HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Cover letter for proposed ordinance City Attorney's Office
Caring People 515 Clark Avenue,P. O.Box 811
Quality Programs Ames,IA 50010
Exceptional Service
Phone: 515-239-5146 0 Fax: 515-239-5142
September 24, 2007
SEP 2 5 2007
C1lY CLERK
The Honorable Ann Campbell, Mayor, CITY pf r,,N3 ES,10WA
and Members of the City Council
of the City of Ames, Iowa
Re: United Youth Careers v. City of Ames—Transient Merchant Ordinance Revisions
Dear Mayor Campbell and Council Members:
Based on the recent mediated settlement of the federal civil rights law suit filed in 2004 by United
Youth Careers, I am recommending two additional amendments to the Municipal Code. In United
Youth Careers v. City of Ames, the plaintiffs alleged that the City's Transient Merchant ordinance,
Municipal Code section 17.26,unconstitutionally discriminated against non-local organizations that
solicited door-to-door.
The Federal District Court resolved many of the issues pending in the law suit in January, 2006,
finding in the City's favor on five of six counts raised in a Memorandum Opinion and Order. On the
sixth count, challenging the insurance requirement for transient merchants, the Court ruled in favor
of the United Youth Careers and enjoined the City from enforcing the ordinance. You may recall that
I then recommended and the Council adopted an amendment to Municipal Code section 17.26
eliminating the requirement of general liability insurance, for door-to-door solicitors.
United Youth Career's final complaint is that the City's restrictions on hours during which transient
merchants may operate — sunrise to sunset—violate their free speech rights. Court decisions from
other jurisdictions have invalidated municipal ordinances with similar time restrictions. See,e.g.City
of Watseka v.Illinois Public Action Council,796 F.2d 1547, 1558(7"'Cir. 1986)(ordinance prohibited
solicitation after 5:00 p.m.);ACORN v.City of Frontenac,714 F.2d 813,819(8`'Cir. 1983)(ordinance
prohibited solicitation after 6:00 p.m.).
Time restrictions on door-to-door solicitors are intended to protect residents from annoyance and
intrusions upon their privacy, but in order to survive constitutional challenge restrictions must be
narrowly-tailored to achieve their desired goals. Ordinances limiting solicitors to day-time hours have
been invalidated by the courts. I am therefore recommending that the Transient Merchant ordinance
be amended to permit door-to-door solicitation from 8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.Such an amendment would
permit some solicitation into the early evening hours while still providing reasonable protections to
residents.
In order to provide residents with an alternative enforceable means of preventing unwanted
solicitations in their homes, I am recommending that the ordinance be further amended to allow
residents to post "No Solicitors" signs near their entryways. Solicitors who ignore the signs— like
those who violate the restrictions on hours of solicitation—could be charged with either a municipal
infraction or a simple misdemeanor. Ordinances authorizing the posting of"No Solicitors"signs have
been viewed favorably by the courts. ACORN v. City of Frontenac, 714 F.2d at 815.
1 have attached a draft ordinance that illustrates by underlining and strikeouts the two proposed
changes to section 17.26 of the Municipal Code. I recommend that you place the proposed ordinance
amendments on a future meeting agenda for consideration.
Yours truly,
Douglas R. Marek
City Attorney
Attachment
c: Diane Voss
2