NC House approves camping ban bill despite concerns about costs, criminalizing homelessness
People experiencing homelessness were forced to move from an encampment off of U.S. 70 near Garner. (Photo: Greg Childress)
Opponents of a bill that would ban unauthorized camping and sleeping on public property took one last, unsuccessful swing Wednesday to prevent House approval of legislation critics contend will criminalize homelessness.
In the end, the House voted 69-42, largely along partisan lines with Republicans voting in favor of sending House Bill 781 to the Senate just ahead of Thursday's crossover deadline, after which only bills that have passed at least one chamber can be considered.
HB 781 would allow local governments by 'majority vote' to designate local government-owned property located within its jurisdiction to be used for a 'continuous period of up to one year for public camping or sleeping purposes.' Local governments can renew the one-year period.
Rep. Brian Biggs (R-Randolph) pushed back against claims that HB 781 criminalizes homelessness while introducing the bill.
'This bill does not criminalize homelessness,' Biggs insisted. 'It addresses unauthorized public property camping and sleeping without prohibiting homelessness itself.'
Biggs has said the HB 781 grew out of conversations with municipal leaders who asked for guidance around handling the state's growing homeless crisis. He said the state can no longer wait to address the problem.
Total homelessness across the state jumped 19% to 11,626 in 2024, according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development report documenting homelessness in America. That was 1,872 more homeless people than the 9,754 counted in 2023.
'Some people want to kick it down the road two years, five years, but how long are we going to wait until we deal with our homeless population in our own house,' Biggs said. 'We need to deal with it now. We need to give guidance.'
Under HB 781, local governments would also be responsible for ensuring safety, maintaining sanitation, policing illegal substance use and alcohol use and coordinating with health departments to provide behavioral health services at designated sites.
The HB 781 debate was collegial. Some bill opponents thanked Biggs for taking on a difficult issue that has vexed cities and towns.
'It [HB 781] falls short in a lot of ways, but it took an act of courage to actually put it out there,' said Rep. Laura Budd (D-Mecklenburg). 'Maybe this is a solution we should consider because doing nothing is not an option. The solutions we're currently trying to employ in our communities across the state are either ineffectual or not meeting the needs of those they are seeking to house.'
Budd, however, said she could not vote for the bill because it's tantamount to an unfunded mandate that would create financial and strategic hardships for local governments.
'We cannot ask our local governments to foot this bill because when we do that, you know where they get the money, they get it out of the pockets of taxpayers living in their communities and most of those citizens can't afford that either,' Budd said.
Rep. Abe Jones (D-Wake) agreed the state should provide local governments with financial assistance if HB 781 is approved.
'I think we're going to have to put our money where our mouths are, otherwise, we would be just as guilty as the feds who do this all time; shove it down the line, beat their chest, act as though they did something and they're sending us no money,' Jones said.
Rep. Jordan Lopez (D-Mecklenburg) spoke forcibly against the bill, contending it would criminalize homelessness.
'It's not a misconception that House Bill 781 will require local governments to not only punish those that are unhoused, but in a state where affordable housing remains increasingly harder to find, it's contributing to a rising homeless rate, basically requires local governments to push away or outright hide unhoused people as well,' Lopez said.
Rep. Sarah Stevens (R-Surry) reminded colleagues of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson that there is 'no specific right to housing on public property.' The Court ruled that cities can punish unhoused individuals for sleeping outside in public even if they have nowhere else to go.
'It [the Court decision] said there's no constitutional right to living on a public park, a public property, so this does encompasses that and said you don't have the right to live on public property but if a city or county wishes to establish a place for people to live, they need to at least provide sanitation, they need to provide a space and give them some guidelines,' Stevens said.
After the Court ruling, Grants Pass designated camps for people experiencing homelessness. City policy restricts camping to specific locations.
Stevens argued that HB 781 is not an unfunded mandate because the problem of homelessness already exists.
'This is an attempt to start moving forward and getting the cities and counties to say, 'Yes, this is an issue and we're going to deal with it,'' Stevens said. 'We didn't create the problem on the state level, so it's not up to us to fix it. Each of the cities and counties are going to have to do their own thing.'
Rep. Deb Butler (D-New Hanover) questioned a provision in the bill that prohibits selected sites from negatively affecting property values of neighboring properties.
'Well, who's going to determine that?' Butler asked. 'Who's going to do the valuations?'
Like other bill opponents, Butler thanked Biggs for taking on a challenging subject but said HB 781 leaves her with more questions than answers.
'You [Biggs] are well intentioned with this bill, but I think homelessness, being unhoused, is a very tough issue and people in that advocacy space have been trying to figure it out,' Butler said. 'Until we can figure it out, and until we commit the dollars and resources to solve some of the underlying challenges, I don't think we're going to get there, and I think this bill is going to impede our progress on tackling homelessness.'
Lawmakers' concerns about HB 781 largely mirrored those that have been expressed by advocates for people experiencing homelessness.
'Absent state fiscal support, the NC bill diminishes local autonomy while making cities and counties both fiscally responsible and legally liable for the implementation of state-sanctioned encampment policies,' the NC Coalition to End Homelessness [NCCEH] said in a statement earlier this week.
