logo
Bill to ban camping and sleeping on public property advances in NC House

Bill to ban camping and sleeping on public property advances in NC House

Yahoo30-04-2025

People experiencing homelessness in Raleigh pack to leave an encampment off of Highway 70 near Interstate 40. (Photo: Greg Childress)
A bill that would make it unlawful for local governments to allow or authorize any person to 'regularly engage in public camping or sleeping on public property, including, but not limited to, public buildings or grounds and any public right-of-way' received a favorable report in a House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
The bill, however, includes a significant exception. House Bill 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) said he sponsored the bill after leaders of local municipalities came to him looking for guidance in handling homelessness. Biggs insisted the bill doesn't criminalize homelessness as some critics contend.
'It addresses the use of public property for camping and sleeping without prohibiting homelessness,' Biggs said. 'It does create clear guidance. We need guidance.'
In addition to Biggs, HB 781 is cosponsored by GOP Reps. Neal Jackson, Jennifer Balkcom and Mike Schietzelt — who represent parts of Randolph, Moore, Henderson, and Wake counties.
Under the bill, counties or municipalities designating property for encampments must establish and maintain minimum standards and procedures designed to:
Ensure the safety and security of the designated property and the persons lodging or residing on the property.
Maintain sanitation, including, at a minimum, by providing access to clean and operable restrooms and running water.
Coordinate with the county health department to provide access to behavioral health services, which must include substance abuse and mental health treatment resources.
Prohibit illegal substance use and alcohol use on the designated property and enforce the prohibition against such use.
Several people signed up to speak against the bill. They were only given one minute each to speak.
Otto Harris, a pastor speaking on behalf of Ken Carter, bishop of the Western North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church, said HB 781 treads on the state's most vulnerable citizens.
'How can we push down folks who are already down?' Carter asked. 'Seems like it's impossible, but this bill has figured it out.'
Harris said the bill will criminalize homelessness and place unhoused people in 'harm's way with potential penalties, fines, court dates, blemishes on their record.'
Chris Nobblitt, an organizer for Durham-based National Union of the Homeless, said the bill will lead to deaths if approved.
'This bill will kill the Hurricane Helene victims that have still not gotten help from FEMA or the state,' Nobblitt said. 'This bill will kill veterans that serve my country, please do not let this bill pass.'
Nobblitt compared 'sanction encampments' to 'concentration camps.'
'If you really wanted to help homeless people, then you would help to unlock the 27 empty homes for every homeless person. You would help us get Medicaid for every person,' Nobblitt said. 'You would raise the minimum wage so we could afford the sky-high rent that the corporations in North Carolina are holding hostage.'
According to the N.C. Housing Coalition, there are 1.1 million families in North Carolina who are burdened by housing costs. The group's annual County Profiles reported that 48% of renters and 19% of homeowners in North Carolina pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Families that spend more than 30% of income on housing are considered cost-burdened. In 2024, homelessness in North Carolina increased 19%, as the official count reached a total of 11,626 individuals experiencing homelessness.
Chris Sharp of the conservative, Texas-based Cicero Institute, spoke in support of the bill.
'This bill allows for local governments to establish sanctioned camping, camping areas that provide basic sanitation, access to mental health and substance abuse treatment, along with protection from gangs drug dealers, which often prey on these vulnerable individuals,' Sharp said. 'HB 781 also provides for protection of individual property and small business property rights.'
Bill critics have said they believe Sharp's group represents is behind HB 781.
'I'm also glad today that the Cicero Institute has finally revealed itself as the sponsor and lobbyist for this bill,' said Latonya Agard, executive director of the N.C. Coalition to End Homelessness.
Agard noted that the Cicero Institute was founded by billionaire venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale who she said has opposed Housing First policies that prioritizes getting people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing.
'They have provided the template for this bill in other states around the country as an opposition to Housing First, which is documented and clearly has evidence that it does work when it is funded properly,' Agard said. 'This bill does not take into account the issue that there is not enough affordable housing as homelessness has increased, as the number of people who are unsheltered has increased, our affordable housing availability has decreased, and that is why we see so many people in this need.'
Benjamin Horton, director of outreach at Veteran Services of the Carolinas, said he's concerned about whether municipalities can keep veterans safe in such encampments. Horton also worries about being about to find veterans to provide services if the bill becomes law.
'We're a very stubborn bunch,' the U.S. Navy veteran said. 'You're telling us where we camp, where we can't camp. That's going to make it harder on street outreach folks, mental health folks who are working with the VA for multiple services.'
Rep. Laura Budd (D-Mecklenburg) said the bill doesn't solve the problem of homelessness. Lawmakers must address low wages, mental illness and other conditions that lead to homelessness, she said.
A person making minimum wage — $7.25 per hour — and working two, 40-hour a week jobs can't afford to pay rent, Budd said.
'You do that for two jobs, you're at $30,160 [a year], so when we talk about solutions for homeless people, we need to not just be talking about affordable housing,' Budd said.
HB 781 received a favorable report. It was referred to the House Committee on State and Local Government.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk's feud with Trump likely won't blow up Tesla's robotaxi push, analysts say
Elon Musk's feud with Trump likely won't blow up Tesla's robotaxi push, analysts say

