Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter challenges Tempe City Code 2390, cites Proposition 312 vote
Summary
A member of the public used the meeting's public-comment slot to challenge Tempe City Code 2390 (urban camping restrictions) and to cite voter opposition to Proposition 312; the board declined to answer because the comment did not match the night’s agenda scope.
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chloe Kansas, identified herself as an ASU student and childcare worker and used the meeting’s public-comment period to urge reconsideration of Tempe City Code 2390, saying the code criminalizes homelessness and harms “our most vulnerable members of our community.”
Kansas told the board that Proposition 312, which she said activated enforcement of that code, was rejected by 55% of Tempe voters and asked why the city continues to keep the law on the books. The mayor asked whether the board could respond; the city attorney said the housing authority public-comment period was limited to items on that meeting’s agenda and the board could not address a non-agenda topic at that time.
Kansas also provided figures during her three-minute comment alleging roughly 200 people experiencing homelessness in Tempe and estimating jail costs if people are arrested for urban camping, including a stated intake cost of $642 and a nightly cost of $137. She said those figures would amount to an estimated $25,100 per person if jailed for six months. The board did not provide policy responses during the Housing Authority meeting.
Why it matters: The public comment raised concerns about local enforcement of camping restrictions and referenced a recent local ballot measure. The board’s procedural limit on responses left the concerns on the record but not addressed in the meeting’s agenda items.
Kansas’s remarks are recorded in the public-comment portion of the Housing Authority meeting; no action or response was taken by the board on the code or on Proposition 312 at this session.

