Local councils make new bylaws all the time.
They define things such as how many chickens you can own, how fast you can drive and where you can and can't take your dog, park, freedom camp or skateboard or drink alcohol in public.
Changes to these rules might ruffle a few feathers locally but, generally, residents adapt and move on.
• Tauranga's begging ban to continue, for now
• Tauranga retailers desperate to keep begging and rough sleeping ban
• Begging bylaw: Court action against Tauranga City Council reignited
• City's begging and rough sleeping ban: Public submissions to be heard today
It's rare for a bylaw to become such a lightning rod for debate that it hits national as well as local news headlines - and stays there.
But that's what happened when two Tauranga City councillors - Terry Molloy and Bill Grainger - pitched an urgent bylaw to ban begging and rough sleeping in Tauranga in November 2017.
Bans - restricted to within 5m of entrances to shops and eateries in three CBD areas - came into effect on April 1, 2019.
But their days might be numbered.
This afternoon, the council - a different group to those who first voted in the policy - is set to decide whether to revoke, amend or keep the controversial bylaw clauses.
Begging ban out, wellbeing hub in: Alternatives to bylaw proposed
Become 'a city of kindness': Housing advocates say ditch the begging bylaw
A decision to dump the bylaw will hinge on whether the rules were still considered the best way to solve the perceived problems it was intended to address.
A majority of elected members, including mayor Tenby Powell, have previously voted that it was not the best way, beginning a public consultation process on removing the rules.
A majority of the public submissions, however, called for the rules to stay.
Since November, the number of known rough sleepers in Tauranga had risen from 51 to 71, but council staff noted an increase was not unexpected in summer.
The question of whether the bylaw is the best way to address the issue has been at the core of the issue since its beginning in 2017, when Molloy and Grainger dropped the issue on to the council's agenda via an urgent notice of motion.
They said it was a response to concerns expressed by retailers about the impact beggars and rough sleepers were having in the CBD, Greerton and Mount Maunganui.
Hard-and-fast rules would give retailers and enforcement agencies something to work with, in conjunction with social support and housing services.
Councillors were unanimous about wanting beggars gone, but split on rough sleepers. Mayor Greg Brownless swayed the vote in favour of having the council's staff look into options for both bans.
The reaction to the move was swift.
Many people who work with the homeless expressed fears the bans would simply move the issues somewhere else.
Retailers - especially in Greerton, which had an influx of beggars - welcomed the council taking action.
Council staff advised against bans from the outset, as legal experts said the bans could breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and land the council in court.
At one point, the council moved to approve more subjective bylaw wording condemning intimidating begging, but this was overturned by councillors who dismissed it as "toothless" and sought a clearer rule.
The distance restricted bans were signed off in November 2018 and came into force from April last year. There was a spike in complaints about begging to the council that month, but that had since settled down to pre-bylaw levels, council staff reported.
Complaints about rough sleeping have reduced as work to support the homeless has increased.
The Tauranga Housing Action Trust launched judicial review proceedings over the bylaw clauses, threatening to take the council to court.
The case was put on hold during negotiations with the council but reinstated after councillors in September rejected a compromise that would have avoided legal action.
By November there was a new council and a new direction.
Today they could vote to settle the matter, one way or another, keep or revoke. An attempt to amend the rules, however, could see the debate continue.