Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Loitering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Findlay council votes down downtown loitering ordinance after lengthy public testimony
Summary
After more than an hour of public testimony from business owners and residents, Findlay City Council voted against Ordinance 2025‑134, a proposed ‘unlawful congregation’/loitering ordinance. Supporters said it would protect downtown businesses; opponents called it vague, likely unconstitutional, and harmful to people experiencing homelessness.
Findlay — Findlay City Council declined to adopt Ordinance 2025‑134, a proposed ordinance regulating “unlawful congregation” in downtown public spaces, after extended public comment and a roll‑call vote that produced a majority of recorded “nay” votes.
The vote followed public testimony from residents and business owners on both sides. Christopher Chilcote of Findlay for All urged council to vote no, saying the ordinance “criminalizes marginalized people,” raises constitutional concerns and fails to address root causes such as addiction, untreated mental‑health issues and lack of stable housing. Chilcote proposed non‑criminal alternatives including a single business outreach hotline, a dedicated downtown outreach worker, a daytime resource hub and a shared data dashboard to track outcomes.
“We cannot legislate away homelessness, and we cannot police our way out of challenges that come from addiction, mental illness and poverty,” Chilcote said.
Several other speakers echoed Chilcote’s concerns. A speaker identified in the transcript as “Bridal Yangling” called the ordinance vague and warned it would invite inconsistent enforcement. Sean Mason told council the measure was “broad and under constitutional scrutiny” and predicted it would create litigation and operational risks for officers. Melissa (Missy) Larocco, a former legal‑aid attorney, said the ordinance put “a barrier on some individuals just existing in Findlay” and described civil‑rights risks.
By contrast, downtown business owner Amanda Sprague described repeated incidents at her Broadway storefront — groups of people gathering with duffel bags and trash left in front of her door — and said those encounters made customers feel unsafe.
Council debate reflected the split in the public record. Several council members said they preferred non‑legislative responses such as increased patrols, targeted outreach and improved coordination with nonprofits and the city mission; others stressed the need to protect downtown customers and employees. Councilmember Russell moved to adopt the ordinance in order to force a recorded vote; he later said his motion was procedural to prompt a clear ‘no’ vote from the public‑comment advocates.
Roll call produced a majority of recorded “nay” votes and the clerk announced the ordinance was not adopted. The presiding officer and mayor encouraged continued community engagement and non‑legislative interventions to address downtown safety and quality‑of‑life concerns.
What’s next: Council members suggested continuing collaborative efforts with local nonprofits and outreach providers; no new legislative action on this ordinance was scheduled immediately. The meeting record shows the council will continue to explore outreach and enforcement options rather than the ordinance as written.
Source: Public comment and council debate at the Findlay City Council regular session, Dec. 2, 2025.
