Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wilmington council approves ordinance restricting activity on city property amid protests from homelessness advocates
Summary
After an extended public comment period urging rejection, the Wilmington City Council approved an ordinance adding section 6‑10 to prohibit certain activities on city property in a 4–3 vote on second reading. Speakers and advocates said the measure risks criminalizing people experiencing homelessness; supporters said it fills enforcement gaps.
Wilmington’s City Council voted 4–3 to adopt an ordinance adding section 6‑10 to the city code that prohibits specified activities on city property, after hours of public comment from residents and service providers who urged the council to reject or revise the measure.
The ordinance was presented on second reading; Councilmember Luke Waddell moved for approval. The vote came after a packed public information segment in which at least ten registered speakers criticized the proposal as redundant with existing law and harmful to people without housing. “This is a solution that displaces — the displacement of people as policy,” resident Madison Morrison said, urging the council to reject the ordinance and press county partners for housing solutions.
Speakers described multiple concerns: insufficient shelter capacity, the ordinance’s potential to impose fines or criminal penalties on people simply existing in public, and the absence of a plan for alternatives. “The problem with ordinances like this, which further criminalize an already at‑risk population, is that the message is antisocial,” Robin Morgan said during public comment, urging investment in low‑barrier shelters and public spaces instead of punitive measures.
Opponents also questioned whether the ordinance would add new tools beyond existing state statute and city code. “Why are you considering passing a law that doesn’t actually offer anything new that’s not covered by existing North Carolina general statute or city code?” community leader Soraya Motzinger asked the council.
Council supporters argued the measure responds to public‑safety and downtown‑appearance concerns raised by businesses and residents. The council’s 4–3 margin reflects a divided body and wide public interest; the council did not remove the item for additional amendments before the vote. The transcript records the ordinance passing on its second reading by that 4–3 vote.
The ordinance’s immediate enforcement details and any implementing rules were not spelled out in the hearing. City staff and the city attorney noted that portions of the conduct targeted are already addressed elsewhere in state or local law, and council members asked staff to clarify how enforcement would be coordinated with county partners and service providers. Advocates said they will continue to press council and county officials for investments in housing, shelter capacity and supportive services.
Council did not take further amending action at that meeting; the ordinance will be implemented according to the city‑code process and any administrative rules city staff publish moving forward. The council’s narrow vote leaves open the prospect of legal or policy challenges and continued public debate.
