We are asking Arcadia Residents to send emails to the Arizona House of Representatives asking for a NO vote on SB 1387 (formerly HB 2333)
The original Home Base Business Bill (HB2333) died in committee and we thought we defeated it. Read the February 9th Position Letter from ACMNA here. [note: this letter was mailed to all State Senators in advance of a potential floor vote]
HOWEVER, now it has reappeared as a striker bill under a new identity as a SB1387. If allowed to pass, SB1387 would allow uncontrolled commercial encroachment in our neighborhoods.
- ANY home can be used for selling ANY lawful goods and services.
- In addition to family members (living in the home or not) a home business can have as many as 3 outside employees.
- Plus, the business owner does not need to be the home owner.
- WORST OF ALL, the entire house can be used as a business.
Read the bill here, it's not long but has serious implications for Arcadia or any residential neighborhood.
Most importantly, a list of emails and phone numbers for all State Legislatures is attached, please contact them (starting with the House) and let them know that SB1387 will devastate neighborhoods by removing the many zoning ordinances that currently exist to protect the residential character of our neighborhood.
Please share this information your neighbors and friends who live in Arizona.
Remember that “Home-Based Business” as referred to in SB 1387 means any business for the manufacture, provision or sale of goods or services that is owned and operated by the owner or tenant of the residential dwelling. There are 7 exceptions listed under C.3. near the bottom of page 5. of the Bill. Most of these are related to adult type businesses. The sale of guns is NOT an exception. Their sale WOULD be allowed. Is this what we want?
Representative email addresses at end of post to copy and paste, OR
Downloadable pdf of names/addresses here
Insight from a Expert Council and Legal Advisor from Washington D.C.: "OK, I read the bill text, but not thoroughly to come up with all problems. Still, I agree that it's a terrible bill that essentially takes away the authority of cities and towns to keep residential districts residential. That's a policy issue that obviously those who support this bill don't care about -- they probably don't want Phoenix or Flagstaff or Tucson "interfering" with businesses. But here are some critical points that I'd make:
1) There is a HUGE loophole in the bill where it says that the EMPLOYEES of the home business are limited to residents of the residential dwelling or immediate family of the residents, the owner of the business or his/her immediate family, must be the owner or immediate family, and not more than 3 individuals who are not residents of the residential dwelling. The loophole is that the limitation on EMPLOYEES is NOT a limitation on INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. So if I run a home based business, it appears that I could hire 10 independent contractors (e.g., telephone sales people) to work out of my home. This is a complete end-run around the limitation on number of people who can work out of the home.
2) The business is allowed to have "zero or more clients" on the property at the same time. This is meaningless. This means that I could have a seminar for 10 clients in my home (as long as they take LightRail, park in my driveway, or park at a nearby meter or parking lot). Another huge loophole. (Combined with #1 above, imagine my 10 independent contractor salespeople running a seminar in my home for 10 potential clients -- 20 people in the home for commercial purposes)
3) The cities cannot require a business license. This makes enforcement of this law extremely difficult if not impossible. If they want to say that the cities can't charge more than $50 for a business license, well maybe OK. But to prohibit a city from even keeping track of home-based businesses by prohibiting the city from requiring the owner to get a business license means that the city will have no idea of what businesses are operating in residential neighborhoods.
4) Keep in mind that the definition of "home based business" includes a resident who is either the owner of the residential property OR a TENANT. So unless every landlord puts a restriction in his/her lease to prohibit businesses being operated out of a residence by the tenant (and then the landlord needs to enforce that restriction -- good luck!), the state is making it more difficult for actual OWNERS or residences to make sure their residential property isn't used by a tenant as a business. How unfair to residential property owners.
As a strategy, I would think that cities/towns like Paradise Valley, Carefee, Scottsdale (Troon?), etc (more "exclusive" municipalities) would be upset that the state is telling them that they can't prohibit home-based businesses with allegedly "no impact". Has anyone tried working with the residents of these municipalities to get them to target their Republican State Senators?? And what about Historic Districts in Phoenix and other cities-- are any of them represented by Republican Senators? Should residential areas in Historic Districts be required to allow home-based businesses?
Finally, personally I wouldn't have a problem if a home based business was defined as something like a business where someone does graphic designs from their home and emails to clients; or someone knits or paints at home and takes the product to their clients (or has AN OCCASIONAL client visit, like an average of 1 client per week); or is a business consultants with clients all over the US and who communicates with those clients by email or phone. But this bill goes way beyond these extremely minor situations and it has loopholes that you can drive a truck through."
COPY AND PASTE THESE EMAIL ADDRESSES INTO YOUR OPPOSITION EMAIL:
Thanks so much for your support!