A BILL to amend and reenact § 15.2-926 of the Code of Virginia, relating to loitering; unhoused persons.
HB1394 would amend Virginia’s local loitering statute, § 15.2-926, to add a new statewide limitation on how local governments may enforce ordinances against unhoused people. The bill preserves existing authority for localities to regulate loitering generally, including rules for minors and public places of amusement, and it keeps public libraries within the definition of “public place.”
The core change is a prohibition on localities imposing civil or criminal penalties on any unhoused person for engaging in basic life-sustaining activities in public, such as sleeping, resting, sitting, standing, lying down, or shielding oneself from the elements. That protection would also apply to a person in a legally parked car in a public place, so long as the conduct does not block pedestrian or vehicle movement in a way that creates a hazard. The bill defines “unhoused person” broadly to include individuals without a fixed, regular, or adequate nighttime residence and incorporates the federal homelessness definition.
If enacted, HB1394 would preempt local ordinances to the extent they punish unhoused individuals for ordinary survival activities in public spaces. It would limit municipal enforcement tools under § 15.2-926 and could affect local police, code enforcement, and public-space regulations, while leaving intact local authority over loitering rules that do not target unhoused status and over conduct that creates a traffic or pedestrian hazard. The bill would also align state law more closely with federal homelessness terminology by incorporating the federal definition of homelessness.
The available legislative history suggests the bill did not advance beyond committee and was continued to the next session by voice vote, indicating limited immediate support or unresolved concerns. Because there are no recorded floor debates or committee transcripts in the provided materials, the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the procedural outcome: the bill appears to have been treated cautiously rather than embraced as a consensus measure. The absence of recorded opposition or support statements leaves the public record thin, but the continuation suggests the proposal was not ready for final action.
The likely point of contention is the balance between protecting unhoused people from punitive enforcement and preserving local control over public order and nuisance ordinances. Supporters would view the bill as a civil-rights and anti-criminalization measure that prevents punishment for unavoidable life activities, while opponents may worry it restricts local governments’ ability to address encampments, sidewalk use, public safety, and neighborhood impacts. The hazard exception narrows the protection somewhat, but questions may remain about how broadly “life-sustaining activities” and “public place” would be applied in practice.