Summit council introduces new camping ordinance, tables two earlier drafts after heated public comment

The Summit Common Council voted Tuesday to table two earlier proposed ordinances on camping in public places and introduced a revised ordinance (ID 11920) that would add Section 3‑19, "Camping on public property," to the city code. Council members set a final public hearing for June 3.

Council president McTiernan said the two earlier drafts (ordinance nos. 25‑3339 and 25‑3340) were tabled ‘‘meaning they would not be considered, and there would be no further public comment on that’’ and would need to be reintroduced if the council chose to pursue them again. City solicitor Giacobbe explained that tabling the ordinances “means that it's basically withdrawn. There'd have to be a reintroduction of it and another second hearing.” Both tabling motions passed unanimously on roll call.

Councilman Boyer, who introduced ordinance ID 11920, framed the measure as the outcome of months of committee work and public input and repeated that the ordinance is intended to formalize practices he said Summit officers and courts already follow. “This process is what good governance looks like,” Boyer said, adding the ordinance emphasizes “service first responses by codifying the practice of prioritizing connections to housing and support services before enforcement action.” He told the council that the mayor's task force on homelessness has connected about 20 of 25 unhoused individuals in the city with housing.

Boyer also described several provisions in the proposed code: protections for people when indoor housing is unavailable, encouragement of diversion to behavioral‑health or social‑service responses before penalties, and an authorization to use involuntary commitment under NJSA 30:4‑27 when a person “poses a danger due to mental illness.” He told the council that Jeff Wild, counsel for the New Jersey Coalition to End Homelessness, provided input and supports the current version and plans to attend the June hearing.

The council action and Boyer’s remarks prompted extended public comment both for and against the proposed ordinance. Rich Uniak, president of Bridges Outreach, said the nonprofit has worked with council members and city staff and urged a co‑response model. “If I could, my outreach team would join the PD on any call that might possibly involve these folks so that we can do this together,” Uniak said, and he added that Bridges looks forward to working with Chief Peters on protocols should the ordinance be adopted.

Other speakers urged caution about criminalizing homelessness. Reverend Rod Williams and Damon Gilliard warned against comparisons to historical practices they equated with vagrancy laws; Gilliard recommended reading material about the historical consequences of such laws. Multiple residents called for a dedicated social worker or case manager to work with police and outreach providers; one resident noted existing providers but said a city‑funded social worker would help police verify shelter and service status in real time.

Councilwoman Kalmanson told the council she had not worked on the earliest two drafts and said she had concerns about unintended consequences before the current revisions. She said she would second the motion to introduce the newest version only after those concerns were addressed. Other council members and speakers highlighted violent incidents described by some residents as part of the rationale for moving forward with an enforceable code; Boyer cited the police issuing 87 summonses last year in related calls.

Formal actions taken Tuesday were procedural: the council voted unanimously to table ordinance nos. 25‑3339 and 25‑3340, then voted unanimously to introduce ordinance ID 11920 for final hearing on June 3 at 7:30 p.m. The council president reminded the public that ordinance introductions carry no public comment (public comment comes at the hearing).

The June 3 hearing will be the next formal opportunity for public remarks and for council debate on the specific language of 3‑19. Supporters and some council members urged stronger service‑side investments — including social‑work capacity and hospital discharge coordination — to accompany any enforcement provisions. Opponents warned the city to avoid creating unintended legal exposure or policies that would have the effect of criminalizing homelessness.

The council did not adopt final policy Tuesday; the introduced ordinance will return for a public hearing and a vote at the June 3 meeting.