In uses of property, providing for encampments.
SB 780 would create a new chapter in Title 68 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes governing “encampments,” defined as unsheltered locations with three or more unrelated people living in temporary or makeshift structures. The bill prohibits “unauthorized encampments” on public or private property when the property owner has not given express consent and when conditions indicating a nuisance are present, such as sanitation problems, garbage or human waste, open fires, or visible drug activity. It also sets out a process for municipalities and interested persons to seek determinations that an encampment is a public nuisance.
If a municipality finds an encampment on private property to be a nuisance, it must notify the owner, who then has 30 days either to eject the encampment through legal means or to give express consent and comply with local health and safety rules. For encampments on municipal property, the municipality must either remove the encampment or expressly authorize it within 30 days. The bill also allows appeals to Commonwealth Court, authorizes civil penalties of up to $250 per day per violation, and permits interested persons to seek declaratory, injunctive, or mandamus relief, as well as actual damages and reasonable expenses in some cases. Municipalities may physically remove encampments after notice and, in some cases, must do so after a court nuisance finding; they may recover removal costs from the property owner.
The bill would affect property owners, municipalities, people living in encampments, and nearby residents or owners who are deemed “interested persons” if their property is within 1,600 feet of an encampment. It also creates liability rules for owners who consent to encampments, including a waiver of governmental immunity for municipal owners and a constructive-notice rule for dangerous conditions. The measure would add new enforcement authority and new legal exposure under state law, while also requiring municipalities to provide notice, allow time to remove personal property, and take steps to connect displaced individuals with services for people experiencing homelessness.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition. It advanced through the Senate Local Government Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee, then passed final Senate consideration by a 34-16 vote, indicating a clear majority in favor but not broad consensus. The floor vote on a motion to table an amendment also showed division, suggesting the issue was politically active and contested.
The main points of contention appear to be the balance between public nuisance enforcement, property rights, municipal authority, and homelessness policy. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a tool to address unsafe or unsanitary encampments and to give neighbors and municipalities a clearer enforcement path. Opponents likely objected to the bill’s penalties, private right of action, broad definition of nuisance, and the potential for forced removal of encampments, especially given its impact on unhoused individuals and the responsibilities placed on municipalities and property owners.
SB 780 would add a new Chapter 57 to Title 68, creating a statewide statutory framework for regulating encampments on public and private property. It would establish definitions, prohibit unauthorized encampments with nuisance conditions, impose duties on property owners, authorize municipal enforcement and removal actions, create civil penalties and private causes of action, and require notice and limited service-referral steps before physical removal. The bill would directly affect municipal code enforcement, nuisance law, property liability, and procedures involving homelessness-related encampments.
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately favorable sentiment in the Senate. It moved out of committee on party-line or near-party-line votes and passed the Senate 34-16, showing substantial support but also significant opposition. The recorded vote on a motion to table an amendment also suggests the bill was controversial and drew active debate, likely over enforcement authority and treatment of encampments.
The central contention is between those prioritizing public safety, sanitation, and property-owner rights and those concerned about criminalizing or displacing unhoused people. Critics are likely to focus on the bill’s broad nuisance triggers, daily civil penalties, private enforcement rights, and mandatory removal provisions. Supporters are likely to emphasize the need for a clear legal process to address unsafe encampments, protect neighboring properties, and give municipalities tools to respond to sanitation, drug activity, and other hazards.