CHILLICOTHE, Ohio — Tensions ran high at the latest Chillicothe City Council meeting as a standing-room-only crowd filled the chambers to voice their stance on a controversial “Anti-Camping” ordinance, now dubbed “Ordinance 555” by its opponents. The session, which marked the second reading of the proposal, saw fierce opposition from homeless advocates alongside a handful of supporters, all while testing the limits of the council’s space and patience.
The meeting began with Council President Kevin Shoemaker noting the overflow crowd and suggesting a possible relocation to a larger venue. Councilwoman Julie Preston quickly moved to proceed as planned, a motion seconded by Kathy Payne and approved despite a lone dissent from Dustin Proehl. Proehl later made an unsuccessful bid to table the ordinance, signaling early divisions among council members.
Shoemaker warned that fire officials might intervene due to capacity concerns, and though two firefighters arrived mid-session to assess the situation, they allowed the meeting to continue without disruption. Acknowledging the turnout, Shoemaker pledged to secure a more spacious venue for future hot-button issues.
The session also welcomed Gunner Barnes, stepping in for the departed Deirdre Nickerson, while the council adjusts to the recent resignation of Steve Barnes. Amid the reshuffling, public comments took center stage, stretching well beyond the usual 15-minute limit per topic—a leniency Shoemaker permitted before cutting off speakers, prompting grumbles from the audience.
Among the speakers, Connie Scott emerged as a rare voice in favor of the ordinance, praising its gentler approach compared to existing laws. She highlighted provisions like better handling of personal property, advance notice of assistance, and lighter penalties. Nancy Schaffer echoed this support, questioning the uproar over a measure she argued is less punitive than the current vagrancy statute. “I don’t understand why there is so much controversy about the anti-camping legislation being discussed by City Council,” Schaffer said, reading from a legal opinion she’d sought, which was also shared in a Facebook post by Liza Henot. “It seemed to me that this would actually give the ‘campers’ extra time to vacate since we already have a vagrancy law in place.”
Schaffer elaborated on the legal perspective: “If council were to completely discard the proposed anti-camping legislation and go back to the criminal trespass law, violators could be hit with a Fourth Degree Misdemeanor which is punishable by up to 30 days in jail and up to a $250 fine plus court costs.” She contrasted this with the proposed ordinance, noting, “The proposed legislation gives violators the opportunity to receive social services and assistance before any criminal penalty results. A potential violator gets a 72-hour notice to remove a campsite and law enforcement SHALL notify local social service agencies of the need, location and identity of those requiring services.” Schaffer also pointed out that only after noncompliance would a minor misdemeanor fine of up to $150 be issued—no jail time—adding, “It simply does not get any lower in the category of offense in the State of Ohio.”
Yet the majority of speakers decried Ordinance 555, pointing to recent police clearances of homeless camps within city limits as evidence that the measure may be redundant. Critics also seized on a $35,000 cleanup of a hazardous encampment near the East Main Street bridge, confirmed by Preston, with Schaffer lamenting that those funds could have aided the homeless directly.
Mayor Luke Feeney added a wrinkle to the debate, noting that the Chillicothe Police Department has raised concerns about the ordinance’s practicality.
The proposal, crafted by a council-appointed committee, aims to balance public order with compassion, offering violators a chance at assistance before facing minor misdemeanor fines akin to a traffic ticket. Supporters argue it’s a step up from the status quo, while detractors see it as an unnecessary crackdown on an already vulnerable population.
As the council prepares for its next steps, the issue remains a lightning rod, with companion discussions—like Councilman Jeff Creed’s push to explore alternatives for City Hall—adding to the city’s busy agenda.