I strongly oppose this ordinance as it does not align with evidence-based harm reduction practices and will result in increased deaths among our most vulnerable populations.
I agree with supporting individuals who need healthcare. I also agree we need to consider alternative locations that may minimize negative side effects. This could be providing healthcare in a more controlled environment, working with local shelters/services. I have observed a medical grade box full of used needles that was left behind from an event, less than 30 feet from children's playground equipment. Medical care should be left to licensed trained professionals in a more suitable location.
I am opposed to this ordinance based on its restriction of life-saving, evidence-based services. Outreach in public spaces often connects unsheltered residents to medical care and harm reduction—services explicitly meant to prevent injury, disease, and death. Prohibiting these activities risks worsening public health outcomes, increasing overdoses, and severing trust with vulnerable populations who rely on parks and other public spaces as their only point of access to care.
"WHO’s goal to eliminate Hepatitis B & C by 2030 requires reaching vulnerable groups—Unhoused, LGBTQIA+, and others—who avoid clinics due to stigma. Restricting outreach in public spaces undermines health equity. Treating people where they feel safe builds trust and saves lives. We urge collaboration among medical teams, city council, and community members to protect public health while respecting shared spaces."
As an Indigenous social worker, I strongly oppose this ordinance. The treatment options people can receive for medical, and behavioral health services will be less than what is currently available. People deserve access to healthcare with dignity and safety. Harm reduction is essential healthcare that provides vital services to our unsheltered neighbors. Criminalizing outreach workers and the people existing and surviving in public spaces is wrong. Decolonize this ordinance, do not pass!
Vote no. Banning the free exchange of information and materials relating to harm reduction practices without city approval will put lives at risk, and lead to worse outcomes for at risk populations. Harm reduction is lifesaving care, harm reduction is community care, and it should not be made harder to access for the average person. Especially not for people so often let down by the established medical system. This ordinance benefits nobody.
I oppose this Ordinance. We all benefit when community members have access to healthcare. Restricting access doesn't solve the problem - let's create opportunities for easy access to treatment, wound care, general health checkups, etc. We've got amazing healthcare partners in the FQHC system and hospital network. Let's use them to figure this out - making care illegal fixes nothing.
I am hard pressed to determine who this actually helps-at a time when any social programs funded by our tax money are being slashed, now we want to make it illegal for ANYONE to help anybody in a public space? How does this benefit the community? Strongly OPPOSE
It's concerning that this ordinance places restrictions on the types of common-sense activities we might want to hold in our parks and our freedom to use the parks that we pay for. It's concerning that our city pushes ordinances that place restrictions on activities that are at the core of the human experience: sharing food, knowledge, care, and empathy. It's clear that this is a short-term "feel good" solution that will have long term harms.
This ordinance bans lifesaving care and harm reduction in public spaces. It blocks medical outreach, syringe exchange, and state-authorized programs that prevent overdose, disease, and death. Criminalizing health services undermines public health, contradicts existing city and state efforts, and puts vulnerable residents at greater risk. --sincerely a district 6 resident that wants evidence-based solutions and not inhibiting efforts for community care
Efforts to limit or eliminate these services run counter to decades of public-health research, global best practices, and the lived realities of vulnerable populations. Proposals that eliminate access to these services do not eliminate need and prevalence of health disparities, they simply increase the harm associated with it. Removing tools that mitigate these harms will only deepen these crises and increase costs for taxpayers. For these reasonings, I strongly oppose this ordinance.
I oppose Ordinance G-7467. It is preempted by state law. A.R.S. § 36-798.51 expressly authorizes naloxone and harm reduction supply distribution and grants immunity for that conduct. Phoenix lacks authority to criminalize what the Legislature has allowed. This ordinance will suppress lawful park events, worsen public health, and expose the City to litigation
As a medical provider committed to our oath and public health, I urge you to oppose the ordinance restricting harm-reduction outreach in public spaces. Such limits conflict with ethical duties and evidence showing these services save lives and build trust with vulnerable populations. True community safety means accessible care beyond clinic walls. Please vote NO and support compassionate, evidence-based outreach.
Even as revised (replacing “medical care and treatment” with “medical treatment”), this ordinance would still undermine Phoenix street-medicine programs serving unhoused residents. Core services like wound care, vaccinations, screening, diabetic foot care, and vision care would likely be prohibited, as well as harm reduction work. I remain opposed. Please consider the action items for amendment as listed in this letter of opposition that currently has 432+ signatures: https://c.org/cGxzFw8kYd
As a healthcare and community outreach professional, I oppose this ordinance. In practice, these services are often the first and sometimes only points of contact for individuals experiencing homelessness, substance use disorders, mental health crises, or barriers to traditional healthcare settings. Protecting public health requires enabling, not limiting responsible, compassionate medical and outreach services where they are most needed.
I strongly oppose this ordinance as it does not align with evidence-based harm reduction practices and will result in increased deaths among our most vulnerable populations.
