Michigan’s New Rest Stop Rules Risk Criminalizing the Homeless While Ignoring Root Causes

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) recently unveiled proposed rules that would make it a misdemeanor to stay more than two days at rest stops, roadside parks, and other state-managed facilities. While the department frames these measures as efforts to maintain safety and order, the reality is these rules threaten to criminalize vulnerable individuals experiencing homelessness without providing real solutions.

Are We Punishing the Vulnerable Instead of Tackling Homelessness?

MDOT’s plan restricts camping, panhandling, and long-term stays across dozens of properties throughout Michigan. Violations could result in fines or jail time—penalties up to 93 days for actions born out of desperation rather than malice. Is this truly justice, or simply a bureaucratic attempt to push out those society has failed?

While MDOT claims these policies apply equally to everyone using their facilities, the practical impact falls squarely on unhoused Americans seeking shelter from harsh weather. The state reports over 33,000 people facing homelessness as of 2023—a number that reflects systemic failures far beyond MDOT’s jurisdiction. How can we expect these individuals to comply with rules that offer no alternative housing or support?

Nick Cook of the Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness rightly points out the need for dignity and coordinated care rather than punitive enforcement. Yet under current proposals, law enforcement will have broader authority to arrest or fine people simply because they have nowhere else safe to rest. This approach echoes a troubling national trend where compassionate concerns are overshadowed by heavy-handed regulations.

Does This Protect Public Safety or Enable Government Overreach?

MDOT justifies these restrictions as necessary for public safety and maintaining well-kept facilities—a reasonable goal. However, does imposing misdemeanor charges solve the root problems or merely shift responsibility elsewhere? Without expanding shelter capacity or addressing economic barriers that lead to homelessness, these actions risk criminalizing poverty itself.

Moreover, banning panhandling and restricting demonstrations on public sidewalks raises serious First Amendment questions. Public spaces are vital forums for free speech and protest. When government agencies curtail these rights under vague safety pretexts, they undermine core American liberties that must be defended.

This situation highlights a broader failure: Washington and Lansing need policies that protect national sovereignty by prioritizing citizens’ well-being through effective social programs—not superficial crackdowns on symptoms of deeper issues.

As America grapples with rising homelessness nationwide amid inflationary pressures and economic uncertainty, Michigan’s approach should serve as a cautionary tale against simplistic law-and-order fixes disconnected from compassionate solutions rooted in economic liberty and individual dignity.

The question remains: Will our leaders choose enforcement over empathy? Or will they finally commit resources towards meaningful housing solutions that restore freedom and security for all Americans?