On a 4-1 vote, the City Council tonight enacted an anti-solicitation ordinance. The approximate text of what was adopted can be found (as a PDF) here.
Please do read the whole thing to understand what all it says, but the meat of it is in this section:
Prohibited Conduct
1. It shall be unlawful for any person, while occupying as a pedestrian any portion of a public or private roadway, sidewalk, driveway, parking area, or alley, including drive lanes, medians and curbs, to solicit or attempt to solicit employment, donations, alms or subscriptions, from any pedestrian who temporarily exits a vehicle, or from any person occupying or traveling in a vehicle, on a roadway, sidewalk, driveway, parking area, or alley.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person occupying or traveling in a vehicle, or who temporarily exits a vehicle, to solicit or attempt to solicit employment, donations, alms or subscriptions, from a person who is a pedestrian on a public or private roadway, sidewalk, driveway, parking area, or alley, including drive lanes, medians and curbs.
The council had a little trouble with this bit:
(f) Effective Date
It is the intention of the Council that this ordinance not go into effect until an employment center, located either within the City of Gaithersburg or in an area of Montgomery County, Maryland proximate to the City’s corporate boundaries, in accordance with the laws and requirements of the respective jurisdiction, is open and operating on a regular schedule.
in that the “It is the intention” clause seemed a little too wishy-washy; that was replaced during the Council session with language that left the Council’s intent out of it, and just affirmatively stated the conditions under which the law would go into effect.
There was some debate over whether to pass the ordinance. Ms. Edens appeared not to like it at all, despite having expressed support for it in the past. She said that she was concerned that it was a bad law, that it would be difficult to enforce in a non-discriminatory fashion, it would be challenged, and it wouldn’t do what people seemed to want it to do. She also stated that she preferred that the laborers be offered “carrots” instead of this stick, although she offered no suggestions as to what sort of carrot should or could be offered, or what the City could do if it turned out some of the laborers just don’t like carrots. Ms. Edens was the only Council member to vote against the ordinance.
Two other council members — Alster and Sesma — also expressed concern that the law would be challenged and that it wouldn’t do what people wanted, but they voted for it anyway. Mr. Marraffa expressed strong support for the law, and Mr. Schlichting largely kept quiet.
There was no talk of passing this as “emergency” legislation, and thus — assuming that the County stays on track with their Day Laborer center (and in that regard, it appears that the trailers were delivered to Crabbs Branch Way sometime this morning), then all the angst over delaying the ordinance until the labor center is in operation will have just been for show; the labor center will likely have been in operation for some time before the first laborer or employer can be cited for violating this ordinance.
Update: Sebastian Montes has an background article on this topic in today’s Gazette. As the decision came after the Gazette’s publishing deadline, it does not discuss the outcome; I expect they will have an update on this before the day is out.
If passed, it will be the first such law in Montgomery County. County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) has said he will wait until Gaithersburg makes its decision before announcing his position on the issue.
Civic groups such as the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the county chapter of the NAACP have threatened to sue Gaithersburg if it enacts the law. They argue that the law violates the First Amendment. Numerous communities across the country have enacted similar measures, many of which have been shot down by courts.
To my knowledge, the courts have trouble with these laws when there is no place provided where these rights can be exercised, which is part of why the law was written to be dependent on the existence of a labor center.