 does not provide mechanisms to tackle these underlying challenges. It merely allows property owners to recoup cleanup expenses post-factum while the systemic issues remain unaddressed.

Since 2017, homelessness in Phoenix has nearly doubled, coinciding with a troubling rise in drug overdoses. Prop 312 is unlikely to alleviate these hardships. Without comprehensive strategies targeting the roots of homelessness and addiction, communities will continue to experience mounting challenges, inevitably leading to increased costs across the board.

A significant drawback of Prop 312 is its potential strain on city and county budgets. Local governments would need to finance these tax refunds from existing funds, reducing their capacity to invest in essential services such as public safety and health programs. With limited resources, cities like Phoenix already struggle to meet growing community demands.

Additionally, Prop 312 could inadvertently foster a rise in legal disputes. If a property owner’s claim for a refund is rejected, they could resort to suing the city. This scenario threatens to divert precious resources away from essential community functions, focusing instead on legal battles that do little to resolve the broader issues at hand.

Moreover, while Prop 312 may push local governments to prioritize clearing homeless encampments, this strategy fails to confront the underlying problems. The displacement of individuals without adequate access to services merely perpetuates the cycle of homelessness. Cities like Phoenix need to focus on comprehensive solutions such as mental health support, job training, and addiction recovery, rather than reactive measures that neglect essential needs.

Ultimately, Proposition 312 represents a superficial approach to a complex crisis. Instead of implementing quick fixes, Arizona should commit to long-term solutions that prevent issues before they arise. Support for local governments in providing access to necessary services could enhance the community’s overall wellbeing and reduce the number of individuals experiencing homelessness.

Nicole Newhouse, executive director of the Arizona Housing Coalition, emphasizes that the focus should be on creating effective strategies rather than simply managing the fallout of ongoing crises.