Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Ordinances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Lancing public commenters and council clash over proposed camping and street-activity ordinances
Summary
Public commenters urged the council to drop two proposed ordinances that advocates say would criminalize homelessness; council and staff weighed three options focused on camping, conversion of public property, or interference with public events, with council leaning toward a conduct- and event-focused approach that pairs outreach with limited enforcement.
Dozens of residents and advocates told the East Lancing City Council on March 10 that proposed ordinances aimed at camping and conversion of public property would criminalize people experiencing homelessness and urged investment in housing-first and outreach programs instead.
The meeting’s public-comment period opened with several lengthy statements warning against criminalizing survival acts. "You cannot police your way out of homelessness," one speaker said, citing ACLU guidance and court limits on arresting people for sleeping outdoors.
On the agenda, staff presented ordinance 1566 with three options: (1) ban camping citywide with escalating penalties, (2) prohibit converting public property into a temporary residence (civil infraction), or (3) ban obstructing, impeding or interfering with events or uses of public spaces (misdemeanor for repeat offenses). In all options, staff recommended that officers make reasonable efforts to connect people who are identified as unhoused with social services before issuing enforcement.
Assistant Chief Craft emphasized the department’s desire to address safety and large gatherings that had produced violent incidents downtown. He said the draft ordinances were intended to provide a preventive tool for officers and event organizers.
Several council members said they opposed broad criminalization proposals (options 1 and 2) and favored a narrower alternative focused on conduct that interferes with events or public uses. Council members also asked staff to add explicit weather and extreme-safety exemptions — for example, sheltering during tornado warnings or extreme cold — and to codify a role for city social workers in on-scene triage.
Council Member Singh said she would not support options that return people to the criminal-justice system and favored option 3 as a targeted approach that preserved pathways for outreach and services. Opponents of the broad bans argued that civil fines and misdemeanor escalations can accelerate criminalization if people cannot pay, and urged instead investment in eviction diversion, rental assistance, and case management.
Staff also brought forward a related proposal, ordinance 1565, to prohibit non-parking uses of city-owned parking structures (large assemblies, standing in ramps, tailgating) with a warning-first approach and civil citations for noncompliance; council asked for language clarifying temporary shelter exceptions for severe weather and for assurances that social-worker outreach would be part of responses to unhoused persons.
No vote was held; council gave staff direction to draft a version of option 3 with clearer weather exemptions and documented social-worker procedures for council consideration at a future meeting.