I agree with supporting individuals who need healthcare. I also agree we need to consider alternative locations that may minimize negative side effects. This could be providing healthcare in a more controlled environment, working with local shelters/services. I have observed a medical grade box full of used needles that was left behind from an event, less than 30 feet from children's playground equipment. Medical care should be left to licensed trained professionals in a more suitable location.
I greatly oppose this ordinance and the restriction of community-provided care. It will result in death in vulnerable populations.
I strongly oppose this ordinance as it only hurts vulnerable communities. It’s inhumane to criminalize the only access to care for some individuals.
I oppose this ordinance and strongly believe in access to healthcare for all. I believe this ordinance would take away resources from our communities.
I am opposed to this ordinance based on its restriction of life-saving, evidence-based services. Outreach in public spaces often connects unsheltered residents to medical care and harm reduction—services explicitly meant to prevent injury, disease, and death. Prohibiting these activities risks worsening public health outcomes, increasing overdoses, and severing trust with vulnerable populations who rely on parks and other public spaces as their only point of access to care.
"WHO’s goal to eliminate Hepatitis B & C by 2030 requires reaching vulnerable groups—Unhoused, LGBTQIA+, and others—who avoid clinics due to stigma. Restricting outreach in public spaces undermines health equity. Treating people where they feel safe builds trust and saves lives. We urge collaboration among medical teams, city council, and community members to protect public health while respecting shared spaces."
As an Indigenous social worker, I strongly oppose this ordinance. The treatment options people can receive for medical, and behavioral health services will be less than what is currently available. People deserve access to healthcare with dignity and safety. Harm reduction is essential healthcare that provides vital services to our unsheltered neighbors. Criminalizing outreach workers and the people existing and surviving in public spaces is wrong. Decolonize this ordinance, do not pass!
I strongly oppose this ordinance that harms our communities and criminalizes evidence-based medical services and other acts of basic human kindness.
Vote no. Banning the free exchange of information and materials relating to harm reduction practices without city approval will put lives at risk, and lead to worse outcomes for at risk populations. Harm reduction is lifesaving care, harm reduction is community care, and it should not be made harder to access for the average person. Especially not for people so often let down by the established medical system. This ordinance benefits nobody.
I oppose this Ordinance. We all benefit when community members have access to healthcare. Restricting access doesn't solve the problem - let's create opportunities for easy access to treatment, wound care, general health checkups, etc. We've got amazing healthcare partners in the FQHC system and hospital network. Let's use them to figure this out - making care illegal fixes nothing.
I am hard pressed to determine who this actually helps-at a time when any social programs funded by our tax money are being slashed, now we want to make it illegal for ANYONE to help anybody in a public space? How does this benefit the community? Strongly OPPOSE
This doesn't benefit anyone and just hurts an already vulnerable population.
It's concerning that this ordinance places restrictions on the types of common-sense activities we might want to hold in our parks and our freedom to use the parks that we pay for. It's concerning that our city pushes ordinances that place restrictions on activities that are at the core of the human experience: sharing food, knowledge, care, and empathy. It's clear that this is a short-term "feel good" solution that will have long term harms.
This ordinance bans lifesaving care and harm reduction in public spaces. It blocks medical outreach, syringe exchange, and state-authorized programs that prevent overdose, disease, and death. Criminalizing health services undermines public health, contradicts existing city and state efforts, and puts vulnerable residents at greater risk. --sincerely a district 6 resident that wants evidence-based solutions and not inhibiting efforts for community care
Efforts to limit or eliminate these services run counter to decades of public-health research, global best practices, and the lived realities of vulnerable populations. Proposals that eliminate access to these services do not eliminate need and prevalence of health disparities, they simply increase the harm associated with it. Removing tools that mitigate these harms will only deepen these crises and increase costs for taxpayers. For these reasonings, I strongly oppose this ordinance.
I oppose Ordinance G-7467. It is preempted by state law. A.R.S. § 36-798.51 expressly authorizes naloxone and harm reduction supply distribution and grants immunity for that conduct. Phoenix lacks authority to criminalize what the Legislature has allowed. This ordinance will suppress lawful park events, worsen public health, and expose the City to litigation
As a medical provider committed to our oath and public health, I urge you to oppose the ordinance restricting harm-reduction outreach in public spaces. Such limits conflict with ethical duties and evidence showing these services save lives and build trust with vulnerable populations. True community safety means accessible care beyond clinic walls. Please vote NO and support compassionate, evidence-based outreach.
Even as revised (replacing “medical care and treatment” with “medical treatment”), this ordinance would still undermine Phoenix street-medicine programs serving unhoused residents. Core services like wound care, vaccinations, screening, diabetic foot care, and vision care would likely be prohibited, as well as harm reduction work. I remain opposed. Please consider the action items for amendment as listed in this letter of opposition that currently has 432+ signatures: https://c.org/cGxzFw8kYd
As a healthcare and community outreach professional, I oppose this ordinance. In practice, these services are often the first and sometimes only points of contact for individuals experiencing homelessness, substance use disorders, mental health crises, or barriers to traditional healthcare settings. Protecting public health requires enabling, not limiting responsible, compassionate medical and outreach services where they are most needed.