Wilmington’s camping ordinance (again)
On Tuesday, Wilmington City Council voted 4-3 to approve an amended version of the ‘camping’ ordinance that’s been debated for the last couple of months. The ordinance took effect immediately after this third and final vote. The two main changes, as my colleague Aaleah McConnell reported this week, were Democratic Councilman David Joyner’s amendment reducing the severity of the ordinance from a Class III misdemeanor (the lowest level of misdemeanor) to an infraction, and Democratic Councilwoman Salette Andrew’s amendment removing the word “occupy” from the ordinance, because it created some problematic ambiguity.
In early September, I dedicated a long-form — like really long-form — column on this issue, and not much has changed, so I won’t retread all of that ground. In short, the ordinance remains less evil than its critics claim, but also likely less helpful than its proponents hope. In the meantime, we’re still short on shelter space, and the mental health system is still broken.
There are some points of uncertainty about how the ordinance will actually work, and while we’re working on getting some answers, the bottom line may be — and I know this is frustrating – that we have to wait and see. I spent some time talking to District Attorney Jason Smith and Judge Jay Corpening this week and, while both were able to help shed some light on how things might work, both admitted we’ll have to watch what happens over the next three to six months.
That’s probably cold comfort for advocates and service providers who have expressed concern that, while infractions are non-criminal offenses that cannot carry jail time, they could still put offenders on the path to incarceration or detention, even if only indirectly. Joyner and Democratic Mayor Bill Saffo (who’s been taking some heat for his vote in favor of the ordinance while on the campaign trail) have been emphatic: the ordinance does not criminalize homelessness. That’s technically true — but how will it actually work?
Consider this scenario: someone is cited for sleeping on city property overnight, they’re written up for an infraction, which includes a date and time they have to appear in court — but, for any number of plausible reasons, they don’t show up. What happens?
Because most infractions are traffic-related, the courts usually enter a failure to appear note, the DMV is automatically contacted, and then suspends the person’s license — and getting that letter from the DMV, notifying you that your license is suspended, is often enough to push a person to deal with the infraction. It’s actually not quite clear if failing to show up after being cited under the city’s new ordinance would lead to a license suspension. If it does, that could cause some issues down the line — for example, for someone who gets off the streets by getting a vehicle, only to find themselves unknowingly committing a misdemeanor by driving with a suspended license.
Because infractions aren’t criminal offenses, missing a court date doesn’t result in an arrest order. But, as I understand it from Smith and Corpening, judges can issue a criminal summons – although serving them on someone without a fixed address could prove difficult. If a person fails to show up for that summons, a judge could hold them in contempt — and that could mean jail time. Would every judge go that hard? Probably not, but it’s a matter of discretion. And, I should note, judges and magistrates are under increasing public (and legislative) pressure to crack down on homelessness and crime, which could chill the courtroom atmosphere, so to speak.
Another issue is, what happens when a homeless person — unsurprisingly — doesn’t have the money to pay the fine associated with the infraction? There is, I believe, an official way for people to declare their indigency status in these situations — but it has to be self-initiated. In other words, the court may not help someone figure it out. And, it’s also possible the judge wouldn’t waive the fines and fees. And in a case where someone owes money to the court and doesn’t pay, “then the consequences ramp up, and they ramp up in a hurry,” Corpening told me.
Outside of the court system, there’s also the issue of background checks. Infractions do go on, and stay on, your court record, and a few folks have asked whether the infraction would show up in a way that could be a barrier to housing or employment. I’ve asked a few background check companies, and none have responded on the record, but on background I’ve been told that an infraction isn’t likely to show up on the most basic criminal background check (because it’s not technically a crime), although it could show up on a more detailed report (which are used less often, and cost more). It’s a valid question and concern — but, candidly, it seems that lengthy gaps in employment and residency history and a poor or nonexistent credit score would be a bigger ‘red flag’ from the perspective of a potential landlord or employer.
It also remains to be seen how useful law enforcement finds the new ordinance. As many, including me, have noted, a majority of the concerns I’ve heard from downtown business owners and employees, which spurred the creation of the ordinance, involve things that were already illegal under local or state laws: public urination and defecation, drug use, theft, and assault, for a few examples. Meanwhile, the concern that visibly homeless people simply being downtown will deter business isn’t directly addressed by the ordinance — this is still America, and you’re allowed to walk around downtown whether you’re homeless or not.
