If passed, it would make local municipalities like cities and counties responsible for enforcing the ban. At the same time, the bill doesn’t provide any funding to address homelessness or the cost of enforcing the law.
The bill does allow local municipalities to create dedicated camping areas, but only if they’re far from businesses and residential areas. Advocates worry this could isolate people using those designated spaces; critics have also called the dedicated areas an unfunded mandate. The bill would also establish drug-free zones around homeless shelters.
Related: Proposed camping ban moving swiftly through the NC Senate would create sanctioned homeless camps
In a statement on his decision, Stein said, “We all want people experiencing homelessness to get back on their feet and live in safe, affordable housing. Yet, this poorly constructed bill makes that goal harder and creates another significant unfunded mandate for local governments. The bill also fundamentally misunderstands how people suffering from addiction get healthy. If government threatens criminal liability against those who seek treatment and against the people, organizations, and churches trying to help them, government stands in the way of services that promote health and safety, and people’s problems are actually made worse.”
Proponents of the bill argue it would benefit homeless people. House Representative Brian Biggs said in a statement, “[Stein’s] veto puts North Carolina at risk of missing out on critical funding that would help move people out of unsafe encampments and into stable housing and supportive services. The Governor’s refusal to address homelessness only allows more people to sink deeper into addiction and mental illness while making our communities less safe.”
The bill could still go into effect if the legislature overrides Stein’s veto with a three-fifths majority vote.
With all 120 members of the House present, Republicans would be just one vote short of the 72 needed to override Stein’s veto without Democratic support. Notably, five Democrats and two unaffiliated House members voted in favor of the bill, suggesting there could be support for a veto outside of GOP ranks.