According to the “Procedures for Meeting” available on the city’s website, the mayor or any four members of Morgantown City Council could have established time limits on the public hearing ahead of Tuesday’s second reading of the proposed citywide camping ban.
They opted not to do so.
So, for four-plus hours, well over two dozen speakers came to the podium. Some offered a comment or two; others spoke for 10, 20, 50 minutes.
They brought notes, charts, props and books and, with very few exceptions, reasons why they believe the ordinance is poorly conceived and wrong for the city.
At 11:30 p.m., the extended deadline for this report came and went long before council cast a vote on the controversial law.
A report on the body’s deliberation and decision is available at dominionpost.com and will be in Thursday’s The Dominion Post print edition.
As it regularly has been each meeting since the topic of a citywide camping ban was first raised, the Morgantown City Hall meeting chamber was packed Tuesday evening.
An even larger crowd gathered in the building’s ground-floor lobby to watch a livestream of the proceedings.
Council faced a similar crowd Aug. 20, when it passed the law 4-3 on first reading.
Councilors Brian Butcher and Danielle Trumble were joined by Mayor Joe Abu-Ghannam in voting against the law then.
In both instances, the crowd was overwhelmingly opposed to the law, which defines camp/camping to mean “pitch, erect or occupy camp facilities, or to use camp paraphernalia or both for the purpose of habitation, as evidenced by the use of camp paraphernalia,” and bans it on all public property.
The ordinance says an initial violation will result in a warning. A second violation will result in a fine of no more than $200 and a third violation within 12 months can result in a fine of up to $500 and/or up to 30 days in jail.
However, “No citation shall be issued, nor any criminal penalty imposed, under this Section unless a person in violation of this Article has been offered alternate shelter and refused the offer.”
“Shelter” would include an alternate location where the person may shelter overnight, including, but not limited to, a place in an emergency shelter or any alternate indoor or outdoor location …”
Further, alternative sentencing will be possible if violators notify the municipal court that they need treatment for substance abuse or mental health issues.
“The City, acting through the City Manager, will retain a third party experienced in the treatment of mental health and substance abuse issues to develop and manage the alternative sentencing established by this subsection …”
If approved on second reading, the law will take effect 30 days after adoption, meaning if it was passed on second reading at council’s Tuesday meeting that stretched into Wednesday, enforcement could begin Oct. 3.
If an emergency shelter is not yet open to new clients on the day the law takes effect, it will be delayed until the shelter is available.
