[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6133329,"mediaKeyId","5704768-342ff3e394fecf51da0ade3d0c4a7297","parentId",5704768,"title","Council debates permit requirement, fines and enforcement for public soliciting and camping","audioSeconds",2706,"startMs",1107000,"endMs",3813000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5704768-342ff3e394fecf51da0ade3d0c4a7297&start=1107&end=3813","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5704768-342ff3e394fecf51da0ade3d0c4a7297/thumbnail_1107000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6133329/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Council-debates-permit-requirement-fines-and-enforcement-for-public-soliciting-and-camping","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6133329-e02a847f5886e1d1fd740e8cdbd75c8c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770730134&Signature=argayyIlDocKd~3mmJEbZNQ38BPcTORy9~elWnpCcLhOO1xCtmZle1MrQ6muVpVa9HnVsuR3DozErlRdcos9aYCLWTfUcZQoTLMbVPO6dN2tK-q50Ak86rdA-wS~WvwTHGJ3RfMDZx~PFZF0LKxbjG3sdMcsPfycRWghqp8EB~ytnl--xW1ZW5fmT-vX66OpRQpYcbopkrU2rhQ0LHjyHSOZkG0iS3D7TSMC3ljL-2Bz5ZNJyzJwEJ22vh5pXtLxA3g1FGBQx1YGr8KhBrySWZlgo7w-j2r33iePfiiEd6Cor6msbBgOqZG36DYdmBB47VAIceGJe8K5jkFxufRWHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Utica","date","2025-09-03T00:00:00Z","article","The Utica City Council held a lengthy discussion about a proposed ordinance that would consolidate loitering, aggressive begging, soliciting and camping rules and require permits for soliciting in public rights-of-way.

The proposal would make it unlawful to solicit, collect money, or attempt to solicit on public streets without a permit authorized by the city. The draft sets a $25 fine for a first offense and allows for escalating penalties, administrative remedies and judicial discretion for alternative sentences including community service or drug-court-type programs. Council staff said the permit would create a running record of individuals soliciting in public right-of-way.

Speakers repeatedly raised legal and enforcement concerns. Police and council members warned the measure could raise First and Eighth Amendment issues and questioned whether courts would uphold prosecutions or fines. Police officials expressed concern about the operational burden of arrests or citations for people without identification and the extra workload for the warrants division when defendants do not appear in court. A police official warned that repeated warrants that cannot be served create additional work and sometimes become null under procedural rules.

Supporters said the ordinance would help manage public safety and public-space impacts where people sleep, leave mattresses and create encampments, especially along corridors such as Oriskany Boulevard and North Genesee Street. Proponents said the permit and record-keeping would help social-service agencies, courts and police identify people who repeatedly solicit or occupy public property, and could be used to direct repeat offenders into services. As one council member put it, the ordinance is intended as \"a start\" and can be amended if it does not work as intended.

Several council members and the public-safety commissioner urged extensive legal review before adoption. Corporation counsel and a legal advisor said they believed the approach could be drafted to withstand due-process review if carefully tailored, but that the effectiveness of enforcement would depend on court cooperation and on social-service capacity. Councilmembers asked staff to meet with city court judges and county service providers to coordinate enforcement, alternative sentencing and services before advancing the ordinance.

No final vote was recorded; staff said revised language would be circulated and that the proposal could return for vote after additional vetting with police, judges and county social-service partners.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Common Council Committee of the Whole Meeting September 2nd, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Utica City Council debated a proposed ordinance to require permits for solicitation in public rights-of-way and to consolidate rules on loitering, aggressive begging, soliciting and camping.","taxTitle","Utica, Oneida County, New York","taxId",3680,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6133333,"Council reviews ordinance requiring 12-day removal after graffiti notification",604,466000,1070000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5704768-342ff3e394fecf51da0ade3d0c4a7297&start=466&end=1070","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5704768-342ff3e394fecf51da0ade3d0c4a7297/thumbnail_466000.jpg","/articles/6133333/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Council-reviews-ordinance-requiring-12-day-removal-after-graffiti-notification","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6133333-c6246d0f88576debd03426a538ceaf4d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770730134&Signature=GnvtqIx4UZJVfP0QQCGTequ5DnRbYVG32HqtzRuDqLXmyyuWKfAantFEGGIYJKWCkjMu5G6g4EERGwLn72UZ-nW4HE8Af3-6fmM~sSiylj4UnrV5vMSUUlPH~vtOxhRcHIpke3G8i~GGgCLNbZa3TzOjPfveFXt7VjRqXNXjsQrT2jzAdncIapt6Tjkow7Ed3qvJ5es5MWc-mST5Mp4KY8fs914HKfhjvOv1lpbci78~1Xag9~4C3zfOeoE4hd5dUJYcoTYyVo0E5jswcQtBAu9rgQxCXY~iUMKkDjG-6dzU-Rp7u6sQw4hVWArZ0VcmP2RzqVtYDtrQJerbptn5RQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utica City Council discussed a proposed ordinance that would require property owners to remove graffiti visible from public rights-of-way within 12 days after the city issues notice.

