Tempe wants to set new rules on park gatherings, setting off alarms with residents

Residents who want to host gatherings of more than 30 people at Tempe parks may soon need to apply for a city permit, then await government approval, if the City Council approves a new ordinance July 1.

The proposal is alarming residents who think it would violate their First Amendment rights to speech, assembly and religion. They point to the city's crackdown under existing rules on volunteers who feed homeless people in the parks, and say the proposal would give Tempe officials more authority to shut down other types of activities they find unfavorable.

Legal experts say modest permit requirements generally are allowed but that needing government pre-approval for expressive activities has constitutional implications.

The changes would update a city ordinance on the books since 1967 that requires those holding public gatherings or special events on city property to apply for a permit. City employees began revising the rules after questions arose about what types of activities should be considered "special events" and after homeless rights' activists claimed the city was unfairly targeting them.

The proposed ordinance would give city employees more leeway to accept and reject event applications, and allows the city manager or a designee to restrict how many permits an applicant can qualify for in one area or over a period of time. City officials could limit permits, for example, if they thought the event location wasn't appropriate or if the event provided services already occurring nearby.

Volunteers with the New Deal Meal pass out food at Moeur Park June 22, 2025. The picnic began in 2024 to provide unhoused people with a free meal after Austin Davis, 24, was arrested and his picnics stopped.

If the ordinance is approved, Tempe would set an attendance trigger, create new permit categories with different fees and establish carveouts for HOAs and running clubs so they can host certain events without having to pay — an exception Tempe Recreation Manager Shawn Wagner said was intended to encourage neighborhood connection.

City spokesperson Kris Baxter said the ordinance updates were meant to clarify the threshold for when permits are required and simplify the process for low-impact neighborhood events. Wagner said a new permit system would help the city coordinate safety efforts and ensure equitable use of parks.

First Amendment experts told The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com that modest permits generally are permissible, but how far the government can go in regulating expressive conduct depends on whether a judge sees the conduct as more speech-based or more activity-based.

"You're allowed to basically say whatever you want, but you can't do whatever you want," said Mary Anne Franks, a legal scholar and professor at George Washington University Law School.

Some fear government overreach; others see safeguards

Residents opposed to the change are concerned about their rights to speech and assembly and say it's overly broad, burdensome and ripe for government overreach. They point to criteria they say is more based on feeling than objective risk or effects.

"It … gives the city enormous discretion and does not offer the residents clear and consistent standards to rely on when planning events," Tempe resident and lawyer John Escobar told the City Council on June 5. "It opens the door to selective enforcement and targets those with less institutional power and fewer resources to address it."

Escobar and others said their fears of overreach weren't hypothetical — they pointed to Tempe's enforcement of the existing permit ordinance against homeless rights activist Austin Davis.

The 24-year-old poet started hosting picnics for homeless people in Tempe parks in 2020. The city rewarded him for his events, giving him the "Neighborhood Event of the Year" honor in March 2022. But months later, the city told Davis he needed a permit.

He applied, but after he refused to pause the picnics during the 60-day application process, Tempe rejected it. In a public statement explaining the rejection, the city pointed to Davis' "repeated defiance," though in court records — Davis and other residents sued Tempe in April — Tempe attorneys said the rejection was because Austin's application was "incomplete." Davis disputed this claim in an interview with The Republic.

Tempe cited Davis 34 times, leading to an arrest and a plea deal that banned him from Tempe parks until May 2026. Davis, according to this attorney, took the deal to avoid debt and jail time.

Allies of Davis recounted his story as they objected to the proposal in front of the City Council at a meeting June 5.

Other residents, inside and outside of Tempe, expressed concerns about the ordinance restricting religious expression.

For Mesa resident Dave Wells, organizing events to feed the homeless at Tempe parks was "part of my living out my values as part of the Quaker faith community and … speaking truth to power."

The revisions are supported by residents, however, who hope the permits will help Tempe clamp down on free picnics for homeless people. They have raised concerns about drug paraphernalia and human feces left behind, as well as environmental concerns from fires that are set.

