On the tails of Reno approving an ordinance making sitting or lying in public illegal despite significant public outcry, Carson City has proposed almost an identical ordinance for the capital city.
If approved, the ordinance would make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine or up to six months in jail to sit, lie down or sleep on, encumber with any item or object […] any public place or property including:
- Sidewalks, rights-of-way, and alleyways;
- Trails, paths, and parks;
- Libraries, schools and recreational/public facilities;
- Bridges, overpasses, underpasses, and storm drains;
- Benches and bus stops.
While some may think this pertains to sleeping on sidewalks, streets, public parks, etc., all of those are already unlawful under Carson City Municipal Code, and fall under “disorderly conduct”:
8.04.010 – Disorderly Conduct. It is unlawful for any person to lie or sleep on any of the sidewalks, streets, alleys or in public places within Carson City, or to disturb the peace and quiet of any person, family or neighborhood by loud, violent or offensive language, or by boisterous, tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling or offering or challenging to fight, in any manner whatsoever.
This has been on the books since the ordinance was last amended in 1989.
Camping, building fires, littering, or remaining in city parks after closing hours have also been banned since 1981.
Individuals are also barred from placing any object or vehicle on any sidewalk or highway which could impede the passage of pedestrians or vehicles.
In addition, it is also already prohibited to park and sleep within your vehicle on any highway or public street in Carson City, or in parking lots, with a few exceptions such as physicians or personnel on emergency calls, or an RV parked outside a residence with permission from the residents for less than 72 hours.
The ordinance states exceptions would be made for permitted special events or events hosted by Carson City.
Controversies both local and nationwide
Carson City began discussions over potential homeless laws in August 2024 following the reversal of a ruling making it illegal for municipalities to arrest or fine unsheltered individuals for sleeping outside.
In January 2025, the Reno City Council adopted ordinances that advocates called “criminalizing poverty” prohibiting sitting or lying down in public spaces. This was despite Reno also having ordinances already prohibiting sleeping, obstructing sidewalks/business entrances, and more, with even more robust rules than Carson City.
During those discussions, over 500 members of the public responded in opposition. Most public commenters stated that arresting individuals for sitting outside when they have no where else to go is “inhumane,” and costly to the taxpayer because housing homeless individuals costs far less than placing them in jail or hospitals.
According to the Nevada Current, one year of supportive housing services costs the same as nine days in the emergency room, or three months in jail.
However, something Reno council members, police and staff continued to assure the public of is that individuals would first be offered services instead of arrest, including rides to the CARES Campus shelter, a mental health crisis clinic if needed, a warming shelter, and other options.
In comparison, Carson City does not have the large scale services and facilities like Reno and Washoe County.
Carson City does not operate any homeless shelters, and the warming shelter run by NOTS (Night Off The Streets) only provides shelter on nights during the winter. While there are some transitional housing/emergency shelters in town, those are operated by non-profits and each have their own system of entry, unlike the CARES campus in Reno, which is county-run and low-barrier.
Concerns from Reno community members also brought up vague language within the ordinance. The ordinance purposefully does not state the ordinance would only make it criminal for unsheltered individuals to sleep in public, which would be unconstitutional, according to Reno city staff.
However, as pointed out by residents and a Reno city council member, the broadness of the language would make it a crime for a family to have a picnic at a local park, sit with their children in a library to read a book, or host peaceful sit-in protest using public spaces or within government buildings — similar to Carson City’s proposed ordinance.
In Reno, police assured the public they could “tell the difference” and use discretion on whether someone was having a picnic versus setting up a tent to reside in a public area. But residents argued that wasn’t the issue; they said the problem is that if the ordinance makes it is illegal, then individuals can be charged with having a picnic, even if law enforcement says they won’t enforce it in that manner.
Penalties range nationally, with Carson City’s proposed being one of the most severe
Prior to 2024, municipalities were blocked from levying criminal charges on unsheltered individuals sleeping outside if there was no adequate alternative such as no-barrier shelters.
That decision was reversed in the Grants Pass v. Johnson case, which has led to municipalities all across the country, but especially in the western states, rushing to revamp their ordinances.
By the end of January 2025, over 40 ordinances were passed in reaction to the Grants Pass ruling, with the majority of them in California. These ranged from banning camping, to criminalizing it, reducing noticing requirements for removing encampments, removing public benches, banning RV parking, and more.
Penalties range from $15 fines to $1,500 fines or up to a year in jail.
The majority of penalties were on the lower levels, including most without any jail times or fines, or only jailing individuals after they had been cited several times.
