Producing high-quality, in-depth news takes significant resources. Your subscription helps support independent journalism that brings you closer to the decisions shaping the community and ensures I can continue delivering the stories that matter most.
To my new subscribers (and a reminder to loyal readers), welcome to Cops & Congress, where facts come first, followed by in-depth commentary and analysis. Paid subscribers enjoy exclusive videos and access to scoops requiring investigation of public records. Your support directly funds the detailed research behind my independent journalism.
Situational awareness: An exclusive, or scoop is an important news story that is first reported by a journalist. This goes beyond breaking news when no other journalists are known to be reporting on an important issue.
RUTHERFORDTON, NC — Local governments can regulate the time, place, and manner of public camping. It’s now officially illegal to have a bodily function come out of your body, outside of a toilet, in the towns of Rutherfordton, Forest City, and Spindale. Sounds reasonable, right? Who wants bodily fluids in the streets? But what about a baby or older person who has an accident? They’re technically in violation. Will they be fined? Or arrested? It’s unlikely.
It’s also illegal to wear a blanket outside in public, according to the ordinances enacted. It is meant, as town officials say, as a tool for law enforcement. However, the regulations have raised many questions among the most vulnerable population in our communities: those experiencing homelessness.
On Tuesday, Jan. 21, the Spindale Town Council approved an ordinance prohibiting camping on public property, aligning with similar measures in Rutherfordton and Forest City. I did not see the text of the ordinance on the town’s website and the last meeting minutes are from July 2024. A meeting agenda for the meeting was posted to Facebook. The last Spindale code of ordinances was published online over 10 years ago, in 2014. How can people know what the ordinance is if it’s nowhere in writing that’s easily accessible? Critics of the ordinance argue the policy criminalizes homelessness, while town officials say it equips law enforcement to address public safety concerns more effectively.
Perspectives from the community
Marshall Rippy, a local man experiencing homelessness, attended and filmed the council meeting. His footage captures his perspective on the ordinance and the broader issue of resource accessibility. Rippy emphasized that services for the homeless are concentrated in Spindale, unlike nearby areas such as Golden Valley, which lack sufficient infrastructure. I interviewed Rippy last month about his experiences (ICYMI: watch it here).
Meeting attendees seated near Rippy joined him to call for better coordination among community organizations and proposed a public meeting to refine the ordinance and develop more comprehensive solutions. Suggestions included identifying all resources, current shelters and expanding shelter availability, and enhancing mental health services to address the root causes of homelessness. The council ultimately voted in favor of the ordinance.
The new law has sparked ongoing discussions about balancing enforcement with compassion and the need for a cohesive regional strategy.
On January 8, Rutherfordton Town Manager Doug Barrick wrote, “In discussing recent challenges faced by the Rutherfordton Police Department and Tri-City Task Force leadership have highlighted the need for these ordinance amendments. Adopting these changes aligns with the Tri-City Task Force’s goal of achieving uniformity across Rutherfordton, Forest City, and Spindale.
Key Benefits of the Proposed Ordinances Loitering and Temporary Structures Ordinance (Sec. 22-55)
Enhances Public Safety: Prevents obstruction of public areas, ensuring safe and free access for pedestrians, vehicles, and emergency services.
Preserves Public and Private Spaces: Prohibits unauthorized temporary structures and camping, reducing safety hazards and maintaining the town’s appearance.
Supports Business Operations: Protects entrances to businesses, ensuring uninterrupted operations and creating a welcoming environment for patrons.
Prohibiting Public Urination and Defecation Ordinance (Sec. 22-56)
Improves Public Health: Addresses sanitation concerns to keep public and private spaces clean and safe.
Maintains Town Aesthetics: Helps prevent behavior that diminishes the community’s quality of life.
These amendments are necessary to address recurring public safety, health, and community appearance issues effectively. They reflect the town’s commitment to creating a safer, cleaner, and more accessible environment while aligning with regional efforts for consistent governance and enforcement.”
The ordinances across all three towns are essentially identical, aimed at reducing loitering and trespassing in business areas by allowing police to disperse individuals, and arrest and fine those who police say are in violation.
The Forest City ordinance (also see the agenda packet) defines a public place as, “Any place to which the general public has access and a right of resort for business, entertainment, or other lawful purpose, but does not necessarily mean a place devoted solely to the uses of the public. It shall also include the front or immediate area of any store, shop, restaurant, or other place of business and also public grounds, areas or parks.
However, challenges remain regarding enforcement, particularly in identifying property owners and obtaining consent to remove individuals.
Barrick said on the town’s Brewtiful Mornings vodcast, that it was also passed because people were camping on the Thermal Belt Rail Trail, Purple Martin Greenway, and other areas. Forest City Police Chief Chris LeRoy did most of the research to draft the ordinance mirrored across all three towns. They share a town attorney, Beth Miller.
