Debate over criminalizing homelessness: advocates press HB104 while counties warn of preemption and liabilities
Loading...
Summary
HB104 would bar enforcement of camping/anti‑sleeping rules unless adequate shelter is available and create an affirmative necessity defense for life‑sustaining activities. Supporters say criminalization harms already‑marginalized groups; counties and municipalities raised preemption, liability, and implementation concerns.
Delegate Bernice Merrick North introduced HB104 to protect unhoused Marylanders by (1) removing municipal authority to criminalize vagrancy and (2) creating an affirmative defense of necessity when people engage in life‑sustaining activities — sleeping, resting, eating, storing personal property — in a public place and have no adequate indoor alternative.
National and local homelessness and health providers, including representatives from the National Homelessness Law Center, Public Justice Center and Health Care for the Homeless, urged a favorable report. They argued that enforcement sweeps, citations and arrests damage trust, separate people from IDs and medication, and make outreach and housing placement harder. "Criminalizing homelessness is cruel, costly and counterproductive," said Kevin Lindemood of Health Care for the Homeless.
Local governments, represented by the Maryland Association of Counties and the Maryland Municipal League, opposed the bill as written, citing preemption of local ordinances, unclear definitions (e.g., "reasonable storage"), increased litigation exposure and public‑safety concerns. County legal staff asked for clearer operational guidance and narrower, targeted language rather than a statewide mandate.
Service providers and people with lived experience called for Housing First responses and noted that shelters are not realistic for everyone (lack of beds, family separation rules, curfews, or past trauma in shelters). The sponsor and supporters said the bill permits enforcement of other criminal laws (trespass, disorderly conduct) and would not protect dangerous or obstructive conduct; they proposed carveouts and collaborative subcommittee work to resolve implementation concerns.
The committee did not take a vote; sponsors and opponents agreed to continue drafting clarifications and exemptions in follow‑up meetings.
