Peddlers and Solicitors

[AndyIvey]

I am starting this thread to gauge public interest in altering the Chapter 42 (Solicitors) of the Dallas City Code. Specifically, is there any support for requiring door-to-door solicitors/peddlers to register with the city? University Park has such a requirement detailed in their Article 4.100 (Peddlers and Solicitors) of the Code of Ordinances.

UP Code
http://www.ctspublish.com/universityparklp/lpext.dll/Infobase1/title00015/heading%20100063/heading%20200064.htm?fn=content_doc.htm&f=templates

Dallas Code
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/dallas/volumeii/chapter42solicitors?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=$nc=4248

UP Section 4.103 (a) Permit Required.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to peddle, sell, solicit, canvass, or take orders for any services, wares, merchandise, or goods, or any article of value, including plants, flowers, paintings, novelties, painting house numbers on streets, firewood, books, magazines, photographs, or any articles for future delivery, on a sidewalk or parkway within the city or from door to door without having first obtained a permit therefor from the city.

[Columbus Civil]

I don't know. What about kids selling candy and stuff for school fundraisers? That's an American rite of passage. Otherwise, I agree with that requirement.

[AndyIvey]

What about kids selling candy and stuff for school fundraisers?
A permit is not required if you are under 14 or soliciting for a charity or non-profit.

[Columbus Civil]

Then I'm all for it.

[St-T]

I have mean little shits that sell candy in my hood!

[carousel]

Can you please explain what purpose is obtaining a permit going to serve?

[AndyIvey]

Can you please explain what purpose is obtaining a permit going to serve?

The UP process is very involved and thorough. Permit applications include a:
1) set date ensuring that the permit is current
2) includes name and address of applicant
3) includes name and address of represented organization
4) description of goods/services sold
5) photograph of applicant

Applicants must provide:
1) state issued identification
2) proof of social security number
3) letter from officer of represented organization
4) fee to cover background check and permit process

The above is not a complete description of the entire procedure. However, it is a good example of the thoroughness of the application process. Public utility companies and most reputable firms that conduct business door-to-door require identification similar to UP’s ordinance. A similar ordinance in Dallas would ensure that all solicitors adopt the sound business practices already accepted by organizations like SBC and TXU.

[RobertB]

I don't know. What about kids selling candy and stuff for school fundraisers? That's an American rite of passage. Otherwise, I agree with that requirement.
It was, before poor Adam Walsh died and his dad went on a campaign to convince America that it was no longer safe to walk outside. Now, all the fundraisers say that you should sell only to people you know.

In fact, when I lived in Grand Prairie, the only kids I didn't know that came up to the door seemed to be selling stuff for things other than schools and recognizable organizations -- some of the kids, I suspected, were being used in scams.

Now that there are only three neighbors within a quarter mile, it's not a problem. But if I lived in Dallas, I'd be for the permit requirement.

[monogodo]

I think anyone who sells anything door-to-door should be required to be able to read & understand English, and understand the meaning of the phrase "No Soliciting".

When I worked at a print shop in Irving, we had two "No Soliciting" signs on the door. At least twice a week I'd get some idiot trying to sell me something. I'd point out the sign, and they'd blow it off. I was always tempted to tell them that there was a $10 fee to get me to listen to their pitch, with no guarantee of purchase, payable in advance.

[trolleygirl]

I think it's all well and good if we change our code to require permits, but then the question is, how likely is it to be enforced? How will be enforced? I mean what's to stop Joe's Fly-By-Night Scam Company from knocking on your doors?

[mikedsjr]

I think it's all well and good if we change our code to require permits, but then the question is, how likely is it to be enforced? How will be enforced? I mean what's to stop Joe's Fly-By-Night Scam Company from knocking on your doors?

Excellent questions to ask, tg.

Are we talking specifically businesses, residents, or both?

[AndyIvey]

I do not believe we need DPD patrolling the streets questioning possible solicitors. The ordinance better enables you to identify the person on your front porch. It is the equivalent of hanging your license and business card on the front of your shirt. People should know who you are and why you are there. Adding the requirement that Dallas verify the accuracy of that information is an additional safety.

