Omaha council holds extended public hearing on proposed ban on unauthorized encampments

The Omaha City Council held a lengthy public hearing on an ordinance that would prohibit unauthorized encampments on city-owned public property and establish penalties and procedures for enforcement.

City Law Department attorneys framed the proposal as focused on conduct, not status, and said it is designed to give people in unsanctioned camps time to relocate or accept shelter before citations or removal. Max Kuzey of the City Law Department told the council the proposal follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision and is intended to be constitutionally neutral. "What the Supreme Court said was no, they do not," Kuzey said, describing the court's finding that laws aimed at conduct — not a person's status — can pass constitutional review.

The law department said the draft ordinance would require a notice period before removal, preserve seized property for up to 30 days, and offer people an opportunity to go to a shelter before citing them. The draft sets a maximum civil penalty of $300 or up to 30 days in jail for violations; the city attorney's office said those sanctions are included so a court may appoint a public defender when an indigent person faces possible jail time.

Jeremy Welsh, speaking for Douglas County Sheriff Aaron Hanson, urged the council to adopt the prohibition. "These encampments are dangerous," Welsh said, reading the sheriff's statement, and described repeated law-enforcement responses to camps that, he said, "become hotbeds for crime, addiction, and untreated mental and behavioral health challenges." Welsh and other proponents told the council they view removal as a public-safety step that should be paired with shelter offers.

Public testimony that followed ran more than three hours. Supporters of the ordinance — including some residents and business owners — called for faster action when camps appear, citing trash, break-ins and a need to protect nearby families. Jerry Johnson, a resident, said the city needs immediate action and urged help from county and state agencies.

Opponents included service providers, people with lived experience, and local nonprofits. They argued the ordinance would criminalize poverty and make it harder for people to access housing, medical care and outreach services. "This ordinance is not a solution. It is an act of punishment against people who are already suffering," said Nicole Sakas, who urged the council to invest in housing and services instead. Community providers — including representatives from the Stevens Center, Open Door Mission, Community Alliance, Threshold and Together — said shelters are often full or have barriers that prevent people from using them, such as limits on pets, separations of families, or requirements that people be sober.

Several speakers cited data and court rulings in their testimony. A number of opponents pointed to prior legal decisions and research showing sweeps and criminal enforcement can raise costs and prolong homelessness. A coalition of service providers urged a "housing-first" approach and asked the council to prioritize investments in noncongregate shelter, permanent supportive housing and expanded outreach.

Council members asked detailed questions about the draft's procedures — including the required notice period, how property would be stored, how shelters would be contacted, and whether the city can offer alternatives in real time. Multiple council members said they do not support criminalizing homelessness but also emphasized the need to respond to neighborhood safety and sanitation complaints. Several council members said they wanted more time for the mayor's office and service providers to refine a plan; Councilmember Festersen said he would vote no on the ordinance if it reached a final vote next week to allow the city's proposed alternative plan time to develop.

The hearing did not result in a final vote; the item remains under consideration. Councilmembers said they welcomed the mayor's outreach plan and asked city staff and providers to continue work on a collaborative, time-sensitive program to respond to encampments and connect residents to services.

If the council moves forward with the ordinance in a future meeting, the law department said the language could be adjusted to reflect state rules or changes in judicial interpretation.

The public record for the hearing includes written statements and dozens of speakers. The council did not take final action on the draft ordinance at this meeting; members said they expected further discussion and possible revisions before any vote.