Woonsocket Council adopts ban on camping on public property after heated debate, 4-3

The Woonsocket City Council voted 4 to 3 on May 5 to approve Ordinance 25 O 21, a second passage ordinance that prohibits camping on city-owned public property.

Supporters said the measure is needed to address public-safety and sanitation problems at encampment sites, while opponents — including residents, service providers and some council members — said the ordinance will criminalize people with nowhere to sleep and shift costs to courts and police without solving homelessness.

Councilman Kevin Dubois framed the safety argument during the council debate, saying the encampments had become dangerous and unsanitary: “the filth, the drugs, the needles are just overtaking the precious lands that they're camping on.” He and others also pointed to a recent police operation on Privilege Street that recovered drugs and weapons.

Councilwoman Fox, who voted against the ordinance, countered that evidence and national studies do not show bans reduce litter or homelessness and warned of downstream enforcement costs. Fox said there is “an ample body of evidence, data analysis, case studies…that illustrate this does not actually work.”

Councilwoman Sierra, who supported the ordinance, urged the city to balance compassion with action, saying the city has provided multiple services and “we have rolled out the carpet and helped the homelessness. Now it's time to help the Woonsocket taxpayers.” Councilwoman Harmon said anyone who wants encampments to remain open must commit to ongoing maintenance: “If you want those camps to remain open, you have to do it on a regular basis.”

Public comment before the vote ran for several hours and reflected a wide range of views. Some speakers urged the council to reject the ordinance as punitive and ineffective; others — including local business owners and residents — urged passage on safety and quality-of-life grounds. Several advocates and social-service providers urged investment in shelters, outreach and behavioral-health services as alternatives to criminal penalties.

Under the ordinance as described during debate, people cited at an encampment would receive at least 72 hours' notice to vacate; continued violations could lead to municipal court summonses and fines, with council discussion noting a possible penalty of up to $250 for subsequent offenses. Council members who supported the ordinance said the city will prioritize shelter placement for people living in encampments where beds are available.

Roll call on second passage recorded votes as follows: yes — Councilman Kenoyer, Councilman Dubois, Councilwoman Sierra and President Gendron; no — Councilwoman Fox, Councilwoman Gonzales and Councilwoman Harmon. The ordinance passed on second passage 4 to 3.

The council and administration also emphasized the measure is not a complete solution for homelessness; several members said the ordinance can be amended if problems arise after implementation. The council concurrently discussed expanding shelter capacity and other services at the same meeting.

Implementation details — including enforcement procedures, property storage or retrieval of personal belongings, and outreach protocols — were discussed but not finalized on the record. Several speakers and council members asked for clear operational guidance on how the city will handle follow-up, court processing, and connections to shelter providers.

The ordinance now moves to administrative steps for implementation; council members said they expect to revisit operational questions and potential amendments if needed.