Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Animal Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House reconsiders and concurs with 'squatters' bill after fight over pet‑shop amendment
Summary
After initially voting not to concur because the Senate added language about pet shops, the House reconsidered House Bill 96 and voted to concur with the Senate committee substitute. Opponents said the late pet‑shop language (linked on the floor to Petland) would preempt local animal‑welfare rules; supporters argued the issues were resolved in conference. The bill passed on reconsideration 76–32.
The North Carolina House reconsidered and then concurred with the Senate committee substitute to House Bill 96 on June 26 after floor debate over an amendment expanding the bill’s scope.
Representative Biggs initially moved that the House not concur with the Senate committee substitute because the Senate had added language about pet shops to what members described as a squatters bill. Biggs told colleagues the original intent was to provide an expedited removal process for unauthorized occupants; he said the pet‑shop language did not belong in that vehicle and moved non‑concurrence (the House recorded 106–2 in the earlier vote).
Later in the day Representative Bell moved to reconsider the prior not‑to‑concur vote, saying sponsor and members had resolved outstanding issues through discussions. Opponents, including Representative Harrison and Representative Butler, warned on the floor that the pet‑shop provision mirrored language promoted by a national chain and could preempt local ordinances aimed at puppy‑mill protections. Representative Harrison described the provision as dangerous to animal welfare and urged members to stick with the prior non‑concurrence; Representative Butler cited Humane Society research about problems in pet‑store supply chains.
After debate the House voted to concur with the Senate committee substitute to House Bill 96 by a recorded vote of 76 in the affirmative and 32 in the negative. The bill will be ordered, enrolled, and sent to the governor.
Why it matters: The bill’s primary policy area is expedited removal of unauthorized occupants (housing enforcement). Floor debate focused on a late Senate amendment that adds pet‑shop language; opponents said it preempts local animal‑welfare regulation and shields commercial sellers. The transcript identifies the political pressure and explains members’ concerns about committee process and late floor additions.
Speakers quoted or cited in this article are those recorded on the House floor: Representative Biggs (initial motion), Representative Bell (reconsideration), Representative Harrison and Representative Butler (opposition), Representative Cunningham (comment on housing priority).
