Key Points:

• A measure to require hotels to post signs if they host homeless guests passed the Senate

• Opponents of the measure say it is dehumanizing to label homeless people as such

• Supporters say it warns families of proximity to people more likely to be mentally ill or using drugs

State lawmakers voted on May 6 to require hotels and motels to warn guests if they provide rooms for the homeless, a measure one foe called “incredibly prejudicial.”

House Bill 2803 spells out that 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.”

Guests would also be notified upon check in and a similar notice would be posted on any website that accepts bookings. If those guests object, they would be 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 that 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.”

“(The data) obviously doesn’t speak well of them,” Kavanagh acknowledged. “But it speaks the truth … 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.”

Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp echoed that sentiment.

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

But what’s missing, according to some opponents of the legislation, is a perspective on why some organizations — and some cities — have been using 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 who support 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, are sufficient dollars for organizations that work with the homeless, a well equipped Housing Trust Fund that helps provide low income housing, and support for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit that can assist in acquiring, refurbishing and constructing rentals for low-income households.

Ortiz also decried the failure of lawmakers and the governor to reach a deal over 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 by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which argues that zoning is best left to local governments, and various neighborhood groups. And then there are side issues, like 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 the legislative action for that measure is stalled.

Ortiz said that HB2803 is the only plan left 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.”

Rep. Theresa Hatathlie, D-Tuba City, questioned the intent of legislation targeting hotels willing to provide rooms.

“Are we targeting hotels that are willing to solve the problem?” she asked.

Homelessness aside, Kuby said there’s another legal question.

She said that forcing property owners to erect the signs is 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 that 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 that 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 expand mental health services further so that 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, with only Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. 

The measure now goes to the governor.