Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Camping Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belton council weighs a narrow camping ordinance aimed at activity, not homelessness
Summary
Council reviewed a draft ordinance that would prohibit overnight camping in public and private spaces without owner consent while carving out limited residential exceptions. Staff framed the draft around recent U.S. Supreme Court guidance allowing activity‑focused camping regulations if due process and proportionality are observed.
Belton staff presented a draft ordinance that would prohibit camping—defined narrowly as overnight sleeping outdoors between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.—on public property and on private property without the owner’s consent, while creating limited residential exceptions and several specified exemptions.
The City Attorney summarized the legal context: earlier court decisions limited municipal camping bans because they could criminalize the "state of being" homeless, but a more recent U.S. Supreme Court decision clarified a path for activity‑focused rules when they are narrowly tailored, provide procedural safeguards and avoid excessive fines. Staff proposed a residential carve‑out allowing owners, tenants or invited guests to camp under limited terms (either a cap on consecutive nights or a maximum number of nights within a 30‑day period) and suggested a 30‑minute notice window for code or law enforcement before removal of camping materials.
Councilmembers asked detailed questions about enforceability, how a residential carve‑out would work in practice, and whether existing codes (trespass, nuisance, zoning or RV parking rules) already address many concerns. Council members noted community safety concerns when people camp on or in front of downtown private property, and business owners said they lacked effective remedies under the current code when the property occupant had owner consent.
Staff flagged exceptions for parks with permits, emergency shelters, RV parks, city‑authorized events and first‑responder activities. They recommended enforcement focus on repeat or prolonged camping and on private property without owner consent, rather than single‑night activities that could reflect temporary, legitimate uses.
Council did not vote on an ordinance at the meeting; members directed staff to continue refining the draft, to develop clearer enforcement parameters (for example, whether to regulate consecutive nights or nights in a rolling 30‑day window), and to discuss details individually with councilmembers before returning the item for formal consideration.