Council members and staff said the draft ordinance (amending section 2-15-11) was revised to add a definition of \"graffiti\" and to describe an enforcement process including notice, an optional owner waiver and a city removal option. A Codes Department staff member said the 12-day clock begins from issuance of the city's notice, not the date the graffiti first appeared.

The ordinance matters because proponents said visible graffiti constitutes blight and sometimes cannot be addressed when property owners decline to press criminal charges. A Codes Department staff member said the city can issue a notice and, if the owner signs a waiver, the city will remove the graffiti; the owner may also remove it themselves and be reimbursed. The staff member said the waiver also protects the city from liability if damage occurs during removal.

During discussion, a council member asked whether the 12 days should run from the \"appearance\" of graffiti or from the city's discovery and notice. A Codes Department staff member responded, “As soon as they get notified of it, that's 12 days ... from the issuance of when they get that notification.” The exchange clarified that the enforcement timeline in the draft starts with the city's notice.

Council members and the public-safety staff described frequent, visible graffiti in multiple neighborhoods and said the city has in some cases been unable to pursue criminal remedies when property owners decline to press charges. One council member said the draft is not perfect but is a necessary step and can be amended after implementation if problems appear.

No final vote was recorded during the discussion; staff said the draft had been reviewed with corporation counsel and that the main substantive change since the prior draft was the added definition of \"graffiti.\" Staff said they would continue to work with corporation counsel and the public safety commissioner to refine language if needed.

The council then moved on to other agenda items; the graffiti proposal remained a pending ordinance under consideration.","City council members and staff discussed a proposed ordinance to require property owners to remove graffiti visible from public rights-of-way within 12 days of receiving a city notice, add a definition of \"graffiti,\" and a waiver allowing city removal with liability protections and potential reimbursement.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6133324,"Council reviews draft to allow emergency access and administrative hearings for unsafe-occupied buildings",439,4600000,5039000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5704768-342ff3e394fecf51da0ade3d0c4a7297&start=4600&end=5039","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5704768-342ff3e394fecf51da0ade3d0c4a7297/thumbnail_4600000.jpg","/articles/6133324/Utica/Oneida-County/New-York/Council-reviews-draft-to-allow-emergency-access-and-administrative-hearings-for-unsafe-occupied-buildings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6133324-4cd73ccabf18e11d82bd49cb63b436eb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770730134&Signature=G-eZ5viMyjjxrI2TVEnm4nr8p0-KnNUE8HVDa63MP639E1GwTkbsx5MJoJ5G522G2avzzoKPGRgMj~rlrqzZsknK4pl0naYTOYcQQ4OZW5fBAbgERI9Zk3StpgXOZ30oeODSvjfb6b8PkTKOf4gtBg4zxpOxL5M4Vw9RsaJ9yhcvv8L8vo6hyo3STEVznfgcvDSnRo-wQEUXrFezjo8LypH-MG1beMk8lMbb8wzpW9n5Tjy0QXCmXmKdTWcuJyby8~aPybuX8MaznOCwPPttyzOlbkqjn2jeUZ51vgBAguuHWYG2xw6VWLWwyTS~-zseFAYczLIekVe1TuGO~Ateew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City officials and counsel reviewed a draft amendment to the city's unsafe-building law that would allow emergency access to buildings deemed unsafe, permit immediate law-enforcement entry in urgent situations, inventory and store personal property removed during an emergency clearance, and then hold an administrative hearing within five days to determine occupants' rights.

Legal staff said the amendment is intended to shorten the time required to address occupied unsafe buildings without immediate court proceedings. Under the draft, following an emergency clearance the city would post notice and hold an administrative hearing in which the public safety commissioner reviews credible evidence and may issue subpoenas; failure to comply with a subpoena could be filed as contempt in New York State court. The burden of proof at the administrative hearing would be on occupants to show they had permission to occupy the building, counsel said.

Supporters said the proposal is aimed at squatters and other situations where there is an immediate hazard and waiting for a judicial eviction would delay remediation. A legal advisor told the council the proposal creates an administrative pathway to resolve unsafe-occupancy emergencies while preserving due-process by providing a hearing and limited appeal. Council staff said final language would be circulated once clarified with corporation counsel and the public safety commissioner.

The council did not take a final vote; staff said they would finalize text and share revisions with council members.","Council members and legal staff discussed a proposed amendment to the unsafe-building law enabling emergency access to occupied buildings, short administrative hearings within five days, and an administrative inventory-and-storage procedure for property removed during emergency clearances.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council debates permit requirement, fines and enforcement for public soliciting and camping

Council reviews ordinance requiring 12-day removal after graffiti notification

Council reviews draft to allow emergency access and administrative hearings for unsafe-occupied buildings