(New Title) relative to unauthorized camping on private property.
Summary
HB 1091, as amended by the Senate, would extend New Hampshire’s existing camping restrictions to private property in municipalities with populations over 10,000. Under the bill, a person could not camp, erect a tent or other camping device, or sleep on the ground on private land unless they have written permission from the owner or the owner is continuously present and consents. The bill expressly excludes regulated campsites, recreational campgrounds, and camping parks.
The bill also clarifies enforcement by stating that law enforcement would not need to obtain or rely on a written no-trespass order from the property owner if the person cannot show the required permission or owner presence. In addition, it amends the penalty section so violations remain a violation for natural persons and a misdemeanor for other persons, while also making violators liable for restoration costs for damage caused to highways, rights-of-way, or private land disturbed by unlawful camping. The act would take effect January 1, 2027.
Impact
HB 1091 would amend RSA 236:58 and RSA 236:59, expanding the state’s camping restrictions from public rights-of-way and public property to certain private property in larger municipalities. It would create a new statewide rule for unauthorized camping on private land in cities and towns over 10,000 residents, while leaving smaller municipalities outside the new private-property restriction. The bill would also affect law enforcement procedures by removing the need for a written no-trespass order in these cases and would add explicit liability for restoration costs tied to unlawful camping damage.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest support for property rights, public sanitation, and local enforcement clarity, and there is no recorded vote or committee transcript showing organized opposition or support in the provided materials. The legislative findings frame the measure as a response to public health, sanitation, safety, and landowner concerns in densely populated municipalities. Overall, the available context indicates a generally pro-enforcement, pro-property-rights sentiment behind the bill, with the Senate-amended version preserving that approach.
Contention
The main points of contention implied by the bill are the balance between addressing unauthorized camping and protecting the rights of unhoused individuals or others who may be sleeping outdoors, as well as the scope of municipal authority and police enforcement. The bill specifically targets municipalities over 10,000 residents, which may raise concerns about unequal treatment across communities. Another likely issue is the removal of the need for a written no-trespass order, which could be viewed as making enforcement easier for police but reducing procedural protections for affected individuals and property owners.