House Bill 781 would prohibit local governments in North Carolina from authorizing or allowing regular public camping or sleeping on public property, including public buildings, grounds, and rights-of-way under local jurisdiction. The bill defines “public camping or sleeping” broadly to cover overnight lodging in temporary outdoor shelters or in outdoor spaces without a tent, while excluding lawful overnight stays in registered and insured motor vehicles and recreational camping on designated property.
The bill creates a narrow pathway for local governments to designate their own property for public camping or sleeping for up to one year, but only if they meet minimum standards for safety, sanitation, restroom and water access, coordination with behavioral health services, and prohibitions on drug and alcohol use. For most local governments, the designation must be certified by DHHS before it takes effect, and the government must show there are insufficient shelter beds, the site is not near residentially zoned property, and the site will not materially harm nearby property values, safety, or children. The Department may inspect designated sites and recommend closure if requirements are no longer met, and local governments must publicly post the standards and any closure notice.
The bill also creates enforcement tools allowing residents, business owners, or the Attorney General to sue a local government to stop a violation, with possible recovery of attorneys’ fees and related costs for prevailing plaintiffs. The prohibition would not apply during declared state emergencies. The act would take effect October 1, 2025, and would amend Chapter 160D of the General Statutes by adding a new section governing camping in public spaces.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes, but the bill advanced in the legislative process and received a favorable committee substitute before being referred onward. Its structure suggests a policy emphasis on restricting encampments in public spaces while allowing tightly controlled local alternatives, indicating support for public-order and local-regulation concerns.
The main point of contention likely centers on the balance between limiting homelessness-related encampments and preserving local flexibility to respond to unsheltered homelessness. Supporters may view the bill as a way to protect public safety, sanitation, and nearby property owners, while critics may object that it restricts local discretion, increases litigation risk, and could make it harder for municipalities to manage homelessness without adequate shelter capacity.
HB781 would add a new statewide restriction in Chapter 160D limiting what local governments may do with respect to public camping and sleeping on public property. It would preempt local governments from allowing regular public encampments except in narrowly defined, certified locations, and it would impose procedural, sanitation, safety, and behavioral-health requirements on any designated site. The bill also creates a private right of action and Attorney General enforcement against local governments that violate the prohibition, potentially exposing municipalities to injunctions and fee awards. It would affect local governments, DHHS, county health departments, residents, business owners, and people experiencing homelessness, and it would become effective October 1, 2025.
No committee debate or vote tally is available in the provided record, so the bill’s sentiment must be inferred from its movement and structure. The bill received a favorable committee substitute and continued through referral, suggesting at least some legislative support. The text reflects a generally restrictive approach to public camping, paired with a limited exception for designated sites, indicating an intent to address public nuisance, safety, and sanitation concerns while preserving a constrained local option for unsheltered individuals.
The likely core dispute is between proponents of a statewide ban on unauthorized public camping and advocates for local control and homelessness response flexibility. Supporters are likely to emphasize public safety, sanitation, property values, and the need to prevent encampments in rights-of-way and near residences or businesses. Opponents are likely to focus on the bill’s limits on municipal discretion, the certification and documentation burdens, the requirement that shelter capacity be insufficient before a site can be designated, and the possibility of private lawsuits against local governments. The behavioral-health and substance-use restrictions, along with the requirement to keep designated sites away from residential zoning and to avoid adverse impacts on children, may also be points of practical and policy contention.