2002 - PUD agreement and transient merch. lic.

Home Browse Search

and some cities have inquired about exempting minors from their regulations. Such practices, while of good intention, could put a city at risk. Such a provision could be challenged on the grounds that it once again treats people differently for doing essentially the same thing. While homeowners may not be as upset by a member of a non-profit organization selling candy ringing their doorbells as they are by vacuum cleaner salespeople, the courts have generally looked at the act of going place-to-place itself as the nuisance, not the product being sold. If the sale itself is secondary to expressing the belief of the group, then the constitutional rights exception would apply and no special exception would apply. If the sale is primarily commercial in nature, which the sale of candy etc. could easily be found to be, then upholding a classification's exemption would depend on the city being able to convince the courts that place-to-place sales by minors or non-profit groups is somehow different from similar sales by adults and regular businesses and therefore is not a nuisance. Given the tone of existing caselaw, it could be difficult to convince the courts of this distinction. Of course, rather than license each person, one license could be granted to the group. -- Require solicitors and license-exempt peddlers and transient merchants to register. Because registration is a simple process and no fee is charged, the courts have said that requiring solicitors and otherwise exempt peddlers and transient merchants to register does not have an undue burden on interstate commerce or other constitutional rights. Registration does help a city track those involved in such business practices and reduces the risk of scam artists as the city will know who each person is and how to contact them should a citizen have a complaint. -- Green River or modified Green River ordinances. A Green River ordinance, named for the city where it was first used and upheld, declares it to be a nuisance for any person to go onto the property of another for the purpose of peddling or soliciting, without first being invited to do so by the land owner or tenant. Such an ordinance is not applicable to regular route deliveries, and probably could not be enforced against otherwise valid exercises of Constitutional rights. In addition, there are questions as to the applicability of such an ordinance to non-residential settings, although it probably is ok. Further, the nuisance created under a Green River ordinance has been held to be a private nuisance meaning enforcement is basically up to the affected land owner or tenant. A modified Green River ordinance makes it a trespass to enter onto any property, whether residential or not, for the purpose of soliciting or peddling, where the land owner has posted a sign stating to the effect "No Peddlers or Solicitors". One advantage of this provision is that it applies everywhere a posting is made, is enforceable against all peddlers and solicitors, including those involved in interstate commerce and those attempting to exercise Constitutional rights, as the prohibition is actually made by the private land owner or tenant and not a governmental agency. In fact, the provision should be enforced equally to avoid legal challenges of favoring otherwise protected groups or persons. This approach also allows for criminal prosecution of violators for trespass.