An Act Prohibiting A Municipality From Imposing Any Penalty On Homeless Persons For Performing Activities Of Daily Living On Public Land.
HB07033 would prohibit municipalities from penalizing homeless persons for engaging in “activities of daily living” on public land, including sleeping or resting, eating, seeking shelter from extreme weather, accessing medical care, and using hygiene facilities. The bill also protects related conduct in public spaces, such as moving freely in places of public accommodation, soliciting or accepting food, water, money, or donations, praying or practicing religion in public, and occupying a motor vehicle or recreational vehicle when parked without creating a traffic hazard.
The bill defines key terms such as “homeless person,” “public land,” and “adequate alternative indoor space.” It allows activities on public land so long as they do not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a hazardous way, and it creates an exception where sufficient, legally and physically accessible indoor space has been offered, including transportation for the person and belongings. It also provides that violations may be enforced through civil penalties and authorizes the Attorney General to bring a civil action at the request of an aggrieved person.
This bill would add a new section to the general statutes effective July 1, 2025, limiting municipal authority to regulate or penalize certain conduct by homeless persons on public land. It would create a statewide legal protection against local ordinances or actions that punish sleeping, resting, food-sharing, religious activity, or vehicle occupancy by homeless individuals under the conditions described, and it would establish a civil penalty of $50 to $100 per offense for violations. The bill would also give the Attorney General enforcement authority through civil action, affecting municipalities, law enforcement, and potentially private actors who take prohibited actions.
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but was not unanimous: the House committee vote on the Joint Favorable Substitute was 14 yeas and 4 nays. The substitute bill and the absence of recorded transcript debate indicate the measure was advanced in committee with a generally favorable but not fully consensus view. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a homelessness protections measure, with support from members favoring civil-rights-style safeguards and opposition from those likely concerned about limits on municipal enforcement or public-space regulation.
The main points of contention are likely to be the balance between protecting homeless persons and preserving municipal authority to regulate public spaces, traffic flow, and public safety. Opponents may object to restricting local ordinances, especially where conduct occurs on sidewalks, parks, transportation areas, or near roadways, while supporters are likely focused on preventing punishment for unavoidable life-sustaining activities and ensuring access to shelter and services. The bill’s exception for “adequate alternative indoor space” may also be debated, particularly over what counts as sufficient, accessible, and truly available shelter.