News updates are sent daily. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Gilbert ad flier measure provides an 'out’ for businesses
Digg|
Save|
License|
Print|
E-mail|
The Gilbert Town Council faces a dilemma as it considers whether to do anything about advertising door fliers and other items dropped off at homes and businesses, as happens throughout the East Valley.
A group of vocal residents says their private property is routinely invaded by these advertisers, who ignore their pleas to stop, and they want their local government to do its job and protect them. But small business owners are urging the council to avoid overregulation of an effective, affordable means of reaching customers during an uncertain economic outlook.
The council will consider a proposed ordinance that is intended to strike a balance between these businesses and residents who hate door fliers. But as written, the ordinance seeks to appease those residents without actually deterring any proliferation of door-to-door handbills.
The ordinance would require residents who don’t want to be bothered to post a 4-by-11 inch sign saying “no trespassing” or “no solicitation” that’s visible from the street. Anyone who ignores the sign and steps onto the private property to post a door flier could be convicted of a class 1 misdemeanor and be fined at least $500. The business which advertises on the flier could face the same penalty.
But Gilbert officials would first to have prove the same person or business had three earlier violations at the same address within a year. This would require three separate complaints from the same resident and meticulous documentation by the town, or the alleged violator would escape any punishment.
This three-strikes-before-you’re-out rule is meant to protect businesses from inadvertent mistakes and rogue individual door hangers. But enforcing this type of ordinance would require so much red tape that we expect town staff simply wouldn’t bother. If the Gilbert Town Council really believes door fliers are a problem, it should adopt a set fine for the first violation that escalates with repeated offenses. Gilbert would then rely on the traditional discretion of law enforcement to overlook errors where wrongdoing wasn’t intended.
On the other hand, if some business owners are right and those who oppose all door fliers are a loud but tiny minority, then the council shouldn’t adopt any ordinance at all and let those few residents rely on civil lawsuits to protect their private property.
Please add your comments, but follow these guidelines to keep this a safe, credible place for discussing the news: