Committee hears competing views on bill to limit penalties for life‑sustaining activities by unhoused people
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 49 would bar criminal penalties for basic life‑sustaining acts (sleeping, sitting, eating) on public property when no shelter alternatives are available. Proponents framed the bill as protecting vulnerable residents post‑Johnson v. Grant's Pass; counties and realtors warned it could preempt local discretion and raise liability and logistical concerns.
Senator Anthony Muse presented SB 49 to the committee as a measure to protect people experiencing homelessness from criminal penalties for life‑sustaining activities in public spaces when shelter alternatives are not available. "Criminalizing homelessness does not address the root cause and only perpetuates hardship," Muse said, and offered technical amendments to clarify minors and vehicle occupancy.
Proponents included Eric Tars of the National Homelessness Law Center, who pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. Grant's Pass and urged the state to restore protections. Kevin Lindemood of Health Care for the Homeless testified that arrests and encampment sweeps damage trust with outreach teams and impede access to services.
Opposition testimony from the Maryland Association of Counties and Maryland Realtors focused on preemption of local authority, increased liability and operational burdens. Local officials urged clarity that the bill apply only to public lands and asked for drafting changes. Sponsor Muse said he was open to amendments to address implementation concerns and move the bill forward.
Members probed whether the bill's affirmative defenses could unintentionally reach private property and asked the lawyers on the panel to provide exact statutory cross‑references to ensure the provision applies only to public lands.
