Oxford Township officials are seeking citizen input regarding proposed ordinance language that would regulate the activities of peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants working in the community and require them to register with the municipality.
“I think it needs a little bit more work before we adopt it,” said Treasurer Joe Ferrari.
Last week, the township board voted 7-0 to form a three-member subcommittee to collect written and verbal comments from officials and members of the public regarding this issue, then formulate and submit recommendations for discussion and consideration at the 7 p.m. Wednesday. Sept. 12 meeting.
“If we have to put an ordinance out there, I’d like it to be solid and have some teeth,” said township Supervisor Bill Dunn.
The subcommittee consists of Ferrari and trustees Jack Curtis and Elgin Nichols.
Comments regarding the proposed ordinance can be sent to Ferrari via email at JFerrari@oxfordtownship.org. To learn more about the proposed ordinance, please visit https://oxfordleader.com/knock-knock-whos-there-solicitors-face-registration-regulation-under-proposed-ordinance/
Curtis noted there are a number of issues to be considered such as the fact that under the proposed language, ice cream trucks could be told to “turn the noise down” and both they and food trucks would be required to register with the township.
“Those two have not had ordinances regulating them (before),” he said.
The township is considering an ordinance amendment that would allow the sale of goods and services by peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants as long as they fill out and submit a registration form to the local government and abide by a set of rules.
Under the current ordinance, enacted in 1978, uninvited solicitations are classified as a “nuisance” and prohibited. The only exemption is for “persons licensed . . . to make charitable solicitations.”
But officials fear the 40-year-old ordinance is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Dunn explained he’s “not in favor” of changing the ordinance, but he’s also “not in favor of stepping on someone’s First Amendment rights,” exposing the municipality to potential liability. If the township gets sued, Dunn said it’s “going to lose,” then be held responsible for paying the winning side’s legal bills.
“I wish we didn’t have to have this (new) ordinance,” he noted. “I really don’t like peddlers and people coming (to the door) at all times of the day or night, but we have a large corporation bearing down on us, insisting that we allow this.”
The large corporation the supervisor was referring to is Charter Communications.
Almost a year ago, the township received a letter from Michael Zarrilli, an attorney representing Charter, regarding a June 2017 incident in which a law enforcement officer stopped a direct sales representative for Charter and instructed this individual to obtain a permit from the township.
Zarrilli wrote the township “refused to issue permits to Charter . . . on the basis that Charter is a for-profit enterprise” and therefore, the company’s door-to-door marketing activities are prohibited by ordinance.
“The township’s refusal,” Zarilli wrote, “impermissibly treads upon Charter’s rights under the federal telecommunications laws, as well as its free speech rights under the Michigan and United States Constitutions.”
“The township cannot prevent Charter from speaking to residents through door-to-door visits while allowing other First-Amendment speakers (such as charitable organizations) to engage in the same practice,” the attorney wrote.
In his letter, Zarrilli cited a litany of case law to support Charter’s position.
Zarrilli informed the township “these issues are significant for Charter, and if they cannot be resolved, then the parties could potentially face a protracted and costly legal dispute.”
At the September 2017 board meeting, township attorney Gary Rentrop explained the courts have ruled, “The (government) cannot make that decision as to what the residents hear or want to hear.”
Rentrop noted that by only allowing charitable solicitations, the township’s current ordinance, in addition to prohibiting commercial solicitations, “effectively precludes anyone (from) going door-to-door for religious or political reasons if they’re not a charity and that’s completely unconstitutional.”
If the township is sued because of its current ordinance and the plaintiff is successful, Rentrop explained to the board that all the opposing side has to do is “show $1 in damages” and the municipality is on the hook for its legal bills.
“If a governmental body infringes upon anyone’s constitutional rights, you expose yourself to (paying) actual attorney fees,” he said. “It is a common situation where the damages are always small, but the attorney fees are always large.”
Dunn noted he’s “a person who doesn’t like (to have) a lot of ordinances” because “it just seems intrusive,” but in this case, the township really has no choice.
“I don’t like this, but we’re forced (to do it),” he said.