Safe Parks & Public Spaces Act
Senate Bill 724, titled the Safe Parks & Public Spaces Act, would create a new state law prohibiting unauthorized camping in public parks, rights-of-way, and other public spaces. It defines “public camping” broadly to include sleeping or occupying public property as a substitute for regular shelter, and it exempts locations formally designated as campsites or temporary sites for unsheltered homeless encampments by a government with jurisdiction.
The bill makes intentional or knowing public camping in non-designated public spaces a Class 3 misdemeanor, but provides that a first-time violator would not be charged criminally and instead must be directed to the nearest emergency shelter for homeless individuals. It also bars counties and municipalities from allowing regular public camping on non-designated public property and from discouraging law enforcement or prosecutors from enforcing local ordinances against camping, sleeping, or sidewalk obstruction. The bill authorizes residents, business owners, and the Attorney General to sue local governments to stop violations, and it allows recovery of litigation costs and attorneys’ fees for prevailing plaintiffs.
The bill would also affect state funding by prohibiting appropriations of State homelessness-assistance, prevention, or services funds to a county or municipality that violates the act and fails to cure the violation. In practical terms, it would add a new statewide restriction on local regulation of encampments and could preempt more permissive local approaches to homelessness-related camping policies. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or vote history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is framed as a public-safety and sanitation response to unauthorized encampments, while also including a limited first-offense diversion to emergency shelter. The overall tone of the bill is strongly regulatory and enforcement-oriented, with an explicit emphasis on protecting public spaces.
The main points of contention are likely to center on homelessness policy, local control, and enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize public safety, cleanliness, and the ability of cities and counties to keep parks and rights-of-way accessible, while opponents may argue that the bill criminalizes homelessness, restricts municipal discretion, and could reduce flexibility in responding to unsheltered populations. The private right of action and the threat of losing state homelessness funding may also be controversial because they create strong incentives for compliance and expose local governments to litigation.
The bill would add a new section to Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes governing camping in public spaces, creating a statewide prohibition on unauthorized public camping and setting a Class 3 misdemeanor penalty for violations. It would also limit county and municipal authority by preventing local governments from authorizing regular camping on non-designated public property or discouraging enforcement of anti-camping and anti-obstruction ordinances. In addition, it would create a civil enforcement mechanism allowing residents, business owners, and the Attorney General to seek injunctions against noncompliant local governments, and it would condition certain state homelessness-related funding on compliance.
No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from hearings or roll calls. The bill’s text suggests a pro-enforcement, public-safety-oriented approach, with a narrow humanitarian element through first-offense referral to emergency shelter. Overall, the measure appears designed to appeal to supporters of stricter public-space regulation, while likely drawing criticism from homelessness advocates and local officials concerned about preemption and criminalization.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill improperly criminalizes unsheltered homelessness, whether the State should override local decisions about encampments, and whether the private right of action and funding penalties are too coercive. Supporters are likely to be local business owners, residents concerned about park use and sidewalk obstruction, and officials favoring uniform enforcement; opponents are likely to be homelessness service providers, civil liberties advocates, and municipalities that want flexibility to manage encampments and shelter access. The bill’s exceptions for designated campsites and temporary unsheltered encampments may soften but do not eliminate these concerns.