Residents Continue to Oppose Revised Loitering Ordinance — Despite Amendments, Concerns Remain About Civil Rights and Enforcement

Posted: Thursday, November 13, 2025 by: Chris Chilcote | Category: General News

Findlay, OH — After strong public opposition, the Findlay City Council returned its proposed Loitering Ordinance to the Committee of the Whole for review. The committee has now introduced a revised version that focuses more narrowly on obstruction and criminal activity. However, many residents and community members remain concerned that the amended language still opens the door to discriminatory enforcement and the criminalization of lawful presence in public spaces.

The updated proposal now defines "loitering" as remaining in a public place without apparent lawful purpose after being asked to move along by law enforcement when conduct is deemed obstructive or associated with potential criminal activity. While the revision adds language intended to preserve constitutional rights, members of Findlay for All, a civic advocacy group formed in response to the ordinance, say the changes do not go far enough.

“This still treats presence as suspicion,” said Chris Chilcote of Findlay for All. “The ordinance continues to give broad discretionary power to officers to determine who belongs in a public space and who does not. That is a dangerous precedent, and it is not who Findlay is.”
The group outlined three primary concerns with the revised proposal.

1. Constitutional ambiguity. The language remains vague about what qualifies as an "apparent lawful purpose," which leaves it open to subjective interpretation.
2. Potential for unequal enforcement. Despite procedural safeguards, the ordinance could still disproportionately affect unhoused and marginalized residents for non-criminal behavior.
3. Financial and legal risk. Similar ordinances in other municipalities have led to costly lawsuits alleging unconstitutional enforcement of public space restrictions.

During the Committee of the Whole discussion, Law Director Rob Feighner acknowledged those legal concerns but stated, "Nothing is unconstitutional until a court of law says it is, and by God, we will deal with it then." For many residents, that statement underscored the very risk they fear, that the city could move forward despite clear warnings about constitutional challenges and potential legal costs to taxpayers.

“Public safety and constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive,” Chilcote added. “We can address obstruction through existing laws without introducing measures that risk profiling or punishing people who simply exist in shared spaces.”

Chilcote said residents appreciate that council listened to community concerns and returned the ordinance for review, but he believes much more discussion and revision are needed before it moves forward.

“We appreciate that council took this step,” he said. “But the job is not done. We want Findlay to move forward with compassion, fairness, and respect for everyone’s rights.”