Debate Over Proposed Homelessness Bill Intensifies in North Carolina
North Carolina’s proposed bill aimed at tackling homelessness has sparked significant debate, as it makes local governments responsible for enforcing a ban on camping in unauthorized areas. However, the bill has been criticized for not providing financial support to address homelessness or cover enforcement costs.
Local municipalities would be allowed to set up designated camping areas, but only in locations distant from businesses and residential zones. Advocates are concerned that these restrictions could lead to the isolation of those using the designated spaces. Additionally, critics have labeled these areas as an unfunded mandate. The bill also proposes establishing drug-free zones around homeless shelters.
Related: Proposed camping ban moving swiftly through the NC Senate would create sanctioned homeless camps
Attorney General Josh Stein expressed his concerns, stating, “We all want people experiencing homelessness to get back on their feet and live in safe, affordable housing. Yet, this poorly constructed bill makes that goal harder and creates another significant unfunded mandate for local governments. The bill also fundamentally misunderstands how people suffering from addiction get healthy. If government threatens criminal liability against those who seek treatment and against the people, organizations, and churches trying to help them, government stands in the way of services that promote health and safety, and people’s problems are actually made worse.”
Supporters of the bill, including House Representative Brian Biggs, argue that it would benefit homeless individuals. Biggs mentioned, “[Stein’s] veto puts North Carolina at risk of missing out on critical funding that would help move people out of unsafe encampments and into stable housing and supportive services. The Governor’s refusal to address homelessness only allows more people to sink deeper into addiction and mental illness while making our communities less safe.”
Despite Stein’s veto, the bill could still be enacted if the legislature can achieve a three-fifths majority vote to override the veto. With all 120 House members present, Republicans are just one vote short of the 72 needed to override without Democratic support. The fact that five Democrats and two unaffiliated House members voted in favor of the bill suggests potential bipartisan support for a veto override.
