The controls on doorstep solicitation

If you don’t want strangers coming to your door with a product or an idea to sell, should you be able to stop them? What about those who simply distribute a leaflet or printed ad?

Suburban officials have wrestled with these questions, most recently in Carpentersville, where on Tuesday trustees approved an expansion of the village’s solicitation ordinance. The new law prohibits businesses, politicians, religious groups and anyone else with a message from leaving ads or fliers at homes displaying a “no solicitors” sign. The previous law covered only those seeking face-to-face contact.

Seems sensible. Why shouldn’t people be allowed to decide whether someone can drop something on their doorstep? Besides, the stuff can be a hassle: fliers turning to litter on windy days, free newspapers getting caught in snowblowers, ads left on doors signaling to would-be burglars that no one’s home.

But let’s think about it, as Carpentersville Village President Ed Ritter urged the board. Despite these downsides, it’s important to note potential benefits such communications can bring to a community. Though Ritter could not vote on the expansion, he said he feared it would limit candidates from reaching voters. Getting all types of information out is what drives our communities politically, socially and economically.

Municipalities should tread carefully around limits to this interaction, weighing any inconveniences against the potential benefit of allowing information to flow more freely.

Moreover, what constitutes solicitation should be clearly defined. Britt Zink, owner of a door-to-door distributor of ads, insisted to staff writer Lenore Adkins that he is not a solicitor because his workers do not ring doorbells. He sees his work as constitutionally protected free speech.

But waving the First Amendment flag may not help here. Carpentersville’s ordinance, like similar ones in West Chicago and Aurora, is viewed as constitutional because once a property owner makes it known that solicitors are not welcome, the issue is one not of speech but of trespassing.

Other towns considering these types of regulations should study all the pros and cons. For instance, requiring permits for solicitors is one way to limit activity, but would the cost deter Cub Scouts from leaving fliers for food collections? Could local activists be discouraged from distributing leaflets about proposed changes that affect the neighborhood?

In a world where privacy is increasingly threatened and fear of crime is a constant, people should have the option to control what happens on their property. But there also are ways towns can make flier and ad distribution more acceptable. To limit litter, they can specify how papers must be secured, and they can publicize rules for reporting violations and require that each leaflet include contact information for the person responsible.

Meanwhile, residents who aren’t interested in the messages left at their door always have a final option. They can exercise the right just to throw them away.