Residents, service providers urge council to table proposed amendment to Section 541.05 affecting people who are unhoused

Members of Chillicothe City Council heard extended public comment opposing a proposed amendment to Section 541.05 of the city’s codified ordinances that speakers said could criminalize people who are unhoused and shift burdens onto already vulnerable residents.

The most detailed statement was delivered by Mercedes Gulley, a social work student at Ohio University in Chillicothe, reading a letter from Dr. Stacy Saunders Adams. Gulley quoted Adams: “This amendment would not only target those who are unhoused, but it would also shift an impossible burden onto them, forcing people to prove their homelessness and an inability to use existing resources.” Gulley identified Adams as a social worker and Chillicothe resident.

The letter and several public commenters said many people experiencing homelessness lack stable access to email, secure places to store documents or the cognitive capacity to navigate administrative processes; the letter warned that the change could expose people to jail time, fines and criminal records. “Joe,” a pseudonym used in the letter, was described as someone with severe mental and physical trauma who could be criminally charged under the proposed language, the letter said.

Resident Amy Fitton urged council members to bring people experiencing homelessness into the conversation: “I’ve been trying for a month now to talk with our homeless and encourage them to come and, you know, share their stories with you. ... I was met with a resounding no.” Fitton relayed reasons those residents gave her, including fear of retaliation, distrust of authorities and lack of stable shelter or follow-up services.

Stephanie Renner, a resident who said she was correcting a “miscommunication” from a Feb. 18 committee meeting, said Julie Bolen of Community Action asked that the legislation be tabled so that “community leaders, service providers, and those directly impacted could come together to create [a] comprehensive, humane, and effective plan.” Renner asked council to consider a motion to table the ordinance so a broader stakeholder process can take place.

Resident A.J. Tanner told the council that notices about meetings and outreach were difficult to find online and asked the city to improve public notice and access to information.

Council President Shoemaker said a review meeting will be scheduled so the public and service providers can discuss the proposal in more depth; later in the meeting Councilman McKeever reiterated that a review meeting on the camping/public camping topic will be set for next week at 5:00 p.m. to encourage broader participation.

No formal vote was taken on the ordinance amendment at the meeting. Council members and staff signaled intent to hold additional public review and a chance for affected residents and service agencies to comment before final action.

Ending: The council scheduled further review and outreach rather than voting on the amendment during this session; a date and location for the review meeting will be circulated by the city.