The Tempe City Council voted unanimously on July 2 to pass an ordinance amending rules on event permits. Some citizens are now working to have the ordinance repealed.
After the passage of Ordinance No. O2025.25, permits are now required for gatherings of 30 or more on city property. The city prepared a guide on the different permits and their uses.
Shawn Wagner, Tempe’s deputy community services director for parks and recreation, and Tempe's Mayor Corey Woods said the ordinance is part of a larger effort to update the city code. The prior ordinance regarding event permits was adopted in 1967.
"We are near 200,000 people," Woods said. "We obviously have the largest public university of the country at ASU right in our backyard. It’s a very different city."
Wagner said the ordinance added definitions and clarified vague language to the existing law. Still, Woods said, special events permits have existed for decades in Tempe and the fees were not raised.
The 30-person rule was adopted to specify a threshold for permitting purposes, Wagner said. It is only applicable to city property, such as parks or other facilities. Private property also applies to this ordinance when the proposed use is different from the designed use of the location or requires more city services than usual.
READ MORE: Proposed increased fines for noise complaints in Tempe could disrupt Greek life and party culture
Woods said a main goal of the ordinance is to establish a tiered structure for the permitting process, ensuring that small gatherings are not subject to the same system as large ones.
The ordinance goes into effect on Aug. 1.
During the City Council meeting, many Tempe residents and other concerned locals showed up in opposition. Hypatia Meraviglia, a graduate student studying geological sciences and a member of the United Campus Workers of Arizona union, and Mikah Dyer, a sophomore studying secondary education and the coalition director for Young Democrats of Arizona, are among those involved against the ordinance.
Meraviglia spoke against the ordinance at the meeting, which extended from the evening of July 1 to the early morning of July 2 as speakers commented, with most speakers opposing.
"That decision did not have to be made at 1:30 in the morning," Meraviglia said. "It just didn't."
Before the Council voted, Vice Mayor Doreen Garlid and Councilmember Berdetta Hodge said many residents in favor had chosen not to speak at the meeting for fear of intimidation from opponents, who Hodge said represented a minority of those who had reached out.
But that hasn’t stopped Dyer and others from supporting a referendum on the ordinance started by the Phoenix-Metro Democratic Socialists of America chapter. If they receive 2,440 signatures by Aug. 1, Tempe voters can decide whether to keep or repeal the measure.
Despite growing up in the West Valley, Dyer said he joined the referendum effort over concerns about free assembly and mutual aid with the new regulation.
"We’re seeing a broader trend of restricting access to public space and silencing grassroots activity," Dyer said.
City officials dispute that evaluation. "Spontaneous political protests and events" do not require a permit or any fees, Woods said, and Wagner said the city only asks that organizers alert the Tempe Police Department, so they can maintain public safety.
READ MORE: A guide on how to safely protest on campus
Both students said the city has been hostile to the homeless and organizations who care for them in public spaces.
"If Tempe wants to continue to move forward as a city, it’s going to have to learn to support mutual aid efforts for the people who live here," Meraviglia said.
On the contrary, Wagner said the new ordinance will help mutual aid organizations supporting Tempe’s homeless population. Previously, they had to pay $150 in fees and provide 60 days notice; now, they only need a limited park activation permit or a ramada reservation, according to the guide on the ordinance.
Dyer also said officials had not adequately listened to residents before passing the ordinance.
"They skipped a lot of those community forums," Dyer said.
During the meeting, City Attorney Eric Anderson said he personally asked that the ordinance’s passage be expedited to avoid challenges posed by ongoing litigation against the city.
Woods said an ordinance like this would often have surveys or additional community meetings alongside the required hearings, but the speed of the process prevented these from being held.
Meraviglia said they understood wanting to maintain city property and prevent scheduling conflicts, but that more time should have been taken to listen to residents.
Speakers during the meeting suggested that the city councilors in favor of the ordinance should be replaced, an idea Meraviglia also raised.
"You put this ordinance in place, we’re not cool with that," Meraviglia said. "We’re going to vote someone else into the seat."
As activists continue to rail against the decision, Wagner urges residents to read the ordinance themselves and contact city officials with any questions.
"We don’t have to agree, but I do think we can have an understanding moving forward," Wagner said.
Edited by George Headley, Leah Mesquita and Ellis Preston.
Reach the reporter at coyer1@asu.edu and follow @carstenoyer on X.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on X.
Carsten Oyer is a sophomore studying journalism and mass communication, as well as public service and public policy. This is his second semester with The State Press, having previously worked as a politics reporter.
