Royal Oak

Is a ‘do not knock’ list coming to Royal Oak?

By Heidi Roman
C & G Staff Writer

ROYAL OAK — Royal Oak is investigating the legalities of restricting door-to-door solicitation after dark and implementing a “do not knock” policy that would try to protect residents from unwanted visitors.

The City Commission directed the city attorney to analyze possible revisions to the city’s solicitation ordinance.

Commissioner Dave Poulton said recent incidents involving solicitation in the community got him thinking about changes that could be made to the ordinance.

According to the Police Department, there was an incident reported last month involving a door-to-door salesman and a resident who answered the door with a gun. The 2011 murder of an elderly Royal Oak woman was allegedly committed by a man and woman who had solicited her for yard work.

The current law allows door-to-door solicitation between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m., regardless of the time of year. Since it’s so dark outside by 9 p.m. certain times of the year, Poulton is interested in prohibiting solicitation after sunset.

“I think it’s an appropriate measure that needs to be taken,” he said. “At my residence, I’ve had aggressive salesmen come door to door.”

Poulton also wants the city to investigate implementing a “do not knock” list, similar to a do not call list.

“Residents and businesses who are tired of being solicited could contact the City Clerk to put their name on a list,” he said. Solicitors seeking a permit in Royal Oak would be asked to avoid those addresses.

Clerk Melanie Halas said Bloomfield Hills has a do not knock list, but even with that safety measure in place, the city tells residents that solicitors can still legally knock on their door.

Commissioner Peggy Goodwin said she noticed an increase in solicitation at night before the weather turned cold. She has a “no soliciting” sign posted outside her home, but said it doesn’t seem to work.

“It does cause alarm, when somebody’s banging on your door when it’s dark out,” Goodwin said. Restricting the hours would be safer for the residents and the solicitors, but she said the city would have to investigate it carefully.

The existing ordinance defines solicitation in several different ways. It includes transient merchants, charitable solicitation, commercial service solicitation and even Girl Scout cookie sales. City Attorney Dave Gillam said the city would need to make sure free speech rights are not being harmed by any revisions.

“In the analysis we’ll do, that’s something we have to be aware of, because there are certain limits to the constraints you can put on in terms of hours and things like that unless you can provide adequate alternatives,” Gillam said.

The commission requested Gillam to investigate a possible revision to the ordinance with a 4-3 vote, with commissioners Jim Rasor, Kyle DuBuc and Mike Fournier opposing.

Fournier said he was open to discussion, but there are alternatives to an ordinance revision: residents can simply choose not to answer the door if they don’t wish to be bothered.

“The other question is enforcement,” he said. “Now we’re going to task the staff, task the Police Department, task the clerk, and I’m concerned about limited resources. Is this going to be a drain on resources? Or is it something best resolved by doing what we’ve done for 2,000 years — not answering the door if we don’t want to be disturbed?”
 

You can reach C & G Staff Writer Heidi Roman at hroman@candgnews.com or at (586)218-5006.