Rutherfordton Mayor Jimmy Dancy and Barrick told WCAB that it’s a “national trend.” It is coming to the forefront after the Grants Pass Supreme Court decision in June, which gives more control to local towns about anti-camping regulations.
Municipalities can criminalize homelessness by using fines or jail time to keep the homeless out of their communities. The ruling means that localities can punish people for basic human needs, like sleeping. It also means that the issue of homelessness is a local problem, not a federal one, although every town fights to get federal funds.
[ICYMI: Watch Rutherfordton town council here and Forest City town council here. ]
United Way’s role in the conversation
A new development in the discussion involves the United Way of Rutherford County, mentioned during the meeting by Spindale Police Chief Chad Nazelrod, in connection with a grant-funded co-responder model aimed at providing non-law enforcement assistance. While this potential partnership represents a step toward addressing homelessness collaboratively, the local United Way has not issued any public statements about its involvement. It is unclear if it’s part of the $3M grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) awarded last September.
The absence of official meeting recordings by the town of Spindale adds complexity to tracking this initiative. Despite this, the co-responder model, as outlined by Chief Nazelrod, would pair law enforcement with trained professionals to provide alternative responses to homelessness-related incidents. Nazelrod said it’s a new program with Suzanne Porter, the Executive Director of United Way of Rutherford County, and Partners Health Management, the Local Management Entities-Managed Care Organization (LCE/MCO) for Rutherford County.
Opinion & analysis
Cops & Congress Commentary: Compassion, Enforcement, and the Constitution in Western NC
In the wake of Hurricane Helene, thousands of western North Carolina residents find themselves lacking adequate shelter, with freezing temperatures adding urgency to their plight. Against this backdrop, the towns of Rutherfordton, Forest City, and Spindale have enacted ordinances banning camping on public property. While these measures aim to address issues of loitering and trespassing, they bring into sharp focus the balance between public order and constitutional rights, particularly in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson.
The Facts of Grants Pass
The City of Grants Pass case revolved around whether enforcing anti-camping ordinances against unhoused individuals violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of 38,000, had between 50 and 600 unhoused residents but far fewer shelter beds. Municipal codes prohibited sleeping or camping in public spaces, with violations resulting in civil penalties that could escalate to criminal charges. Sound familiar?
The Ninth Circuit previously ruled in Martin v. City of Boise that criminalizing sleeping in public when no shelter beds are available violates the Eighth Amendment. Following that precedent, the Ninth Circuit found Grants Pass’s ordinances unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Grants Pass reversed this, holding that enforcement of generally applicable laws against public camping does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Implications for Western North Carolina
With ordinances now in place across three Rutherford County towns, the region faces its own Grants Pass-style dilemma. Officials argue these measures provide law enforcement with tools to address safety concerns and public nuisances. However, critics see the laws as effectively criminalizing homelessness, particularly when adequate shelter is unavailable.
Unlike Grants Pass, where legal challenges emerged due to limited shelter capacity, these Western NC towns must consider whether their enforcement efforts align with constitutional protections. While the Supreme Court ruled that such ordinances do not inherently violate the Eighth Amendment, municipalities risk legal and moral scrutiny if enforcement lacks a support services framework.
Conservative Principles and Practical Solutions
Conservative values emphasize the rule of law, property rights, and personal responsibility. However, these values must coexist with compassion and pragmatic problem-solving. In this context, simply moving individuals along without addressing the root causes of homelessness—affordable housing, mental health care, and disaster recovery—fails to deliver meaningful solutions in my conservative view.
The towns’ reliance on nonprofits like the United Way and discussions of co-responder models reflect an acknowledgment of the need for collaboration. However, I have not read any public statement or formalized plan outlining how these partnerships will address the growing crisis. Without clear action, these efforts risk appearing more symbolic than substantive.
The Path Forward
The Grants Pass ruling underscores that enforcement of public camping bans is legally permissible but must be applied thoughtfully and equitably. For Rutherfordton, Forest City, and Spindale, this means ensuring that ordinances are part of a larger strategy that includes shelter expansion, mental health services, and community engagement.
In the face of a natural disaster and freezing weather, Western NC leaders must rise to the occasion. Enforcement and compassion are not mutually exclusive but must work hand in hand to address the crisis while upholding both the law and the dignity of those most in need.
The question for these towns isn’t just about enforcing ordinances—it’s about defining their legacy in a moment of crisis. Balacing taxpayers’ needs and business owners along with it is a challenge. Will they be remembered for driving people out of sight or for leading the way toward meaningful solutions?
Thank you for reading and watching. Learn more about this newsletter and my background. I am guided by the Society for Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Follow me on X (Twitter), Facebook, Linkedin, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. Send constructive criticism, fan mail and tips with public documents for future stories: CopsandCongress@gmail.com.
Share this post