8 July 16th - July 22nd, 2026 phoenixnewtimes.com PHOENIX NEW TIMES | NEWS | FEATURE | FOOD & DRINK | ARTS & CULTURE | MUSIC | CONCERTS | CANNABIS | of Phoenicians, Noble said. Rather, they are representative of the people who care and are motivated to respond. Three-quarters of people responded that their overall experience with city parks was “positive or “somewhat positive.” Eleven percent responded neutral, while 10% said “somewhat negative.” Only 4% of people who responded had “very negative” experiences. The survey also found that 52% of respondents had been deterred from visiting a park because of safety concerns and 38% because of lack of maintenance and cleanli- ness. But that question was flawed as well, Noble said, because it asked all survey takers to answer it. Typically, only those who reported having had a negative experience at the park should be asked a question that elaborates on that experience. Skeptical responses The survey was available online to the public from March 30 to April 27, a week and a half before the Phoenix City Council voted 6-3 to pass the ordinance following a tense, seven- hour-long meeting. Opponents of the ordinance said it would do more harm than good, ultimately straining city resources. Many of their concerns were expressed in response to open-ended questions at the end of the survey, including recommendations for other ways to address trash left behind in parks. “If the intent is to keep parks clean, enforcement should use no littering laws that are currently on the books to address this,” one respondent wrote. “Right now it feels like the drafter of this ordinance is continuing to make parks less useful for the poor and most in need in our communities.” Respondents also expressed the general frustration of opponents of the ordinance with the city’s uncooperative process and what they felt was a disregard for commu- nity input, especially from experts in the field. The ordinance that the council passed in May was a revised version. In December, the council voted on a version that only targeted medical care. After community outrage, mainly from individuals and organizations that provide services, the city delayed imple- menting the ordinance to give itself time to rework it. At first, opponents were hopeful that the city would work with them to find a middle ground. Instead, the city came back with the current version, which added a ban on food distribution. The new version was worse than the old, opponents said. “I heard that the healthcare profes- sionals who know what they are doing offered to collaborate with you to come up with a better solution than we even have now,” one survey respondent wrote. “Did you do that with them? If not, why not?” The ordinance has sparked two lawsuits that are currently working their way through federal court. Both suits — one filed by a religious group and another filed by two nonprofits — make First Amendment arguments against the new restrictions. No rulings have been issued in the second case, but last month, the judge in the first case granted an emergency temporary restraining order to Orthodox Christian group St. Herman’s Table and its founder and minister, Lance Brace. The restraining order prevents the city from enforcing the ordinance against the plaintiffs while the court case pends. In her decision, U.S. District Court Judge Krissa M. Lanham noted that the city could consider “less-restrictive options” such as permits that regulate event size, trash levels or noise. “Phoenix provides no evidence or meaningful argument explaining why a birthday party providing cake to twenty select two-year-olds is any less likely to strain park resources with noise or mess than a religiously-motivated gathering open to twenty members of the public,” Lanham wrote. A survey respondent who wrote that they’d lived in the city for over a decade and had visited most of its parks raised nearly the same point. “I have seen more trash and disruption in parks from children’s birthday parties than I ever have from organizations providing medical care or food to the unhoused,” the person wrote. “This ordi- nance will put Phoenix on the map on the national stage as a place that punishes Phoenicians for caring about other people’s wellbeing. I cannot express how strongly I oppose this ordinance.” Under the Rug from p 7 (City of Phoenix survey) Very Positive - 887 (40.3%) Somewhat Positive - 739 (33.58%) Neutral - 256 (11.63%) Somewhat Negative - 229 (10.4%) Very Negative - 90 (4.09%) |