Business Insider

time37 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Elon Musk's feud with Trump likely won't blow up Tesla's robotaxi push, analysts say

Elon Musk 's public sparring with President Donald Trump last week may have briefly put a dent in Tesla's value, but analysts say they can't see any reason the feud would have a long-term impact on the company's business, including its robotaxi ambitions. The feud between Musk and Trump began with the Tesla CEO's criticism of the GOP's spending bill, which slashes EV tax credits and is estimated to add more than $2.4 trillion to the national deficit. The clash then escalated with threats coming from both sides: Trump threatened to cancel government contracts with Musk's companies, and the CEO fired back by saying he'd shut down SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft before reneging. During Musk's fight with Trump on Thursday, Tesla's stock dipped 14%, wiping out $138 billion from the company's market cap. The company recovered some of the losses the following day. Yet the CEO saw one of his biggest single-day hits to his net worth with an estimated $34 billion loss. Still, some analysts say this storm will pass. "Musk's and Trump's relationship has an impact on the stock and maybe investor sentiment, but as far as the actual business impact for Tesla, I never thought Trump getting elected was positive or that negative for Tesla," Seth Goldstein, Morningstar analyst, told Business Insider. "So with the feud that started between Trump and Musk, I never really viewed that as that positive or negative for Tesla either." While it may not be helpful to no longer be in Trump's good graces, Goldstein said the president has already made clear that he would cut EV subsidies, which the analyst viewed as having the most negative impact not just on Tesla but on all EV makers. Gene Munster, Tesla investor and managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, estimated in a Friday report that the elimination of the tax credits could reduce 2025 deliveries by 15%. Trump wishes Tesla well As far as Tesla's June robotaxi launch in Austin goes, which Musk says will unlock trillions of dollars of market value for his company, analysts say there's little reason to believe the administration would want to hinder progress there. "In my view, the White House has little to gain in standing in front of autonomy, given autonomy is central to physical AI, and for the US to be a leader globally in AI, it also needs to be a leader in physical AI," Munster said in his Friday report. "The bottom line, I expect cooler heads to prevail and the Federal Government will continue to support the growth of these services." Goldstein told BI that he doesn't see many avenues the administration could take to hinder Tesla's robotaxi progress. He said the Department of Transportation is reviewing federal standards for autonomous vehicle safety. "In theory, if Trump wanted to see Musk face retaliation and target Tesla, they could, say, require autonomous vehicles to have lidar in order to be approved by the federal government for operation, but I don't think they're going to get that detailed," Goldstein said. "I think that Trump could more easily just target SpaceX by just cutting their contracts if he really wanted to hurt Elon, versus making some really weird, nuanced policy." Spokespeople for the DOT and the White House did not respond to a request for comment. In a note on Friday, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote that Musk's feud with Trump doesn't impact the "longer-term vectors that drive the stock's value." "AI leadership, autonomy/robotics, manufacturing, supply chain re-architecture, renewable power, critical infrastructure... Tesla still holds so many valuable cards that are largely apolitical, in our opinion," Jonas wrote. By late Friday afternoon, the online jabs had slowed down, but the Trump-Musk alliance remained on ice. The president told NBC News on Saturday that he doesn't expect to mend his relationship with Musk and warned the CEO against supporting Democratic candidates. Still, during a press gaggle on Air Force One on Friday, Trump said he hadn't thought about Musk but wished him and his company well. "I mean, I hope he does well with Tesla," Trump said.

Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy

Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy | Opinion There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. Show Caption Hide Caption 'Two big egos.' Americans not surprised by Trump-Musk feud Americans across the country say they're not surprised by the public feud between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Aside from being globally cathartic, the all-too-predictable breakup of President Donald Trump's unquenchable ego and Elon Musk's immense sense of self-importance pulled the dressing-room curtain back on the Republican Party. And what we saw was both cringeworthy and indecent. Or as I like to call it, the Republican Party. Here are three things this episode of 'Real Annoying Billionaires of Washington, DC' taught us about the conservatives who excitedly welcomed Musk – and his money – into politics: 1. Trump and GOP used taxpayers' money to purchase Elon Musk's support As the president and the weirdo billionaire hurled insults at each other on June 5, Trump posted this threat: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Gee, I wonder who, up until June 5, was helping Musk grease the wheels to line up 'Billions and Billions of Dollars' in additional government contracts? As The New York Times reported in March: 'Within the Trump administration's Defense Department, Elon Musk's SpaceX rocketry is being trumpeted as the nifty new way the Pentagon could move military cargo rapidly around the globe. In the Commerce Department, SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service will now be fully eligible for the federal government's $42 billion rural broadband push, after being largely shut out during the Biden era. … And at the Federal Aviation Administration and the White House itself, Starlink satellite dishes have recently been installed, to expand federal government internet access.' Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? How quickly Trump went from filling Musk's coffers to repay him for his support and campaign contributions to suggesting Musk's contracts were, in fact, a form of government waste and fraud. (I mean … they are a form of government waste and fraud, but not in the way Trump was suggesting.) There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. I think there's a word for that. 2. Elon Musk, despite all the tush-kissing, never liked or respected Donald Trump Musk's swift about-face on Trump shows what many of us have long suspected: Republicans or Republicans-of-convenience like Musk don't actually like or respect Trump. On Feb. 7, Musk posted on social media: 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.' On June 5, Musk posted: '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Going from 'I love you, man' to 'I'm alleging you're connected to a notorious sex offender who was facing child sex trafficking charges before he died of suicide in jail' is quite a journey. And it implies that Musk saw Trump for what he is: a useful, loathsome fool. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. The minute Trump became not useful to Musk, he sang his truth, something I'd bet most Republicans would do if they had untold wealth and didn't have to worry much about repercussions. That tells you all you need to know about the modern-day GOP – liars boosting a lout in their own self-interest. 3. DOGE was nonsense, and Republicans never really liked Musk For all its fanfare, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency that Musk oversaw accomplished precious little cost-cutting while inflicting massive harm on America's global reputation, the lives of people reliant on U.S. aid, and the overall functioning of the federal government. Republicans knew this yet still tripped over themselves to toss roses at Musk's feet, hailing him as some kind of genius/savior. They wanted his money, and they wanted the disinformation cannon that comes with his right-wing social media platform. But when Musk grew wise to what Republican lawmakers were doing with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – a deficit-ballooning monstrosity – he turned on his handmaidens and his former love, President Trump. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. So Trump, of course, called him crazy. Which begs the question: Why were you letting a crazy person access Americans' most private data and demolish the federal workforce? And are you now going to … you know … make sure the guy you think is crazy didn't do something catastrophically bad? Congressional Republicans had to pick a side, and they've largely stepped into Trump's arms, knowing Musk may well be disliked even more than the sitting president. The Washington Post reported June 6: 'Across the government, the Trump administration is scrambling to rehire many federal employees dismissed under DOGE's staff-slashing initiatives after wiping out entire offices, in some cases imperiling key services such as weather forecasting and the drug approval process.' Translation: Musk's DOGE nonsense was for naught, an attempt to fluff a billionaire's ego while cloaking the high-spending, deficit-raising moves Republicans were going to make all along. There's a sucker born every minute, and two Republicans to take 'em. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at

Will Trump's policies kill Massachusetts' life sciences leadership?
Will Trump's policies kill Massachusetts' life sciences leadership?

