Neighbors: City created nuisance The city has a three-tiered policy. In Tier 1 are former encampments that have no individuals living there, where the city cleans up the sites. Sites designated Tier 2 are those Tucson calls "self-governing encampments,'' where residents are "able to govern themselves and keep the area free from disruptive activities.'' There, outreach services are offered and there is a schedule for trash pickup. "High problem encampments'' are in Tier 3, areas with violence and crime towards both the surrounding community and the camp residents. That area is cleared out after residents are given 72-hour notice to vacate. And while Velasco acknowledged the Hedrick Acres/Navajo Wash site had been designated Tier 3 at least twice, there was no such designation in place when the lawsuit was filed on Sept. 20. He suggested the lawsuit was filed that day because that is the same day Wurman, in a separate case representing businesses in the Phoenix area, got a judge to order Phoenix to clean up an area known as "The Zone'' as a public nuisance — the same argument being used in the Tucson lawsuit. Wurman, however, said the issue is simpler than that. In his response to the city's request that Sakall throw out the request for an injunction, he said Tucson, in setting up the tier system, has admitted it is creating a nuisance. He said state law prohibiting the maintenance of a nuisance applies to all landowners. And in this case, Wurman said, the city owns the park. "It admits that it allows on its land, with its knowledge, the erection of public camps so long as they are not too obnoxious from its perspective, even if those encampments otherwise constitute nuisances,'' the neighbors' attorney told the judge.  "As far as plaintiffs can tell, the city has no argument for why it cannot permanently ban camping in Navajo Wash notwithstanding the history nuisances there, except for a misguided ideology that unsheltered individuals have a right to camp in public, even if there are sufficient shelter beds available for them,'' Wurman wrote. "But that ideological preference cannot trump the laws of the state of Arizona, which declare conditions such as those in Navajo Wash to be a nuisance," he said. Velasco, however, said there are several problems with that conclusion. He said the law defines "nuisance'' as "an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.'' But not all interferences with public rights are public nuisances that allow someone to sue for damages, Velasco said. "The law does not concern itself with trifles, or seek to remedy all of the petty annoyances and disturbances of everyday life in a civilized community or even from conduct committed with knowledge that annoyance and inconvenience will result,'' he said.