"I don't believe the intent of the ordinance is to stop all feeding, but it would help in regulating them and making sure that the parks and communities are not overwhelmed," resident Lane Carroway told The Republic.

Legal experts: Public safety must balance against speech suppression

Municipalities generally are allowed to require permits for events because public conduct creates questions about public safety, but concerns about safety have to balance against the government not suppressing unfavorable expression.

First Amendment doctrine typically opposes pre-approval requirements to engage in expressive activity, Franks said, "because we're worried about arbitrary, discretionary use. Because when you invest somebody with that power, someone in the government gets to say you get to do this and (someone else doesn't)."

In Tempe's case, that power would reside with the city manager or a designee — a chilling thought for homeless activists who say city manager Rosa Inchausti is the one trying to shut down their picnics.

For that reason, regulators should show the rules aren't discriminating against viewpoints by making them content neutral and instead focusing on time, place and manner restrictions, legal experts say.

Regulations, including fees, should also tie to the goal the government is claiming, such as safety, security and fair use of parks. The more the regulations affect protected speech, like political protest, the more the regulations should be tie to the government's interest.

"If the city is genuinely worried about something it sincerely has the right to be worried about, it ought to be able to craft an ordinance that makes that clear," Franks said, "and you wouldn't have to ask a bunch of questions about why this and not that?"

Critics of the proposed ordinance have asked those very questions already and argue the city can advance safety interests by other, existing rules, such as ordinances against trespassing or littering.

What Tempe would require for permits under proposed ordinance

Tempe published the proposed ordinance language in early June.

City officials contended the 30-person floor was reasonable, noting that some cities in Arizona require a permit for 75 or more people, while others do it for 10.

“Thirty (people) just kind of becomes that tipping point, where it just becomes large enough to start to have impacts on other groups in the park,” Wagner, the recreation manager, said.

It would also apply to events fewer than 30 people if they involve amplified sound or selling merchandise, or if the city thinks the activity would create "adverse" impacts on the area or necessitate city resources to maintain "health, safety and welfare."

The language also specifies that "free speech related activities" prompted by current affairs "just recently coming into public knowledge" would not require a permit, but organizers would need to give Tempe Police Department "as much advance notice as reasonably possible."

Changes give Tempe more discretion on what events to allow

Some of the revisions include tweaks that would give more discretion to city workers. In some cases, that discretion could make it harder to secure a permit, and in others, it could make it easier.

For example, Tempe currently requires a permit for events that necessitate city services "to a degree significantly over and above that routinely provided under ordinary circumstances ...". The revision deletes the word "significantly," which makes it easier to require more permits.

Another tweak changes when the city can accept and reject applications, noting the city manager or designee "may" make the decision based on a list of criteria, instead of "shall." The difference means the city could accept applications submitted fewer than 60 days ahead of the event — which is currently required — reducing the burden for the public.

But eliminating "shall" also raises questions about whether the city would have to respond to a permit application at all. Some residents fear the change also gives staff authority to reject applicants even if they follow all the rules.

How Tempe officials say they would carry out permit ordinance

Tempe issued guidance on June 23 explaining how city staff members would implement the ordinance if approved. The procedures would not be legally binding and could be changed without City Council approval or a public process.

The guidance said city workers would charge less for smaller park activities — $25 for something like a birthday party, as opposed to $50 plus other fees for traditional special events. Fees would be waived for HOAs, neighborhood groups and "meet up and leave" events, where event attendees don't need exclusive use of a park.

City officials said the fees would not be set aside for specific purposes but rather would go into the city's general fund, where the money could be divvied up to reinvest in the parks or be put toward public safety, like building fire stations.

Both supporters and opponents of the proposal plan to pack Tempe council chambers for the vote July 1, when elected leaders will decide: Whose concerns prevail?

Lauren De Young covers Tempe, Chandler, Maricopa County and transportation for The Republic. Reach her at [email protected].

Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com. Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at [email protected] or by phone at 480-476-6116.

Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Tempe wants to set new rules on park gatherings, setting off alarms with residents