Arizona State Rep. Ben Toma raised questions about the legality of the City of Tucson’s “source of income” ordinance, and on Thursday, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office determined that it violates state law.
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office (AGO) finding was prompted by a 1487 complaint submitted by Toma in November.
The AGO officially notified the City of Tucson that the ordinance must be rescinded.
“I appreciate Attorney General Brnovich’s attention on this matter. We are all bound by the laws of this state and the Constitution. If we hold this expectation for our citizens, then we should do the same for the government. It’s really that simple,” said Toma. “Private citizens should never be forced by the government to do its bidding. Growing up in a communist-controlled country, where this was the norm, I know the terrible effects of these types of conscriptions all too well.”
“Private property is a fundamental right in this country, yet I continue to see government actors slowly chip away at it,” continued Toma. “This decision by our Attorney General represents an important check on these perverse government takings.”
“If Tucson truly cares about access to housing, then it needs to look inward and remove the barriers that have caused its housing shortage,” argued Toma. “Unfortunately, years of falling prey to no-growth NIMBYs has put the city in the position of not having enough housing for its citizens. Build more housing. That’s the only answer here.”
The ordinance makes it unlawful for a landlord or property manager to deny an application just because of how an applicant makes their money. The AGO’s “S.B. 1487” investigation determined Tucson’s ordinance defines “source of income” broadly as “wages, salaries, child support, spousal support, foster care subsidies, rental assistance, security deposit or downpayment assistance, income derived from social security or disability insurance, veterans’ benefits, or any other form of governmental assistance, benefit, or subsidy.”
In 1992, the Arizona legislature passed A.R.S. § 9-500.09, giving certain large cities and towns the power to enact local fair housing ordinances. However, that statute and several others said local fair housing ordinances had to be passed “no later than January 1, 1995.” The AGO determined that Tucson’s ordinance passed 27 years after January 1, 1995, thereby violating the deadline.
Tucson has 30 days to repeal the Ordinance. If the City does not repeal the Ordinance, A.R.S. 41-194.01 requires the State Treasurer to withhold state shared monies.