Will having the additional legal leverage to prevent people from sleeping on public property overnight discourage homeless people from coming downtown during the day? Maybe. But I know some homeless folks who, for some time, have been sleeping rough away from downtown and walking back to the major thoroughfares during the day. So I’m skeptical, as are some in law enforcement I’ve spoken to, that this will have a major impact — though, like I said, we have to wait and see.
All this to say, we’ve got marks on the calendar three and six months out. We’ll be looking at how many infractions are issued and what happens to the people who receive them. Do they end up in jail, remain on the streets, or somehow find their way to shelter and other services? We’ll also look at changes in the jail population (although Iryna’s Law is likely to impact that, too) and calls for service volume.
(Btw, if the city wants to take this idea and run with it to see how their new policy is working, I won’t mind!)
It’s Election Season (again)
This week, we held our candidates forum for the Wilmington city council and mayoral race. We’ve been doing these forums for several years now, and I’m grateful to the folks at WECT and Port City Daily for helping us keep the tradition going. I’m also grateful to the candidates, who all showed up, game and engaged. Running for office is tough, and our forums force candidates to answer difficult questions with a ticking clock (I ended up serving as timekeeper this round, which can be awkward, but thankfully the candidates didn’t try to steamroll past their time limits, though I got a little good-natured flak).
We’ll have a breakdown of how the mayoral and council candidates fared coming up on The Newsroom later this month (and, a reminder, we have one-on-one interviews with the candidates here). We’ll also have candidate finance reporting at the end of the month (the pre-election paperwork is due in on October 27, about a week before the election, so we’ll do our best to turn it around pretty quickly). And, if it’s not already on your calendar, in-person early voting starts this Thursday, so if you live in Wilmington or one of the beach towns, get to it!
Speaking of the election cycle, next year’s race for New Hanover County commissioner is already heating up. Incumbent Democrat Rob Zapple has already indicated he'll seek reelection, and this week, three more Democrats filed to run: Dr. LeShonda Wallace, school board member Judy Justice, and city councilwoman Salette Andrews. That tees up at least a four-way Democratic primary in the spring — and we haven’t even finished the current election, or gotten to the official filing period for the 2026 races, which runs from December 1 to December 19. Incumbent LeAnn Pierce has also indicated she will run again, although it remains to be seen if more Republicans will throw their hats in the ring.
If Justice is elected, she’ll vacate her school board seat halfway through her term, and the county Democratic party will nominate a replacement (the same process that put Republican Pete Wildeboer on the board to replace Bill Rivenbark after his successful race for commissioner). If Andrews is elected, she’ll vacate her city council seat with about a year left on her term. As I understand it, because city council is technically nonpartisan, her seat won’t be filled by a county party nominee, but by council vote after an open application process (this happened back in 2008, when Margaret Haynes beat out dozens of other applicants to replace Jason Thompson, after his own successful bid for county commissioner).
All apologies (again)
During this week’s Board of Education meeting, Republican Chairwoman Melissa Mason took time to apologize for the behavior of her colleagues. She took responsibility for her own lapses, and her unsuccessful attempts to maintain decorum on the board. While some of the Republican board members also took time to not-so-obliquely criticize Democrat Judy Justice, Mason’s comments were critical of those on both sides of the aisle.
(Another surprising moment: Renegade Cherokee returned to the Call to the Audience to apologize to Justice after their verbal sparring a couple of months ago. His apology was straightforward, without hedges or caveats.)
As I’ve written elsewhere, the board should get some credit for trying to rein in the chaotic dysfunction that’s made them the black sheep of local government. Even before the public self-reflection spurred by the assassination of Charlie Kirk, board members were discussing the corrosive effects of their comments, both from the dais and on social media.
Whether they can maintain civility in the long run remains to be seen, but I appreciate their efforts. In particular, I appreciate Republican David Perry’s sentiment that, instead of trying to “police” each other and jumping on each lapse in decorum, board members might instead work on their own behavior (to worry about the speck in their own eyes, you might say).
In broader terms, one wonders if The New Tone (of civil disagreement) can endure the political pressures that seem to be coming from all directions. Unsurprisingly, President Donald Trump has not softened his rhetoric — explicitly contrasting himself to Kirk, in fact. And, on the left, there seems to be some mixed messaging, with some going high and some going low, to paraphrase Michelle Obama. Perhaps our local politicians can resist the top-down tone of discord, perhaps not.
