Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters and city manager urge delay, stakeholder process for proposed camping/storage ordinance
Summary
Multiple public speakers opposed a proposed camping and storage ordinance they said would criminalize homelessness; the city manager said the council would delay action and convene a stakeholder group for 60–90 days to seek alternatives and clarify enforcement intentions.
Dozens of public commenters used Hampton’s public‑comment period to criticize a proposed camping and storage ordinance that advocates said risked criminalizing homelessness rather than addressing root causes such as lack of affordable housing.
Michael Cheever, Joshua Moran and others urged council to reject the ordinance, citing rising rents, shelter capacity limits and the disproportionate effect on Black and disabled residents. Commenters said enforcement that leads to fines or jail would exacerbate homelessness and urged alternatives focused on housing, supportive services and decriminalization.
City Manager Mary Bunting responded at the end of public comment, saying the administration did not intend to criminalize homelessness and that the draft ordinance was written broadly to provide a tool to address disruptive conduct (for example public urination, open drug use, or encampments that create safety hazards). She said any ordinance must include a stated penalty because statutes require penalties be prescribed if an ordinance creates a prohibited act. Bunting said the council had requested a stakeholder process and staff would convene roughly 20 stakeholders — an equal mix of business and neighborhood representatives and homeless‑service advocates — to review the draft and consider alternatives. She asked council to give staff 60 to 90 days for that stakeholder work and emphasized that the police chief would issue training guidance and that the administration did not plan “rounding up” people experiencing homelessness.
Speakers also raised data: commenters noted shelter and program capacity near or above 95–111 percent for various program types (transcript figures reflect speaker summaries of local capacity), rising rental costs, and the need for housing and supportive services to prevent people from violating any new ordinance. Several callers urged that any enforcement tool be paired with housing resources and services and that the city avoid punitive outcomes for people who are homeless.
City staff reiterated that the ordinance was intended to provide officers a tool to address disruptive uses of public space and to protect neighborhoods and businesses, but that staff will use the stakeholder process to refine language and penalties and to explore non‑punitive alternatives.
