Ordinance committee narrows enforcement, extends notice period and sends amended camping ordinance to full council

The Brockton City Council’s Ordinance Committee on April 3 amended and voted to forward an ordinance revising the city’s ordinance prohibiting camping on public property, setting a written-warning then criminal-complaint enforcement pathway and extending the written-notice window to 48 hours.

The change would keep a warning as the first step and make a criminal complaint the next formal enforcement step for subsequent violations. Councilor Jeff Thompson, who sponsored the revisions, said the amended version "fix[es] some of the definitional issues" and narrows who writes citations while preserving a path to criminal complaints for repeat violations.

The committee debated several legal risks and operational questions before acting. Assistant City Solicitor Stacy Verdi summarized recent legal guidance, telling the committee that a 2022 decision in Scituate and a pending Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinion could affect local anti-camping measures. Verdi said those rulings raised constitutional questions under the Eighth Amendment and Article 26 of the Massachusetts Constitution and advised caution in how penalties are structured.

Jasmine Bridal, director of social services, described outreach and casework tied to the ordinance and reported that her team "are going out and making contact with at least 40 people every week" and that, since January, her coordination with police and others "have housed over 8 people" directly from the street. Lieutenant Schliemann of the Brockton Police Department said enforcement has changed how officers approach encampments: "So the answer to that question, sir, is yes," and recounted recent enforcement contacts and a case that led to felony charges uncovered during an encampment clearance.

During debate, the committee removed proposed language that would have limited enforcement authority to just the police and inspectional services after members raised concerns that the change could prevent other city departments and social-service providers from participating in on-scene responses and outreach. Committee members also accepted an amendment to substitute a 48-hour written-notice period in place of the previously proposed 24-hour notice; social-services staff had said in practice some larger cleanups require multiple days to schedule and 48 hours gives staff and residents time to move belongings.

The committee voted to report the ordinance "favorably as amended" back to the full City Council. The committee record shows the amendments that will be forwarded: (1) strike the narrowing that made only police and inspectional services the enforcing agencies; (2) define "24 hour notice" language in the ordinance to become a 48-hour written-notice requirement; (3) clarify that enforcement proceeds from a written warning for a first offense and the city will seek a criminal complaint for any subsequent violation; and (4) rework the removal/process language to assign operational roles while preserving participation by social services, parks, DPW and others for resource provision and cleanup.

The committee also discussed, but did not adopt, the earlier proposal to remove criminal enforcement entirely; a separate ordinance on that question was reported "unfavorably" by the committee and thus returns to the full City Council with an unfavorable recommendation (see "Votes at a glance").

Committee members and city staff repeatedly said the ordinance is only one piece of the strategy; the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office is developing a community court intended to pair citations with treatment and supports. Councilors and staff told the committee they expect the court to be in operation in the coming months and said they hope it will speed the adjudication of cases arising under the ordinance.

The committee record shows continued disagreements on operational detail, scheduling and resources. Some councilors warned that litigation remains a risk and urged caution in sending officers into the field without clear legal cover and with inadequate court or treatment resources. Others urged the city to proceed to protect downtown businesses and residents.

The ordinance as amended now goes to the full City Council for consideration.