By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

PHOENIX — State lawmakers voted Tuesday to require hotels and motels to warn guests if they also provide rooms for the homeless, a measure one foe called “incredibly prejudicial.”

House Bill 2803 spells out there will have to be signs, printed in red, over each entrance and exit on the building, spelling out not only that the facility provides rooms to the homeless but also a recommendation that guests “keep hotel doors locked, safely store their belongings and report any health or safety concerns to local law enforcement.”

There would be a similar notice on any website that accepts bookings as well as guests being advised before they check in. And if they object, they are entitled to a full refund.

Sen. Mitzi Epstein said she finds the bill offensive.

“It assumes that people, just because they don’t have a place to sleep, just because they don’t have a home, that they are criminals,” the Tempe Democrat said. “And we as a country are really tired of our elected officials assuming somebody is a criminal because they are something else.”

But Sen. John Kavanagh cited data showing 38% of those who are homeless abuse alcohol and 26% use other drugs. The Fountain Hills Republican said even the National Association to End Homelessness finds that more than 18% of those who are unhoused have a serious mental illness.

Epstein called what’s in the legislation “dehumanizing.”

“I find that it obviously doesn’t speak well of them,” Kavanagh acknowledged of his comments.

“But it speaks the truth,” he said. “I think we need to be concerned about ordinary people, many with families, finding themselves in potential situations where they are surrounded by people who abuse drugs and, more dangerously, are seriously mentally ill.”

That sentiment was echoed by Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp.

“It allows for our citizens to be informed,” said the Surprise Republican. “There should be nothing wrong with that.”

What’s missing, according to some opponents of the legislation, is perspective of why some organizations — and some cities — have sometimes used hotels to provide housing.

Democratic Sen. Lauren Kuby, who used to be on the Tempe City Council, said her community often would put up the homeless in hotels as a last resort. She said it offered things that often can’t be found in homeless shelters, ranging from facilities that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act to allowing women who are the victims of domestic violence to stay with their children.

Sen. Analise Ortiz accused the Republicans supporting the measure of looking to deal with a symptom through a “cruel response” rather than address the underlying problems.

“It is a policy failure that we have homeless people living on the street, that they are dying in higher and higher numbers as it gets hotter and hotter in the state of Arizona “ said the Phoenix Democrat.

What’s missing, she said, is providing sufficient dollars to organizations that work with the homeless, the failure to put more money into the Housing Trust Fund that helps provide low-income housing, and supporting the Low Income Housing Tax Credit that can assist in acquiring, rehabilitating and construction of rentals for low-income households.

Ortiz also decried the failure of lawmakers and the governor to reach a deal over “starter home” legislation that would override certain local zoning regulations to spur the construction of cheaper houses.

That measure pushed by developers would permit smaller lots. Also gone would be requirements to mandate rear-yard patios and landscaping on individual lots as well as any mandate to have community centers, sports courts, clubhouses and community pools.

The idea is being fought both by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which argues zoning is best left to local governments, and by various neighborhood groups. Then there are side issues, such as whether sales would be restricted to those below a certain income or whether they could be bought up by investors who are not interested in living there.

At this point, legislative action is stalled.

Ortiz said that leaves what is in HB 2803 as the only plan to address the issue.

“We are willing to say ... if your city comes up with a creative solution to have you live in a hotel, we’re putting a big, red sign to let everyone in there know that you are ‘other,’ you are not like us, you are not good enough, you are not worthy of our love, care, compassion, food, shelter, health care,” she said. “Those people are worthy.”

And Rep. Theresa Hatathlie, D-Tuba City, questioned the legislation’s intent that targets hotels willing to provide rooms.

“Are we targeting hotels that are willing to solve the problem?” she asked.
Questions of how to deal with the issue of the homeless aside, Kuby said there’s another legal question. She said forcing property owners to erect the signs are a form of “compelled speech” by the government on private entities, something Kuby said violates the First Amendment.

The discussion of the seriously mentally ill also led Kavanagh to suggest they wouldn’t be among the homeless if they were placed in institutions.

“I would go back to what some people consider the harsh 1950s where, rather than living in tents on the street and eating garbage from litter cans, these people were in institutions,” he said.

All that came to an end when a judge ruled the state was not living up to the requirements in the law to provide adequate mental health services — and in the least restrictive environment — and was simply warehousing people. 

What came out of that was an agreement for the state to further expand mental health services so those with serious mental illness can live independent and productive lives in the community.

Kavanagh conceded these were “obviously not the greatest institutions.”
“But I think decent institutions for the seriously mentally ill would solve a lot of this problem,” he said.

Tuesday’s 17-11 party line vote in the Senate comes a month after it gained House approval by a 31-26 margin, also with only Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. It now goes to the governor.