Should people be allowed to sleep in their cars? Or in city parks?

Controversial legislation would allow it in Connecticut.

On Monday, a second legislative committee advanced the bill – but even supporters are promising big changes before it gets a final vote.

Kelvin McCullough spent a year living out of his car.

“I lived in that car for a year. Within that time, I went from Hartford to Waterbury and to New Haven looking for work,” he told lawmakers. “I was arrested for criminally trespassing on a shelter property because that was the only place I knew to go in that area.”

Melissa Dzierlatka also feared getting arrested. She lived out of her vehicle after escaping an abusive relationship.

“Sleeping in that car meant safety,” she said. “It meant distance from an abuser. It meant staying warm.”

New legislation would ban cities and towns from ticketing people for sleeping or eating in "public places" like benches, parks and personal vehicles. Panhandling and accessing medical care would also be allowed except “to prevent a danger or likely danger to public health, welfare, or safety.”

There are notable exceptions.

People would not be allowed to sleep on school property, bus stops, train stations or airports.

Critics argued the bill goes too far.

“I don't think it’s OK to allow people to sleep in a car in a neighborhood, for example, at the end of a cul-de-sac in front of someone's house," said state Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott). "This is going to be alarming to some people."

Sampson also worried about aggressive panhandling.

“It’s a frustration when you are trying to get on the highway and you have folks panhandling,” he said. “I’m sympathetic. I feel bad for people and their circumstances, but it’s a safety issue.”

Cities and towns called the bill an “overreach” that could lead to safety and public health problems, including rodents and outdoor encampments, as well as blocked sidewalks.

“Addressing homelessness effectively requires comprehensive services – shelter, mental health care, substance use treatment, job training, and affordable housing – not just the removal of local enforcement tools,” the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities testified. “The vague language around ‘activities of daily living’ invites litigation and inconsistent enforcement, placing municipalities at risk of costly legal challenges.”

The bill’s sponsor assured fellow lawmakers that the legislation is a “work in progress.” He pledged to work with CCM to add more restrictions around schools and outdoor camping.

“I do not want to create a situation where we are encouraging encampments in here, Bridgeport, Watertown, wherever,” said state Rep. Antonio Felipe (D-Bridgeport). “You have a commitment from myself as the main proponent of this bill to make sure that we are looking at specifically the health and safety as it comes to the welfare of our children.”

But advocates insisted that homelessness should not be a crime.

“When we get up in the morning, you’re living in a car, everything costs from brushing your teeth to using the bathroom, showering. It's not just the financial cost. It's dignity,” he said. “You have to worry about cops, law enforcement, city officials, and everybody else kind of judging you.”

The legislation now heads to the full Connecticut House of Representatives after clearing both the Housing and Planning & Development committees.

Lawmakers have unsuccessfully tried to pass similar bills before.