Public commenters urge council to reject anti‑squatter ordinance; member asks for special committee on homelessness

Several public commenters urged the Shreveport City Council to reject a proposed anti‑squatter ordinance, saying it would harm people who are homeless or facing foreclosure rather than solve fire and safety risks.

John Glover told the council that framing the issue as one of criminality would worsen conditions for residents in affected neighborhoods. “Any place that has no opportunity will be a place filled with crime,” Glover said during the public‑comment period, adding he feared the ordinance’s tone and potential consequences.

Jerome Casey, who identified himself as born and raised in Shreveport and the chair of a local organization, asked the council to reject the ordinance and proposed alternative measures. Casey urged the city to lease apartments during the coldest days of the year to temporarily house people and to create mediation between homeowners and lenders where former homeowners are squatting in foreclosed properties. “These solutions would cause less harm to people than the anti‑squatter ordinance currently being proposed,” Casey said.

Following public comment, a council member asked the mayor and staff how the city will proceed after any ordinance enforcement to avoid displacement and repeated returns to the same sites. That council member requested a special committee of the council to examine post‑enforcement services and to coordinate with Lieutenant Bowman and social‑service providers. The speaker offered to serve on that committee and asked the committee to report back within the next few weeks. The transcript does not show a formal motion or a recorded vote to create that committee; the item was discussed as a proposed council direction rather than a formal action.

Councilman Green also raised property‑standards concerns during committee reports and acknowledged the need to coordinate enforcement with social services so people are not simply moved from one unsafe location to another.

No formal ordinance text was read into the record during the public‑comment period excerpt, and the public commenters referenced the proposed ordinance as an agenda item under discussion. The council did not adopt or reject the anti‑squatter ordinance in the recorded portion of the transcript; public comment concluded and the council proceeded to other business.