Des Moines council amends camping ordinance after split vote amid legal and humanitarian concerns

The Des Moines City Council on Oct. 20 approved an amendment to municipal code section 102-410, changing the city’s rules and penalties related to prohibited camping. The ordinance passed on a 5–2 vote.

Supporters said the change was intended to sharpen enforcement of the existing camping prohibition; opponents warned removing affirmative defenses would increase legal exposure for the city and further harm people sleeping outdoors. Council members debated whether the change would raise Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure risks and noted the earlier court focus on the Eighth Amendment.

The amendment, introduced as item 41 on the agenda, revises the municipal offense and fine for prohibited camping. Council discussion centered on whether removing affirmative defenses — language that had previously allowed certain defenses if shelter beds were unavailable or other conditions applied — would protect officers or instead create additional liability. One council member described concerns that, by narrowing defenses, the city could face more lawsuits tied to constitutional claims; another said earlier language left officers exposed as well and that removing defenses did not eliminate risk. The ordinance passed despite those objections.

Public commenters urged the council not to criminalize homelessness and to invest in housing and services instead. Ben Lynch, a Des Moines lawyer and activist, said the change would “punish existence, not compliance” when shelter beds are unavailable and called for investments in housing, treatment and mental health services. Keenan Crowe, director of policy and advocacy at One Iowa, said local and Polk County data and national research show similar ordinances tend to harm people experiencing homelessness and produce negative outcomes. Nina Rickman, a volunteer with Urban Bicycle Food Ministry who routinely distributes food to people experiencing homelessness, described an individual she serves with severe mental illness who cannot access shelter and warned the ordinance “has the potential to heap harm onto those that are already down.”

Council debate also referenced external legal advice; one council member said they had spoken with multiple attorneys and remained uncomfortable with the ordinance as presented. The measure passed 5–2; the council did not record individual roll-call votes in the transcript excerpt.

The council did not adopt a companion enforcement or funding plan tied to shelter bed availability during the meeting. Council members and commenters repeatedly urged investment in housing and wraparound services as an alternative to punitive enforcement. The amendment will take effect according to the city’s code-adoption timeline unless altered by subsequent council action or legal challenge.