Why Plover hasn’t seen the same homelessness challenges as Stevens Point
By Brandi Makuski
PLOVER – As Stevens Point wrestles with visible homelessness, neighboring Plover has not experienced the same problem—and Plover’s police chief says that isn’t by accident.
Chief Ryan Fox said the village’s lack of a traditional downtown, combined with longstanding ordinances and limited shelter resources, makes the community less likely to attract unsheltered populations.
“We don’t have a downtown, but we also don’t have the resources. We don’t have warming shelters. We don’t have Franciscans,” Fox said. “If we had those facilities like Point has, then you would probably see those problems here.”
Instead, Plover’s development has always been auto-oriented, built around business corridors that are very separate from intentionally walkable gathering spaces. Fox said that the design difference reduces the places where people might congregate or camp.
Like Stevens Point, the village also enforces ordinances that prevent overnight camping in parks. But Plover also places a stronger restriction on daytime loitering. Fox emphasized that those rules weren’t written with homelessness in mind but to keep public spaces safe and clean.
“We just simply don’t allow it, from our village board to our department heads to our police department,” he said. “If you start allowing people to break your ordinances, before you know it, you’re going to have multiple people creating disorder.”
Fox pointed to a recent update of Plover’s loitering ordinance that allows officers to intervene when someone is lingering in a public place, such as a restroom or business lobby, for long periods. He said those tools allow police to address problems before they grow.
Panhandling, however, is still legal under the Constitution, Fox said, adding, “Any panhandling order that’s ever been enacted in the U.S. has been unconstitutional and struck down.”
Like officers in Stevens Point, Fox said Plover officers focus on quick intervention and connecting people with services. Officers carry gift cards for food and direct people to United Way or Portage County Health and Human Services when needed.
But Fox credited Plover’s village board with trusting its full-time staff to introduce, then enforce, ordinances consistently.
“They let us do our jobs. They trust us that we know what we’re talking about, and that we’re going to do our job well, and they hold us accountable,” he said. “That support really helps morale in our department.”
Fox added that while Plover occasionally sees people living out of vehicles near Crossroads Commons, the problem hasn’t grown into the kind of entrenched encampments found in Stevens Point.
“We use our ordinances to ensure that a small problem doesn’t become a bigger one,” he said.
What the 2025 ordinance changes do
Trustees unanimously approved Ordinance 6-07-25, amending Chapter 406 (peace and good order) to restructure the loitering ordinance and add tools officers can use before a situation escalates.
The revision keeps Section 406-10—now expressly including “prowling”—and adds Sections 406-11 and 406-12 to address loitering without permission on private or school property and the obstruction of sidewalks, streets, or other public areas.
Fox told trustees the update fixed limitations that previously forced officers to wait for specific triggers, like someone fleeing or refusing to identify themselves, before acting. “This just gives us a little bit more ability to enforce the ordinances we already have,” he said. “It doesn’t change how we’ve been doing things. It just restructures the language.”
The board then approved Ordinance 6-08-25 amending Chapter 496 to bar people from sitting, standing, or walking on certain traffic medians—specifically those that are unpaved, narrower than five feet, or on roads with three or more lanes in each direction.
Fox said the measure responded to repeated complaints about panhandlers near Crossroads Commons and would allow officers to educate people and ask them to step off the median without first proving they were impeding traffic.
Trustee Adam Raabe, who helped draft the language, said he believed the ordinance was tailored for safety and constitutional, but voted no out of concern it would simply move people elsewhere—the lone dissent in an otherwise favorable vote.