Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Homelessness Sidewalks topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bangor council adopts amended sidewalk ordinance after heated public comments on houselessness

City Council of Bangor · May 12, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City Council passed Ordinance 26-137 as amended (9–0), narrowing a prior construction exemption and adding 'support-based engagement' language after sustained public comment about encampments, enforcement and services for unhoused residents.

The City Council of Bangor voted unanimously to pass Ordinance 26-137 as amended, closing a phrasing gap in Chapter 2-57 that councilors and speakers said had been used to justify sidewalk encampments and inconsistent enforcement.

Councilor Beck said the police advisory committee advised that paragraph B should be the 'first course of action,' and the amendment removes language the council concluded was unnecessary because paragraph B already provides the intended step. 'We heard from the police that it is going to be the first course of action,' Beck said during discussion.

Why it matters: public commenters said the change could either create a tool to clear people from sidewalks or, with the newly added support-based language, become a chance to route people to services instead of immediate penalties. Scott Pardi, a Bangor resident, told the council removing the phrase 'for construction purposes' from section 2-57-4 looks like 'a clear attempt to give the city a broad legal tool to clear the homeless from our sidewalks,' and asked whether enforcement would mean daily fines of $25 to $500 or arrests for people who cannot pay.

Voices at the meeting were split. A public commenter who identified a local 'PAS' program (pick up, assess, shelter, and serve) said that model had a '70 percent success rate' and urged alternatives to enforcement. Mike Ferrell, another resident, emphasized keeping sidewalks unobstructed and warned of possible litigation, saying 'there will be a class action lawsuit against the city' if the city pursues enforcement without care for property rights. Jody McDonald said she found it 'gross' to treat people as if they 'need a permit' and urged solutions that do not fall to police alone.

Several commenters, including library leaders and trustees, urged protections for library patrons and staff. Nikki Farnham, former council member and current library board chair, said library staff experience 'compassion fatigue' and asked the council to pursue near-term, enforceable solutions while preserving access to library services. Lee Chick, a library trustee, said the measure would help staff and patrons access the library safely.

Council response and final vote: Councilors acknowledged the tension between clearing sidewalks and providing services. Councilor Leonard thanked the advisory committee on racial equity, inclusion, and human rights for work on the language and said the amendment attempts to close a loophole while preserving an approach that offers warnings and options before civil penalties. After the discussion and public comment, the council recorded a 9–0 vote to pass Ordinance 26-137 as amended.

What happens next: The ordinance now stands adopted as announced by the chair; councilors and staff indicated further work remains to identify where people and their belongings would be directed and to coordinate property-handling practices and support services.