During the Village of Montgomery’s October 1 meeting, Mayor Mike Hembury proposed a new local law: to prohibit unlawful sleeping in public spaces, such as the Veterans Memorial Park or on the curbside of Clinton Street. The law’s public hearing generated extensive discussion from both residents and trustees, with many speculating about the consequences on homelessness and police enforcement if the law passes.

If approved, the local law would add the term “sleeping” to chapters 80-2-J of “parks” and 83-5 of “peace and good order” in the village code. This would prohibit people from sleeping and camping in village parks, on streets and sidewalks, and near building entrances in a way that annoys, disturbs, inconveniences, alarms, or obstructs others.

Hembury asserted that safety was his biggest priority and he did not want anyone trespassing on village property. He cited encampments in Orange County and Colorado as a major incentive to push the law and referenced Grants Pass v. Johnson, a Supreme Court case from June 2024 that gave local municipalities the authority to punish sleeping and camping in public places.

“When I first got on the board, I pushed for a curfew law, which we have, and then I pushed for the non-sanctuary, which we all voted on,” Hembury said. “Now, the Supreme Court has left the problem with sleeping on the streets and stuff up to the municipalities. I think it’s pretty obvious why I want this: I don’t want people sleeping on the streets, I don’t want tents being set up in the parks.”

“I do not want the village to become an Aurora, Colorado. I want to stay in front of this because if it starts happening and then we try to push the law, it’ll be too late,” he continued. “If you look and drive around, not far from here, you will see homeless tents, abandoned campers, people hanging out in front of Home Depots, and sleeping in the bushes. I do not want this here and I want the authority to take care of this right now.”

During the hearing’s public comment, residents expressed mixed opinions on the proposed law. Many residents felt that the amendments were unnecessary as the village already prohibits tents in public spaces, and they contemplated if the village’s police department would misinterpret or exploit the additional verbiage. Resident James Kiernan asserted that the village police can handle sleep-related situations perfectly fine, and Resident Don Berger questioned the unlawfulness of sleeping in a park or car.

“I go to the park down here all the time and I relax, and I might close my eyes or doze off. Do you have a problem with that? What’s the problem with sleeping?” Berger said. “There is no intent in here. This is so vague, the police could do anything they want. I’m not criticizing the chief, they have a great police department, but back in the heyday of Montgomery, if they had this in their hands, everybody would have been in jail.”

Some residents agreed with Hembury’s sentiment, such as resident Rob Saladin, who argued that the law would be an effective preventative measure in case sleeping ever became a problem in public spaces.

Other residents asserted that this law would criminalize people with home insecurity and put immense pressure on the village police, local churches, and homeless resources. Reverend Nicole Hanley, the priest of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Walden, criticized the law for crossing moral boundaries, and Resident Karina Tipton informed the board about veteran homelessness rates while questioning the resources that the village police could provide to them.

“You’re conflating homeless people with crime, and not all homeless people will be criminals. I think there’s a clear moral issue with punishing someone for carrying out life-sustaining activities, which sleep is one of them, in public places where there are no alternatives for them,” Reverend Hanley said. “People who are already suffering are being punished further for suffering with this amendment to the existing code.”

Village Police Chief William Herlihy assured citizens that he and his department would provide assistance and resources to people without shelter, rather than immediately charging them with a violation. He considered the proposed law to be a last resort if said individuals do not comply.

“Our first course of action will always be to offer help and assistance first. If we see somebody sitting or sleeping somewhere, we’re not going to just walk up to them and be like ‘Alright, let’s go, you’re with us,’” Herlihy said. “We will offer the help that they need to get them assistance, but we can’t force it upon them. This law would be our last recourse if nothing else works.”

Following public comments, a few trustees raised additional concerns about the proposed law, questioning the village’s enforcement plan, whether the village can protect people facing homelessness, and what resources are available for home insecurity.

“I understand the intent is to keep everybody safe, but as proposed and written, what does this really do and what team does it have to enforce? We’re going into it without a plan,” said Trustee Randi Picarello. “I’m not concerned about it becoming this huge issue, I’m just concerned that there’s no plan attached to it. There’s nothing here that strengthens the law that we already have.”

“We keep talking about protecting the village, but what’s not lost on me is protecting the homeless person. Anybody sleeping in a tent or a car, especially with the upcoming weather, may or may not be safe in the village, and we cannot guarantee that safety,” said Trustee Randy Wilbur. “Having something that allows us to intervene might allow us to point them in the right direction of the resources they need to better their situation.”

“The public has serious concerns about what happens after someone is approached for sleeping in the park,” said Trustee Kevin Conero. “I think we should keep the public hearing open until next month and research the resources in our town and county.”

Per the residents’ request, the board decided to keep the law’s public hearing open until the next meeting, on October 15. During this time, the board will research homelessness resources in Orange County, accept written feedback from residents, and potentially revise the law to include stronger language.