Anchorage Assembly approves ordinance restricting camping near schools, playgrounds and trails after heated debate

The Anchorage Assembly on July 15 passed AO 2025‑74 S2, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code chapter 8.45 to prohibit camping and construction of structures on certain protected public premises, including near schools, playgrounds, major trails and waterways. The measure passed on a 7‑5 vote after multiple amendments and nearly five hours of debate.

Supporters said the ordinance provides law enforcement and outreach teams with an enforceable tool to address entrenched encampments in sensitive locations and to link people to services. “It’s not about criminalizing homelessness,” Assemblymember McCormick said during debate, “It gives our mobile crisis teams and mobile intervention teams more than just a referral slip.”

Opponents and several speakers cautioned that Anchorage does not yet have guaranteed, widely available alternatives — such as year‑round shelter, expanded behavioral health treatment or an established pretrial diversion program — and said the ordinance risks displacing people without clear places to go. “I am unwilling to criminalize poverty, addiction, and mental health disorders from this dais,” Assemblymember Baldwin Day said in remarks opposing the measure.

What the ordinance does - Establishes prohibited camping zones around defined sensitive sites (schools, playgrounds, day‑care facilities, specified trails and waterways) and adds criminal penalties for prohibited camping and for constructing structures on public land. - Directs enforcement that, according to proponents and the administration, is meant to prioritize warnings, outreach and diversion rather than immediate arrest. The S2 version reduced some maximum fines compared with earlier drafts and added targeted limits on where the rule applies.

Enforcement and capacity concerns Anchorage Police Chief Case told the assembly that expanded prohibitions would increase enforcement demand and that the municipality’s response capacity is limited. “The larger we go, the more we understand that we have a limited capacity on what our officers can enforce,” Chief Case said, describing reliance on specialized units such as the Community Action Policing team, Mobile Intervention Team and HOPE team.

Panel members and administration witnesses said the ordinance is one piece in a broader homelessness strategy that includes outreach, shelter, and housing initiatives. The mayor’s office and staff described efforts to keep municipal shelter open year‑round, expand coordinated use of available shelter beds, and use short‑term rental assistance to move people from unsheltered locations into housing.

Amendments and result Several amendments were proposed and rejected; amendments that passed included clarifications about possession and intent for materials used to build structures and a requirement that the administration deliver a 12‑month evaluation report. A proposal to automatically sunset the ordinance after two years failed. After votes on amendments, the assembly adopted AO 2025‑74 S2 as amended.

Vote: The assembly recorded the ordinance as passed by a 7‑5 vote. The ordinance will take effect as provided in the municipal code and will be implemented by the administration and APD.

Why this matters Supporters said the ordinance establishes a clearer community expectation for use of public spaces and provides outreach workers and officers an enforceable pathway to connect people to services. Opponents said it criminalizes homelessness in practice because the community still lacks consistent, guaranteed alternatives and pretrial diversion mechanisms, and they warned of disproportionate impacts on people with mental illness and on Alaska Native residents.

Next steps The ordinance requires administrative implementation and enforcement planning. The assembly also added a direction that the administration report back within 12 months on the ordinance’s efficacy, including enforcement outcomes and shelter availability.