Arizona voters fed up with homeless encampments, illegal drug use and public urination have approved a first-in-the-nation ballot measure to reimburse property owners for public nuisance damages — and the measure’s supporters say they seek to boost effort in other states.

The ballot measure, Proposition 312, passed with overwhelming support – 58.4 percent to 41.6 percent, with 68 percent of the votes counted so far. It would allow property owners to seek a property tax refund if a city or local government fails to enforce ordinances related to “illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public streets, panhandling, urinating or defecating in public, public consumption of alcoholic beverages and possession or use of illegal substances.”

The reform effort, first developed by a public policy think-tank called the Goldwater Institute, could be used as a model in the future in other states where business owners and residents are frustrated by the deterioration of their properties from homeless encampments and consumption opened by drugs.

“The Homeless Problem. It’s not just in Arizona, it’s out of control in California and Washington, even Texas,” Goldwater Institute director of government affairs Jenna Bentley told the Sun. She says that while this proposal was drafted as an “Arizona solution to an Arizona problem,” the institute is looking to help other states pass similar efforts. “We’re working nationally, not just in Arizona, and when we have good ideas that work, that are supported by voters, yes, I think you can certainly expect Goldwater to look to help other states implement good reforms like this. .”

Because Arizona’s ballot measure passed with “overwhelming support” in a “purple state” with a Democratic governor, Ms. Bentley says it “shows that measures like this really have bipartisan support.”

As the country faces record number of homeless people, the topic has been a major one nationally, even reaching the Supreme Court earlier this year, as justices ruled that cities can impose public camping bans even if there are no available beds to offer.

Health has become a major issue in Phoenix as the city has been embroiled in a months-long legal dispute over a sprawling downtown homeless encampment called ” Area,” with over 1,000 homeless people living there at any given time. A court ordered the city to release her last year, but homelessness has remained a major problem in the city and the state at large.

The overwhelming passage of Proposition 312 “shows that Arizona taxpayers are fed up with the city’s inaction,” Ms. Bentley says. “I think the problem of homelessness is something that, it’s not just in our urban areas. It is spreading to some of our more rural districts.”

To be eligible for a refund under the measure, a property owner would have to submit documented mitigation costs to the state Department of Revenue. Refunds will be limited to the amount paid by the owner in property taxes in the previous tax year.

A couple supporting the measure, Joe and Debbie Faillace, owned a sandwich shop near “The Zone” in downtown Phoenix, but felt they had to sell it because of the homelessness crisis.

“We had no idea what to expect when we drove to work every morning,” the couple told Goldwater. They would come to find their store “broken into and vandalized, people passed out or overdosed on our patio, urine and feces strewn across the parking lot and our driveway.” The two said they hope the new ballot measure prevents similar situations, but that if it does, “the government will have to compensate small businesses like ours for not protecting our rights.”

Groups opposing the ballot measure, such as the Arizona Housing Coalition, warned that it would squeeze local budgets and mean less money available for public safety services.

“Cities like Phoenix are already stretched thin trying to manage the growing needs of their communities,” the group said in a statement. “Instead of focusing on ways to prevent homelessness and improve public safety, Proposition 312 would force them to spend money on refunds, eliminating efforts that could reduce the need for these cleanups in the first place.”

This suggestion is “categorically false”, says Ms Bentley in response. The state now pours in an “astronomical” amount of money for homelessness, she says, and property tax refunds would come from a “completely separate pot” of funding.

The Institute of Common Sense appraisal that statewide spending on homeless services is about $933 million to $1.1 billion annually for the roughly 14,000 homeless people living in the state.

“This means that Arizona, through various government and nonprofit providers, spends between 88 percent and 284 percent of the median annual rent for a house or apartment in the Greater Phoenix area for each homeless person,” the institute notes. “Despite this substantial financial commitment, the homeless population has not only failed to decrease over the past decade, but has actually increased in size.”

Homelessness services have become a “growth industry,” with 167 nonprofit and public groups working directly to address homelessness, the institute notes, and there are as many as 51,000 staff and volunteers dedicated to addressing homelessness — exceeding by far the homeless.

“I think there are a lot of questions that should be raised,” Ms Bentley says. “Cities have massive amounts of money, they have huge budgets to deal with this problem, and we’re not really seeing a big return on investment.”