Matthew Hutchison / news@whmi.com

Brighton city officials are considering changes to the city’s solicitor ordinance as door-to-door season picks up and concerns about aggressive soliciting continue to draw attention online.

City Manager Gretchen Gomolka said the city is looking to update the ordinance, which dates back more than 40 years, and bring it in line with current First Amendment standards while also addressing privacy and safety concerns for residents. Gomolka referenced the recent attempted abduction in Brighton Township, though city officials said they have not seen an unusual spike in formal complaints.

“We haven’t really taken any significant amount of complaints from phone calls here at city council,” Gomolka said, adding that more of the concern appears to be showing up on social media.

City Attorney Sarah Gabis said Brighton’s current ordinance was drafted in 1981 and includes provisions that may be overly cumbersome, especially in the way permits are handled by the police chief and how background checks factor into approvals.

Gabis said the question is, “What do we really need to do and how can we make it more streamlined to impose less administrative burden and protect First Amendment rights and privacy of citizens?”

Gabis said the issue is “becoming a hot button topic,” citing the frequency and assertiveness of some door-to-door soliciting. She said the city has to be especially careful with charitable, religious and political canvassing, which carries stronger constitutional protections. Political canvassing, she said, cannot require a permit. Religious and political canvassing also must generally be allowed, though reasonable time, place and manner restrictions may apply.

Commercial solicitation can be regulated more directly, but Gabis said any rules have to be narrowly tailored to a specific concern, such as fraud. She said the city could look at requirements for commercial solicitors to carry identification so residents can verify they are legitimate.

Gabis also said residents do not lose their property rights just because First Amendment protections exist. No-soliciting signs can be enforced, and if a resident asks someone to leave and they refuse, trespass laws may apply.

Police Chief Brent Pirochta said the department has not seen a major uptick in calls to police or 911 related to solicitors, saying current activity is generally on par with what the city sees at this time of year.

Council member Paul Gipson said he believes solicitation has increased and that some solicitors are becoming more aggressive or refusing to leave when asked. Gipson said many people show up without permits and said he would like the city to explore stronger rules, especially in neighborhoods with children.

“I would like this to be a little bit stronger,” Gipson said.

Council member Ken Schmenk agreed that the issue should be explored further. Council member James Bohn said he has not seen the same level of door-to-door activity, saying he does not see many people walking neighborhoods since he retired.

Council member Bill Albert asked what residents can do at home. Officials discussed options such as posting no-soliciting or no-trespassing signs, using digital cameras and understanding when residents can ask someone to leave their property. Albert noted that when he was campaigning in 2021, police were called after he mistakenly canvassed in a neighborhood with a no-soliciting sign.

The city currently has two ordinances dealing with solicitors and canvassers, and peddlers, though officials said there is significant overlap between them.

Council agreed to have modifications prepared for future review and also consider a public education campaign to help residents understand their rights and the steps they can take when solicitors come to their doors.