What’s the Matter with Gilbert, Arizona?

What’s the Matter with Gilbert, Arizona? Town Council wants neighbors to look for “blight” and report “unsightly” backyards.

by Stacy Skankey

The Gilbert Town Council wants neighbors to snitch on one another. On June 18, the council passed an ordinance that encourages neighbors to report anything “unsightly” in their neighboring backyards.

The ordinance raises significant privacy concerns. For example, it allows for property to be inspected at any time, with or without the presence of the owner. Code enforcement personnel, who can work together with police, will be looking for “blight” on the owner’s property—a fancy word for anything the town believes doesn’t look nice.

Each violation can result in a fine of $500, subjecting a resident to potential legal action or criminal proceedings, and a lien against the homeowner’s property. Not only that, but the homeowner bears responsibility for removing whatever the town believes to be unsightly.

Officials enacted the ordinance under the guise of protecting the health and safety of Gilbert citizens. But it’s an empty promise—and one that comes at the cost of personal freedoms.

Under the Arizona Constitution, Arizonans have a privacy interest in their homes: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” This language is different than the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures. While both protect unlawful searches, the Arizona constitution is written to be more protective than federal law.

Yet the town of Gilbert has ignored these constitutional rights, and not for the first time. In fact, it’s continuing a years-long trend of eroding the freedom of Gilbert’s citizens

Over a decade ago, Gilbert enacted an ordinance that placed stricter limitations on the size and placement of religious signs, but not on other types of signs—supposedly to preserve the town’s aesthetic appeal. But in 2015, the United States Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the ordinance, holding that signs cannot be treated differently based on their contents and that the Town’s unconstitutional ordinance violated the First Amendment.

Moreover, the Goldwater Institute recently exposed Gilbert’s Office of Digital Government, where employees earning more than $1 million a year in taxpayer-funded salaries monitor town employees’ personal social media accounts to ensure conformity to leftist ideology.

But that’s not all. The town is still struggling with the aftermath of the “Gilbert Goons” street gang, which went on a violent rampage as officials turned a blind eye. As if that weren’t bad enough, Gilbert is currently contemplating expanding the size of its Central Business District to make it easier to condemn private property.

It is in quiet town hall meetings where many freedoms slip by the wayside, which is why citizens must be vigilant in holding local government officials accountable. It is important to remember that local government officials are public servants, elected to represent the interests of the community—not to reduce their rights.

Stacy Skankey is a Staff Attorney at the Goldwater Institute.

Originally published by the Goldwater Institute. Republished with permission.

For more Budget & Tax News.