Carson City’s proposed penalties falls on severe end of the scale, with only one city (Bismarck, ND) instituting with a higher fine of $1,500, and only four cities (Fresno, CA; Turlock, CA; Hanford, Ca; Elmira, NY) with a penalty of more than six months in jail out of the 40 cities surveyed.
Where did they come from, and where do they go?
The one question that continues to be asked nationwide on these types of bans is: where are people supposed to go?
As the number of unsheltered individuals has increased in past years, there have been rumors of people coming from out of state, or being dropped off by other counties who would rather Carson City handle the “problems” of their unsheltered population.
However, at last week’s Carson City Board of Supervisors meeting, an update from Carson City Health and Human Services showed this was not the case. In fact, 64% of respondents were Nevadans, while half had been in Carson City for years.
In 2024, supervisors and Board of Health members directed staff to begin specifically asking unsheltered individuals who call Carson City home two things: what brought you to Carson City, and how long have you been here?
Out of the 118 responses collected between February 2024 and January 25, 60% (70 individuals) had direct ties to Carson City:
- 31% moved here to be closer to family or friends
- 19% lived here previously
- 10% came for employment or new opportunities
By comparison, 3% stated they came to Carson because they were evicted, 3% came for rehab, 3% were released from prison, 4% had fled domestic violence, 3% had a court date or jail term, and 10% stated “other.”
The second largest category of responses came at 14% (around 16 individuals), who said they relocated to Carson City because they felt it was a “nice area.”
When asked how long they had been in Carson City, half of the 125 respondents asked said they had been here for years. Out of those, 10% said they were born and raised in Carson.
In comparison, 10% had only been here for days, 13% for weeks, and 27% for months.
When asked where the last placed they had lived was, 33% of 137 respondents said Carson City, 17% said Reno, and 11% from California. Other areas noted were Dayton, Lake Tahoe, Gardnerville, Las Vegas, Colorado, Utah, or “other.”
In total, 64% of those surveyed were Nevadans, 11% were Californians, and the other 25% were from other states combined.
After adopting the Carson City Housing Plan last year, CCHHS and other agencies have been working to transition individuals out of homelessness.
Since the adoption, 70 individuals have been transitioned off of the streets or emergency sheltering, whether into permanent housing, group living, supportive housing, or reunited with family members out of state.
Neither the ordinance nor the staff report state whether or not individuals will be offered services or what the alternative is to arrest if determined to be in violation of the new ordinance.
In other items:
Airport: A proposed eleventh amendment to the lease agreement between Mountain West CXP, LLC, and the Carson City Airport Authority will be discussed. The amendment reduces the leased area by 20,280 square feet and extends the lease expiration to December 31, 2039, without a change in the rental rate per square foot. The amendment is intended to convert a portion of the property for aviation use.
City Manager: A discussion will be held regarding the appointment of two at-large members to the 9-1-1 Surcharge Advisory Committee for two-year terms. There are currently three vacancies, and two applications have been submitted by Jessica Carpenter and Ryan Mcintosh.
The Board will hear updates on legislative activities that may impact Carson City and consider adopting official positions or directing staff on advocacy efforts.
Finance: The Board will decide whether to designate HintonBurdick CPAs as the city’s auditing firm for the 2024-2025 fiscal year and consider a one-year contract renewal at an amount not to exceed $108,750.
An amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between Carson City and the Carson City Senior Citizens Center, Inc. will be discussed to revise indemnification and insurance provisions.
Purchasing and Contracts: An increase of $75,000 in purchase authority for Western Nevada Supply, Co. will be considered, raising the total not-to-exceed amount to $325,000 for 2025 to provide warehouse inventory parts on an as-needed basis.
The purchase of a five-yard dump truck and three ambulances for a total of $1,427,125 will be discussed. The purchase would replace aging vehicles and align with the city’s Capital Improvement Vehicle Replacement Program.
A contract with Network Communications International Corp. to provide an inmate communication system for the Carson City Jail will be considered. Under the contract, the company will pay CCSO a 55% commission on all call revenue.
The Board will also discuss extending a contract with American Exchange for public health billing services through December 2025 for a total amount not to exceed $250,000.
Sheriff: A grant application for $91,813 from the Office of Traffic Safety will be reviewed. The funds would be used for purchasing a new Mobile Command Trailer and traffic control equipment, as well as overtime for traffic enforcement.
A proposed agreement between Carson City and the Nevada National Guard for counterdrug support and collaboration with the Carson City Sheriff’s Office will be considered.
The full agenda can be viewed here.
Supervisors will discuss the first reading of the ordinance at the upcoming meeting on Thursday, March 20, 2025 beginning at 8:30 a.m.