The NCCEH also expressed concern that the bill is being pushed by the Cicero Institute, a conservative think tank, that has led efforts to pass similar legislation in Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, Georgia, Florida, Wisconsin and Kentucky.
The institute was founded by tech-industry capitalist Joe Lonsdale, who is critical of the 'housing first' approach to ending homelessness. That model prioritizes providing individuals and families with permanent, affordable housing as the first step in ending their plight.
'While Cicero describes itself as a think tank, its policies promote industries that potentially profit from criminalizing poverty,' said Dr. Latonya Agard, executive director of NCCEH. 'States that adopted Cicero laws find they are funneling more public money into incarceration, so while these bills could lead to the financial enrichment of out-of-state investors of privatized jails and prisons and monitoring technologies, they will worsen conditions for North Carolinians without housing.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
AOC Viewed Positively by More Americans Than Trump and Harris—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More Americans have a positive image of progressive Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, than they do of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to new polling data. Why It Matters Ocasio-Cortez has been seen as a polarizing figure in politics and within the Democratic Party. She has drawn backlash from moderate Democrats and Republicans alike since she surged onto the national stage after an upset primary victory against a powerful incumbent Democrat in 2018. The New York progressive has embraced the Democratic socialist label, despite pushback from within her own party. Recently, she has traveled around the country holding massive rallies with progressive Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, with the duo turning out thousands—including in conservative districts and states. What to Know New polling released Friday by AtlasIntel—which has been described by election analyst Nate Silver as "top-rated," and was described as the most accurate pollster of the 2024 and 2020 elections—showed Ocasio-Cortez ranked third among politicians included in the survey, in terms of Americans who had a positive view of her. The congresswoman was also one of just three political leaders with an overall net positive image. The New York Democrat was viewed positively by 46 percent of respondents, compared to 44 percent that viewed her negatively—meaning her net positive rating was above water by 2 points. An additional 10 percent of respondents said they didn't know. Only former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama ranked higher than the congresswoman. Barack Obama was viewed positively by 53 percent compared to 43 percent who viewed him negatively. Michelle Obama was 49 percent positive and 45 percent negative. Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez was ahead of Trump and Harris, as well as Vice President JD Vance and former President Joe Biden. Trump was viewed positively by 44 percent, Vance by 42 percent, Harris by 42 percent and Biden by 37 percent. Respectively the politicians were viewed negatively by 55 percent, 56 percent, 52 percent and 55 percent. The poll included 3,469 respondents and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level. It was carried out from May 21 through May 27. Speculation has swirled in recent months about Ocasio-Cortez's political future, especially as she has rallied with Sanders across the country. Many have urged her to consider challenging Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, in the 2028 primary, while others see her as a strong Democratic presidential contender. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, waves as she enters to a full auditorium as part of the "Fighting Oligarchy" tour on April 14 in Nampa, Idaho. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, waves as she enters to a full auditorium as part of the "Fighting Oligarchy" tour on April 14 in Nampa, People Are Saying Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Fox News in April when asked about her future plans: "This moment isn't about campaigns, or elections, or about politics. It's about making sure people are protected, and we've got people that are getting locked up for exercising their First Amendment rights. We're getting 2-year-olds that are getting deported into cells in Honduras. We're getting people that are about to get kicked off of Medicaid. That, to me, is most important." D. Stephen Voss, political science professor at the University of Kentucky, previously told Newsweek via email: "AOC serves as the face of the Democratic Party for many Trump supporters who dislike national Democrats. They like to pillory her as ignorant and irresponsible." Voss continued: "At the same time, many Democrats embrace AOC as a worthy young successor to Bernie, someone who can play the role of progressive challenger in a Democratic nomination battle." Monica Crowley, a former official in the Treasury Department during the first Trump administration, told Fox News last November: "Just a word of warning to the Republicans, to my party: Do not underestimate AOC. She's young, she's vibrant, she's attractive." What Happens Next? Ocasio-Cortez's future political moves remain to be seen. For the time being, she has said she aims to focus on fighting back against the Trump administration.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fellow Republicans: Memorial Day heroes did not die for a party or personality
It was heartwarming to see so many Americans on Memorial Day post tributes to fallen heroes. For so many people, this past observance of the national holiday wasn't about barbecues or the unofficial start of summer. It was a day to reflect on the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who gave their lives in service to our country. Predictably, my social media feed was flooded with patriotic posts from politicians — photos at memorials, quotes about sacrifice and tributes to the fallen. The hypocrisy was glaring. The very lawmakers who honor those who 'paid the ultimate price to protect our freedoms' are the ones seemingly disregarding the constitutional principles those heroes gave their lives to defend. Congress is a coequal branch of government, tasked with serving as a check on executive power. Yet too many Republican lawmakers have abandoned that responsibility, choosing loyalty to the president over constitutional duty. In doing so, they've effectively surrendered their legislative authority, allowing — and in some