Dallas does not have a great record of enforcement (ex: panhandling and residential construction). Regardless, it would be unrealistic and unfair to burden code enforcement or DPD with this. Instead, I would want residents to call 9-1-1 when illegally solicited. This is more of a safety initiative.

[infoscott]

I do not believe we need DPD patrolling the streets questioning possible solicitors. The ordinance better enables you to identify the person on your front porch. It is the equivalent of hanging your license and business card on the front of your shirt. People should know who you are and why you are there. Adding the requirement that Dallas verify the accuracy of that information is an additional safety.

Dallas does not have a great record of enforcement (ex: panhandling and residential construction). Regardless, it would be unrealistic and unfair to burden code enforcement or DPD with this. Instead, I would want residents to call 9-1-1 when illegally solicited. This is more of a safety initiative.

If the solicitation is aggravating enough and being conducted on private property posted with "No Solitors", you could file a complaint with the DA for tresspassing charges. That would get their attention.

[Milkman Dan]

I don't envision an ordinance like this changing the way police do their jobs at all. All this does is give citizens the right to get something done via the legal system if solicitors do not abide by the law. I compare this to the panhandling ban - I see police drive right by people begging all the time, but if someone gets aggressive or someone loudly complains, they can bust the person responsible.

Good idea, IMO.

[rockaroundtheclock]

Why is the age at which a permit would be required 14?

[AndyIvey]

I do not know why they selected that age. It may have been to bypass groups like the Boy Scouts.

BTW- I fired off a letter to Council on Friday with a copy of the UP ordinance.

[tamtagon]

I dont think we really need another legal attempt to personify sound consumer judgement; we need more neighborly neighborhoods.

If Dallas does put this sort of ordinance into effect, how many city residents would ever be aware of it? The 5-20% aware of the law most likely would be those at the least risk of getting ripped-off? Those people who are trying to pull a scam will not change their behavior because of this - they would try to be in and out of the area in a shorter time than it would take to get permission.

The intent is admirable, but unless the ordinance comes with a mandate for regularly scheduled public awareness campaign, then nothing will change but the length of legal documents.

Put into a neighborhood watch SOP handbook the best way to identify unscrupulous solicitors - among other neighborhood safety and improvement activities which also serve to introduce people - and pass a city ordinance incenting use of a program designed to help neighbors protect each other from harm.

[RobertB]

If Dallas does put this sort of ordinance into effect, how many city residents would ever be aware of it? The 5-20% aware of the law most likely would be those at the least risk of getting ripped-off? Those people who are trying to pull a scam will not change their behavior because of this - they would try to be in and out of the area in a shorter time than it would take to get permission.
Good point. The folks who are likely to use the ordinance to say "Get off my lawn, you damned kids, or I'm calling the cops" will probably say the same thing without the ordinance. And the scammers will leave now if you tell them you're calling the cops. The sweet little old lady gets swindled in either case, so there's not much gain after all.

I'd still be for an ordinance as a way to help the DPD enforce so-called "quality of life" regulations, but based on recent and ongoing events (like the Legislature's investigation of DPD misuse of existing laws), it's probably not the right time.

[AndyIvey]

^I do not disagree with the two of you. However, I will be disappointed if the topic is not debated. It has its merits as well as potential pitfalls. The most important thing is that our elected officials address the concern.

[tamtagon]

^I do not disagree with the two of you. However, I will be disappointed if the topic is not debated. It has its merits as well as potential pitfalls. The most important thing is that our elected officials address the concern.

word

[ahunt]

Andy, interesting idea, as always. I'm going to ask our City Attorney to look at this.

Angela

[mikedsjr]

Bah humbug....

[hamiltonpl]

This is a good ordinance because it allows the police to ask a person why they roaming a neighborhood where they do not live. It allows them to talk to people that look like they are scoping out a house to rob.
"What are you doing around here?" says the officer.
"Selling magazine subscriptions." says the uncouth youth.
"Where is your badge?" the officer said.
"Badges? I don't need no stinking badges."