In the CT General assembly one of the many Housing Committee bills, HB 7033, “An Act Prohibiting a Municipality from Imposing any Penalty on Homeless Persons for Performing Activities of Daily Living on Pubic Land,” would prohibit towns from imposing a fine on anyone engaged in “activities of daily living” on public land.
The bill was introduced on Feb 20.
The bill took many by surprise including Greenwich’s entire Parks & Rec board who talked about the bill at their meeting on Wednesday.
“This is a Swiss Cheese bill because there are so many holes in it.” – Mike Bocchino, Parks & Rec board member
There are proposed penalties for a town or person who does not abide by the law, ranging from $50-$100 at the discretion of the Attorney General’s office.
The idea is not to criminalize someone for simply being homeless.
Towns would retain municipal authority over their land and continue to allow law enforcement to engage, when necessary.
The wording of the bill had been edited to change ‘life sustaining activities,’ to ‘activities of daily living,’ before it was recently voted out of committee.
Of the three state reps for Greenwich, Tina Courpas (R-149) is on the Housing Committee. Rep Courpas voted against the bill. (See vote tally sheet).
This session there are somewhere between 30 and 40 Housing bills and not every one will get to a vote.
A bill like HB 7033 would likely require hours of debate.
The bill came as a surprise in Greenwich, where last summer residents tried to help a person living in the shrubs at exit 5 of I-95 in Old Greenwich and a person living in a car in the town hall parking lot.
The bill defines activities of daily living to include sleeping, seeking shelter, resting, eating food, accessing medical care, and using hygiene facilities.
The bill had been narrowed to exclude school grounds from the definition of public land.
Under the proposed law homeless people could occupy motor or recreational vehicles under certain conditions.
Particularly because the language of the substitute bill defines public land to include parks, the town’s board of Parks & Recreation took note.
Meeting of the Greenwich Parks & Recreation board March 26, 2025
This week Greenwich Parks & Rec board chair Scott Johnson asked board member Mike Bocchino to explain the bill.
“As Scott mentioned, it has really flown under the radar, which is scary,” Bocchino said.
He talked about the possibility of people setting up tents on the beach at Tod’s Point.
“If there’s an individual who sets up a tent there, we’re not allowed to remove them in the evening hours. There’s no more locking of the gates, so to speak because they need to move freely, as this potential law states.”
“What really caught our attention was public land being defined,” Bocchino said. “The bill specifies that public land includes plazas, courtyards, parking lots, sidewalks, the outside area of public transportation facilities and services, public buildings, shopping centers, underpasses and lands adjacent to roadways, and parks.”
“This does include parks,” Bocchino said.
“This means that any individual, under the auspices of being considered homeless, or being wronged by this bill has the opportunity to sue Greenwich or the municipality for stopping their right to be allowed to potentially create a tent community in any park,” Bocchino said.
“It could also be on the sidewalks of Railroad Avenue or in the parking lot over at Horseneck or the Island Beach Parking Lot.”
Bocchino said there the bill received joint favorable approval approval after being voted 14-4 out of the Housing Committee.
From there it goes into the calendar of the legislature and the Speaker of the House determines whether to call 7033 bill to the floor of the House for a debate and a vote.
“Not opining on homeless persons – we have shelters in place – but to be able to set up tents and living quarters on public parks – Bruce Park, the Pinetum, for example – it could be the Griff golf course parking lots – we have to follow where this bill goes because of the potential can of worms for our parks and beaches that this bill opens up.”
Bocchino said he planned to contact the Speaker of the House to ask the bill not move forward until it was vetted on a larger scale.
Parks & Rec director Joe Siciliano said homeless people have frequented parks facilities in Greenwich over the years, but said it had been “on a small scale.”
“It’s a matter for police. Is this now their residency? Do they have a short term issue? Are they just passing through?” he asked. “We were tracking someone in Byram Park most of last summer who was living in one of the alcoves of the upper building, lighting little fires on the corner of the building to stay warm.”
He said homeless people are offered advice and information on options including shelter, meals and clothing, but if the bill were to pass it would no longer be possible to approach homeless people and offer them options.
“This is a Swiss Cheese bill because there are so many holes in it,” Bocchino said. “There (could be) an incredible amount of litigation against municipalities. We know we are offering shelter. Or places to live or go indoors, even if it’s just for the evening. Will it have to go in front of courts to be decided whether it meets a particular standard?”
Bocchino said the list of what is ‘activities of daily living’ might in some instances require keeping bathroom facilities open.
“If you have tents put up in Byram or Binney Park, those bathrooms need to stay open so these individuals can utilize them,” he said.
He said other protected activities include #5 in the bill, “to occupy a vehicle or recreational vehicle.”
“It specifically says a camper or motor home parked on public property,” Bocchino said. “You can now have someone with a motor home parked in public lots….I see potential for public parks to be overrun.”
Siciliano noted it would be hard to define who was homeless.
“You’re going to get people coming off the highway with campers who are not homeless. What qualifies them as homeless?” Siciliano asked. There will be debates about categories of people, and people who want to take advantage of this law.”
He said that today some parks have curfews that apply to all people, and the town does not allow anyone to sleep in parks overnight.
Public comment on the proposed HB 7033 included both support and opposition.
Comment on the bill included testimony from Dept of Transportation commissioner Garrett Eucalitto in opposition of the bill, who testified about the potential impact on DOT as a significant local real estate holder, and concerns about potentially unsafe encampments that may appear on their abutting properties.He said that while protections for homeless people was important the bill might limit towns and cities’ capacity to manage their public spaces. He talked about the dangers homeless people face when living near transportation infrastructure.
He said the bill “would place an undue burden on CTDOT to manage issues
outside our mandate.”
Billy Bromage, who works for an organization that feeds people in New Haven wrote in support of the bill, noting that 8 people had died on the streets in Connecticut this winter and 52 unhoused people died in New Haven alone in 2024.
“More times than I care to remember, I have watched in horror and dismay as people who are just trying to find a modicum of security, safety, and community on public land are swept aside with brutal precision by the unthinking, dispassionate machine of city government. I have repeatedly witnessed survival gear, warm clothing, photo IDs, insurance cards, and life-saving medications piled into dump trucks by city workers “just following orders” while law enforcement officials stand idly by during sweeps of encampments.”
Bromage brought up the Oregon legislation: “n many cities and towns in Connecticut, we like to believe that we are more thoughtful and more
compassionate than communities like Grants Pass, Oregon, where people are swept aside like refuse just because they don’t have a house or apartment to call home. Yet, we are acting in the ways that often have the same effect. Shelters and warming centers around the state are full and rents are beyond the reach of many Connecticut residents, yet we still criminalize people who are doing their best to survive within that reality.”
HB 7033 bill analysis here.
Read the Joint Favorable Report here.
You can read written public comment here.
Track the bill here.
Or on FastDemocracy bill tracking here.