MORGANTOWN — Morgantown’s voters will get the final say on whether the city’s camping ban ordinance ever takes effect.
In its first meeting since a petition calling for the law’s repeal was deemed sufficient by the city clerk’s office, Morgantown City Council voted Wednesday against repealing the law it passed with a contentious 4-3 vote in the early morning hours of Sept. 4.
The motion to repeal failed 3-4 on first reading with councilors lining up just as they did 77 days ago – Councilors Danielle Trumble and Brian Butcher were joined by Mayor Joe Abu-Ghannam in supporting the elimination of the law. Councilors Bill Kawecki, Louise Michael, Dave Harshbarger and Deputy Mayor Jenny Selin voted not to repeal.
The city’s charter says the body has 30 days after a successful petition equaling 10% of the city’s registered voters is verified by the clerk to repeal the law in question or it goes on the ballot.
Wednesday’s vote essentially ends that 30-day window.
While a handful of speakers did stand up to support the law’s repeal, the turnout was smaller and the proceedings far more restrained than the meetings held in the lead-up to its passage.
One of the common points made by a number of those speakers is that the same motivated collection of volunteers that amassed more than the 1,310 signatures needed to force Wednesday’s vote will now set its sights on defeating the ban at the ballot box in April as well as Kawecki, Selin and Harshbarger should they seek reelection.
“You can take this opportunity and you can do the right thing or you can repeat the same cycle and double down on bad policy yet again,” Mollie Kennedy said. “And the same folks who trekked all over the hills of this town to collect petition signatures will be ready to do the same thing when your names are on the ballot alongside this bad policy.”
The law 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.
“Camp facilities” include tents, huts and temporary shelters. “Camp paraphernalia” includes, but is not limited to, tarps, cots, beds, sleeping bags, blankets, mattresses, hammocks, portable cooking facilities and similar equipment.
A first 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 or case management for housing insecurity.
As they did in September, Trumble and Butcher said there simply aren’t any options.
“At the end of the day, we don’t have places for people to go,” Trumble said, noting the 28-bed Grace Shelter at Hazel’s House of Hope stays full and the forthcoming warming shelter will add up to 22 beds between December and March.
“We’re looking at maybe 50 when we know there’s 150 people in town,” she said, adding “I am still against the ban, especially coming into the winter where we are going to ticket people or jail people for using a blanket when it’s going to snow tomorrow … I can’t believe this is the best we can come up with.”
Butcher said daily bed availability has been tracked across a three-county region for the last 90 days or so.
“The number has been zero since that started, as in zero availability in shelters throughout the tri-county area,” he said. “That’s just to help people understand, for emergency shelter options, it’s been zero for months.”
Proponents of the ban pushed back on the idea that they are acting without compassion or looking to punish people for being poor.
Selin said it was more about trying to “set some sort of appropriate limits.”
“We do have compassion, but we also have some of these balancing concerns,” she said. “Some of these concerns talk about sharing the use of our downtown and sharing the use of our trail system and having clean, appropriate places for people to recreate and purchase things.”
Kawecki said he’s ready to see where the city’s voters come down on the issue.
“Like it or not, this has been a catalyst for conversation – not comfortable, and certainly not my preference. However, I want to keep Morgantown in a position where it can continue to provide those services. We can’t do that at the threat of our economy. We can’t do that at the threat of people not wanting to patronize our businesses because they don’t feel safe walking our trails, or feel safe downtown. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that,” he said. “Again, it’s not my favorite solution, but it is a catalyst for conversation. I’d be perfectly happy to move this forward to the vote and see exactly whether or not you do agree, in whole.”
Implementation of the ordinance has been suspended since the day it was passed due to the petition process.
If the city’s voters support the ban, it would take effect 30 days after the certification of the April 29, 2025 election. If they don’t, it will be repealed as of the date the election is certified.
Either way, it will be the final word on this controversial law.
“This would be the final determination,” Morgantown Communications Director Brad Riffee told The Dominion Post. “There would not be an option to file a new petition for referendum on the ordinance, because that can only be done within 30 days of the ordinance’s adoption.”
