Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council enacts median safety restriction tied to Prop 3-12; wash camping ordinance fails after debate over capacity and displacement
Summary
Council adopted a median‑safety ordinance after city staff and first responders said medians present documented pedestrian hazards, but a proposed ordinance to ban camping in washes failed 3–3 after several members said the city lacks enough shelter or transitional alternatives to avoid displacing people into other neighborhoods.
The mayor and council considered a package of local ordinance changes presented in response to Arizona voters’ passage of Proposition 3‑12. The proposition allows private property owners to seek reimbursement of primary property taxes if they can show a jurisdiction failed to enforce certain laws allegedly impacting their property. City attorneys said that created a narrow legal imperative to clarify local regulations so they are enforceable when warranted.
Median ordinance: After a staff presentation and public safety briefings, council adopted an ordinance (Ord. 12,149) that prohibits occupying a traffic median “for any purpose other than the lawful crossing of a street” where posted speeds are 30 mph or greater. City planners and first responders said medians are engineered to separate traffic, can be narrow, and often contain rock, gravel or landscape materials that create hazards. Police and fire chiefs told council a meaningful share of pedestrian injuries occur at or adjacent to medians and argued the ordinance gives enforcement discretion for safety risks. The median ordinance passed and will be applied to the identified higher‑speed medians; staff noted it does not apply to sidewalks or other non‑median public space where protected expressive activity can continue.
Wash and park camping ordinances: Council then considered a proposed ordinance (Ord. 12,150) to prohibit camping in washes and a related amendment to park camping rules (Ord. 12,151) that would align the definitions of camping. The wash ordinance was presented by city attorneys as a way to create a more direct local enforcement mechanism for camping in floodplain washes—places that can present acute life‑safety hazards during monsoons and flooding and where enforcement using pre‑existing state laws created procedural complexity. During the public hearing council heard extensive neighborhood testimony concerning displacement risk, flood hazards, and past flood events; advocates and some council members urged alternatives such as designated transitional camping areas, more shelter capacity and better coordination with county behavioral health.
After extended debate council voted 3–3 on the wash ordinance and the motion failed. Several council members who voted against the wash prohibition said their opposition was rooted in the lack of adequate shelter and housing alternatives and the risk that enforcement without capacity would merely displace people to alleys, parks or other neighborhoods. Council also did not take up a companion parks ordinance at this meeting after discussion indicated the park definition changes were linked to the wash prohibition.
Ending: The median prohibition is now enacted and staff will publish its enforcement guidance; the wash camping ordinance failed and council asked staff to continue work on coordinated approaches that pair enforcement with housing and services to avoid displacement without rehousing.