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

Will Trump's policies kill Massachusetts' life sciences leadership?

Advertisement Although the industry is centered in eastern Massachusetts, there's a statewide benefit from all the tax dollars those businesses and workers pay. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In all, Massachusetts organizations — including universities, research institutes, and hospitals — received $3.5 billion in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Massachusetts-headquartered companies raised $3.26 billion in venture capital funding. Among all drugs in the development pipeline in the United States, 15 percent were being made by companies headquartered in Massachusetts. But actions taken by President Trump and his administration — cutting funding for scientific research and universities, flirting with tariffs, fanning skepticism about vaccines — threaten to devastate the ecosystem. Today, the industry is at a precipice, and uncertainty abounds. Some companies are already feeling the pinch of terminated federal grants, while others are anxious about what might come. Taken together, Trump's policies could force some companies and scientists to take their money, talents, and products overseas. Advertisement Christopher Locher, CEO of Lowell-based Versatope Therapeutics, which develops a platform to deliver vaccines and therapeutics, said he worries the Greater Boston life sciences ecosystem is 'being flushed down the toilet.' For example, Trump is Trump's funding cuts are already having a large impact on some local companies. Part of the problem is the Trump administration isn't only cutting funding, but it's picking which technologies to fund — in some cases apparently based on politics more than science. Take flu vaccines. The Trump administration recently announced a $500 million campaign to fund the development of a universal flu vaccine, which doesn't require annual updates, using technology being worked on But simultaneously, he cut funding for other work on a universal flu vaccine. Versatope Therapeutics got $14 million in NIH funding and spent five years developing a universal flu vaccine. It had approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to begin clinical trials when Trump terminated the contract's remaining $8 million, with the reason given being 'convenience,' Locher said. Trump also Advertisement Company executives say decisions by Trump officials to disinvest in vaccine-related technology — and concerns about whether government will approve new technology — means it's nearly impossible to find private investment funding to replace lost federal dollars. 'We're faced with bankruptcy in the very near future,' Locher said. Ironically, given Trump's stated commitment to bringing businesses back to the United States, one potential option Locher is eyeing is opening a subsidiary abroad. Conducting clinical trials would be cheaper in another country, whether in Europe, Australia, or China, Locher said, and some countries are offering financial incentives to American companies to relocate. Companies also face a potential workforce brain drain. There have been MassBio officials said China has less rigorous — but faster — safety and research protocols than the US. Australia allows a faster timeline for clinical trials. If regulatory approval of medicines is held up because the FDA is understaffed, companies may seek European regulatory approval instead. The loss of talent to foreign countries will be compounded if the pipeline of local university graduates dries up. One draw for life sciences companies to Boston/Cambridge is the presence of elite schools like Harvard and MIT, with their potential for faculty collaboration and skilled graduates. Advertisement Trump is trying to Chip Clark, CEO at Vibrant Biomedicines in Cambridge, said cuts to university research funding both 'shrink the pipeline of great ideas' that form the basis for many biotech startups and translate to fewer available scientists. Clark said the administration's policies 'seem like a deliberate attempt to try to cede scientific leadership to Europe and Japan and Korea and China. ... They will be delighted to capitalize on our talent, technology, and investment capital to make their robust biotech sectors grow and ultimately compete successfully against the US industry,' he said. Don Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, said he has postdocs with US visas applying for jobs in Europe, and others who were accepted to work at Harvard but are going elsewhere. 'The fact that places like Harvard and MIT and American universities are magnets for the best and brightest from around the world is what's driven our technology economy and certainly the Boston/Cambridge ecosystem,' Ingber said. 'With this uncertainty, I fear we'll lose a generation.' Ingber, who was forced to stop work on two government-funded projects on drugs designed to prevent injury from radiation exposure, compared administration policies to 'eating seed corn' needed to grow crops. Advertisement Trump's vendetta will undermine one of the most vibrant state economies in the country and set back American science by years. And it's not just eastern Massachusetts that will pay a price; the entire country will. As Ingber noted, it might take years to see the impact of medicines or technologies that aren't developed because of these shortsighted cuts. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store