<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend and reenact § 15.2-926 of the Code of Virginia, relating to loitering; unhoused persons.</p>
Summary
HB1394 amends Virginia Code § 15.2-926, which currently authorizes localities to adopt ordinances prohibiting loitering and regulating minors’ presence in public places and places of amusement. The bill adds a new provision stating that localities may not discriminate against a person based on actual or perceived unhoused status by imposing civil or criminal penalties for certain life-sustaining activities in public places, including sleeping, resting, sitting, standing, lying down, or shielding oneself from the elements. The protection also applies when those activities occur in a legally parked car in a public place, so long as they do not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a hazardous way.
The bill defines “unhoused person” as an individual lacking a fixed, regular, or adequate nighttime residence, and expressly includes people who meet the federal definition of “homeless” under 42 U.S.C. 11302(a). It leaves intact local authority to regulate loitering generally and to enforce ordinances involving minors, while carving out a specific limitation on enforcement against unhoused individuals engaged in basic survival activities.
Impact
If enacted, HB1394 would limit the scope of local loitering ordinances and related enforcement by prohibiting civil or criminal penalties against unhoused people for specified life-sustaining conduct in public spaces. It would amend § 15.2-926 of the Code of Virginia to create a statewide restriction on local discrimination based on housing status, affecting municipalities’ ability to use loitering laws against unhoused residents. The bill would also align the state definition of “unhoused person” with the federal homelessness definition, potentially affecting how local governments, law enforcement, and courts interpret and apply these ordinances.
Sentiment
The available legislative history shows no recorded votes or committee transcript debate, but the bill’s referral status and continuation to the next session suggest it did not advance quickly. On its face, the measure reflects a protective, reform-oriented approach toward unhoused individuals while preserving general local authority over loitering and public-order regulation. The overall sentiment appears to be supportive of limiting punitive enforcement against homelessness-related conduct, though the lack of recorded discussion makes the level of consensus unclear.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between protecting unhoused people from punishment for unavoidable survival activities and preserving local governments’ ability to regulate public spaces, loitering, and nuisance conditions. Supporters would likely emphasize humane treatment and consistency with federal homelessness definitions, while opponents may argue the bill constrains local policing tools or could complicate enforcement of public safety and anti-loitering ordinances. The bill’s exception for conduct that creates a traffic hazard suggests an attempt to address safety concerns, but the scope of what counts as protected “life-sustaining activities” in public places could still be debated.