Carbondale residents urge council to reject proposed public-camping ordinance; council extends comment period

Carbondale’s City Council opened a special May meeting dominated by public comment over a proposed ordinance that would regulate camping on public property and declare most unsanctioned encampments a nuisance.

The council paused formal action and instead extended the public-comment period after repeated appeals from residents and service providers who said the draft ordinance would punish people without housing rather than address root causes. ‘‘This ordinance suggests that they are to disappear,’’ said Victor Ludwig, a neighbor and speaker, warning that steep daily fines in the ordinance would create crushing debt for people already living outdoors.

The proposed ordinance — introduced by staff as Item 3.2 — declares public camping a nuisance except where the council specifically authorizes camping through future ordinance. The staff presentation cited home-rule powers and the Illinois Municipal Code, and referenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) decision as legal precedent for a stepwise enforcement framework. City staff described the draft as intended to protect public health, safety and welfare while allowing the council to designate any allowable camping areas later.

Members of the public, advocates and people with lived experience disputed that approach at the dais. ‘‘Criminalizing homelessness is not the solution,’’ said Tessa Leach, who described being previously unhoused and now working in peer support. Speakers discussed practical barriers such as lack of identification papers, limited shelter capacity, sanitation and the cost of fines. Several service providers urged the council to prioritize storage for personal belongings, 24-hour toilet and shower access, and expanded case management.

Council members and staff responded that the ordinance as drafted was a starting point and not intended to be punitive in effect. Council member Kilman, drawing on personal experience, said she would not support an ordinance that simply fines people for being homeless: ‘‘I won’t be voting for any ordinance that fines homeless people for being homeless,’’ she said. Staff and some council members emphasized available nonprofit services and suggested forming coordinated responses and volunteer-host networks.

Before debate could proceed, Council member Lowes moved to extend public comments and reduce each speaker’s time to three minutes so more residents could speak; the motion was seconded and approved on roll call. The meeting included lengthy testimony from current and formerly unhoused residents, local clergy and social-service workers who urged alternatives to criminal enforcement.

The council did not vote on the camping ordinance during this meeting; members asked staff to take written proposals and encouraged continued public input. The city manager provided a contact email and asked that suggestions be routed to him to ensure they reach the full council and staff.

The council scheduled follow-up work and asked staff to return with additional materials about legal scope, vehicle language and possible resource investments. No final action on the ordinance was taken at the session; next steps will depend on council direction and any future agenda item scheduling.