Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the No Camping Ord topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local groups and residents press Saratoga Springs council to repeal no‑camping ordinance; councilors say shelters available
Summary
Multiple speakers and advocacy groups urged the city to repeal a no‑camping ordinance they say disproportionately targets disabled and unhoused people. Council members defended enforcement and outreach, saying shelter beds were available and outreach officers connected people to services; council did not take immediate action to repeal the ordinance.
A coalition of advocacy groups and a string of public commenters urged the Saratoga Springs City Council to repeal the city’s no‑camping ordinance, which went into effect in July 2025. Speakers, including representatives from the Saratoga Immigration Coalition, Upper Hudson Valley Code Pink and Saratoga Stronger, said the ordinance is being used to target disabled and unhoused people while similar behavior by tourists or wealthier residents is overlooked.
A presenter who read a sequential letter said advocates saw no evidence in body‑cam footage that ticketed individuals were maintaining encampments or blocking foot traffic; the letter and multiple speakers said many ticketed people are disabled and that repeated tickets would amount to large fines. The presenters requested permanent repeal of the ordinance and recommended the city invest in a year‑round, low‑barrier shelter and stronger tenant protections.
Commissioner Cole, responding for the council, said outreach officers repeatedly contacted Shelters of Saratoga and RISE this winter and found beds were available; he said many people decline shelter and that outreach and services remain the city’s approach. The mayor and other council members reiterated ongoing work addressing affordability, zoning changes, land banks and other housing measures. No repeal motion was filed during the meeting.
The meeting recorded no formal vote to change the ordinance; councilors described outreach efforts and encouraged continued coordination with local nonprofits. Advocacy groups said most cases observed by court observers were dropped and that the ordinance’s enforcement falls disproportionately on disabled and low‑income residents.
Next steps: Advocacy groups and residents indicated they will continue to press the council; councilors said they will continue outreach and pursue housing and zoning measures.