cases even encouraging — President Donald Trump to govern through a record number of executive actions. When Republicans are not turning a blind eye to executive overreach, they're folding under pressure — bullied, threatened and strong-armed by the White House into abandoning core principles and passing legislative monstrosities like the 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Voters sent members of Congress to Washington to serve the people — not to act as lapdogs for the president. And while we're on it, the very concept of a 'One Big Beautiful Bill' flies in the face of everything Republicans have long championed. For decades, Republican leaders demanded stand-alone legislation so each proposal could be debated and judged on its own merits - not buried in bloated packages stuffed with poison pills. Yet here we all are, watching the extension of the Trump tax cuts being held hostage inside a massive spending package. And what about the Department of Government Efficiency cuts? If Congress was going to pass a bill of this magnitude, the least it could do is include those cuts and show real commitment to reducing the size of the federal government. Instead, we're staring at a $4 trillion debt ceiling hike. I expect that kind of recklessness from Democrats — not from a Republican-controlled Congress. Republicans used to draw a hard line on debt. Now, GOP leaders are caving to Trump's demands with little resistance. But this isn't about fiscal responsibility — it's about the integrity of the Constitution. It's about Republicans in Congress abdicating their authority and becoming an obedient extension of the White House. The separation of powers is meant to safeguard liberty, not to be brushed aside for political convenience. Democrats aren't off the hook. They're just as guilty — perhaps more so. They lied about President Joe Biden's health and participated in a coordinated cover-up to deceive the American people. I don't need Jake Tapper's book to tell me what I saw with my own eyes: a frail president incapable of executing the duties of his office. In choosing to gaslight the public, Democrats didn't just erode trust. They made it clear that holding on to power matters more than telling the truth, more than transparency, and more than the republic itself. America deserves better. Those men and women that Americans honored on Memorial Day did not die for a party or a personality. They died because liberty, freedom, and democracy are not just ideals to be admired — they are values worth defending, even at the highest cost. Their bravery is not simply a chapter in our history. It is the very foundation upon which our freedom stands. If we truly wish to honor the nation's fallen heroes, it must be through action. That requires preserving the separation of powers, upholding the rule of law and respecting the checks and balances that form the backbone of our republic. The greatest tribute we can offer those who died for our freedom is to prove ourselves worthy of their ultimate sacrifice. Matt Wylie is a South Carolina-based Republican political strategist and analyst with over 25 years of experience working on federal, state and local campaigns.


USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump withdraws nominee to lead NASA Jared Isaacman, who has close ties with Elon Musk
Trump withdraws nominee to lead NASA Jared Isaacman, who has close ties with Elon Musk President Trump has pulled his nomination of Jared Isaacman, a billionaire commercial astronaut with close ties to Elon Musk, as NASA administrator. Show Caption Hide Caption Trump calls Elon Musk a 'fantastic guy' amid drug use allegations President Trump said he didn't know about Elon Musk's alleged drug use and backed the billionaire's cost-cutting. WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump has pulled his nomination of Jared Isaacman, a billionaire commercial astronaut with close ties to Elon Musk, as his nominee to serve as administrator of NASA. The White House confirmed the withdrawal on May 31 and said Trump will soon announce a new nominee to lead NASA. No reason was provided for parting ways with Isaacman, who led and financed private astronaut missions Polaris Dawn and Inspiration4, which was carried out by Musk's SpaceX. The withdrawal, first reported by the news website Semafor, comes after the 42-year-old Isaacman already cleared the Senate Commerce Committee in April and appeared on track for a full Senate vote. 'The Administrator of NASA will help lead humanity into space and execute President Trump's bold mission of planting the American flag on the planet Mars," White House Assistant Press Secretary Liz Huston said in a statement. "It's essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump's America First agenda, and a replacement will be announced directly by President Trump soon." More: Elon Musk's rise and fall: From Trump's chainsaw-wielding sidekick to a swift exit The move comes a day after Musk, a business partner and friend of Isaacman, left the White House after spending four months as a senior White House adviser overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk joined Trump for an Oval Office news conference to mark the end of the billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO's tenure in the White House. Conservative activist Laura Loomer, who has proven influential in many Trump decisions, raised alarm about the status of Isaacman's nomination in an X post, hours before the White House confirmed it was being withdrawn, writing, "There is reason to believe that Isaacman may be facing retaliation because of his friendship with Musk." More: Trump's pick to head NASA has been to space twice: Recapping billionaire's missions Isaacman, founder and CEO of the payment processing company Shift4 Payments, undertook his first private space venture in 2021, when he was commander and financier of the world's first all-civilian extended mission to space. In 2024, he returned to space with an all-civilian crew of amateur spacefarers with the Polaris Dawn missions, which he jointly funded with SpaceX. The Polaris Dawn mission got off the ground on Sept. 10 with the help of a Falcon 9 rocket, which propelled the crew to orbit on a SpaceX Dragon capsule from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The crew also included pilot Scott 'Kidd' Poteet and mission specialists Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon. NASA has lacked a full-time administrator since Bill Nelson, NASA administrator in the Biden administration, stepped down on Jan. 20 when Trump was inaugurated. Contributing: Eric Lagatta of USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison @joeygarrison.