A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-925.2, relating to unpermitted temporary gatherings; local enhanced enforcement actions.
HB778 would authorize Virginia localities to create and activate “pop-up event zones” for unpermitted temporary gatherings of more than 50 people that are expected to pose risks to public health, safety, welfare, or normal community operations. The bill defines these events broadly to include spontaneous or pre-planned gatherings that can disrupt traffic, commercial activity, neighborhood tranquility, or access to public spaces. A locality could establish such a zone by ordinance, but activation would require concurrence from the local governing body’s presiding officer, the chief law-enforcement officer, and the chief administrative officer.
Once activated, a pop-up event zone could be subject to enhanced local enforcement measures. The bill requires public notice through a locality webpage and social media, plus a dedicated webpage listing any reduced speed limits, curfews, occupancy limits, signage, and other enforcement details. Localities could declare the zone gun-free, impose temporary speed reductions, set occupancy limits on public and private property, establish a curfew for unaccompanied minors, and assess enhanced traffic fines up to $1,000 per violation. The ordinance would also allow localities to recover enforcement and designation costs from event organizers.
The bill would add a new section, § 15.2-925.2, to the Code of Virginia and expand local authority over unpermitted large gatherings. It would give counties, cities, and towns a new legal framework to regulate temporary events through zoning-like enforcement tools, including traffic controls, curfews, occupancy restrictions, gun-free designations, and cost recovery from organizers. The measure would affect event organizers, attendees, property owners within designated zones, and local law-enforcement and administrative officials responsible for implementing the ordinance.
The available legislative history suggests the bill did not advance and was continued to the next session in the House Counties, Cities and Towns Committee by voice vote. With no recorded committee transcript or roll-call vote, there is limited direct evidence of member positions. The continuation indicates at least some interest in the concept, but also that the committee was not ready to move the bill forward in its introduced form.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of local power the bill would create. Supporters may view it as a public-safety tool for managing large, unpermitted gatherings that disrupt traffic and community operations, while opponents may be concerned about overbroad definitions, the ability to impose gun-free zones and curfews, and the application of occupancy limits and fines to private property. The cost-recovery provision and the potential impact on spontaneous or expressive gatherings may also raise concerns among event organizers, civil liberties advocates, and property owners.