Effectiveness of No Solicitation Signs

Started by LushaneC3 • 16 replies • 11165 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

LushaneC3 (Texas)
Posts: 3

Posted:

Our community has been inundated with roofing and lawn maintnance advertisements in the form of door hangers. Mostly these are an inconvenience, but some residents have complained the delivery personnel are bringing crime with them. There are no facts, complaints or police reports in the communicty confirming this concern. Many residents attended the most recent monthly meeting to complain and express their desire to install no soliciting signs at all the entrances. Accordingly, we are deliberating installing sich signs but know it is going to be costly venture. Does anyone have any first hand experience or studies that show such an investment will be an effective deterrent or a worthwhile investment?

GraceH (Virginia)
Posts: 224

Posted:

Lushane,

The signs are not that costly, check with local companies rather than the catalogs. Smaller companies will even install the signs.

You will need to post one at each entrance of the community. The signs themselves, may not prevent the solicitation, however if the door hangings continue, you can contact the company and/or the Police.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Unless you have some sort of covenant against it, be aware that a resourceful business owner can cite First Amendment restriction.

I know that here in our local municipality our newspaper distributes an "advertising" packet to homeowners.

They leave them in the driveways.

Accumulating as obnoxious litter.

However, all theoretically "legal" attempts to make them stop has resulted in the the newspaper taking the case to court to challenge on First Amendment restriction issues.

Weird, I know, but. . . go figure.

http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?s=10390262

GraceH (Virginia)
Posts: 224

Posted:

Michele,
I never thought of that. Thanks for the info.

LushaneC3 (Texas)
Posts: 3

Posted:

We would need signs that go with the current aesthetics, and those would not be cheap. Thanks for the first amendment comment, definitely something that hadn't come up in our many discussions. Sadly, we, like many communities have had to make cuts in order for our existing budget to work. We are going to need some hard evidence of a value-add in order to justify a budget exception.

MikeS1
Posts: 521

Posted:

Our Condo Board implemented a no soliciting, no tresspassing rule and it's worked fine. We have an onsite manager and on site engineer and whenever they see someone dropping fliers, they make them pick up all the ones that they dropped and escort them off the property. They have threatened to prosecute but never have had to do so. These are garden 3 level condos.

Then we have another investment property where all the streets are private and these are townhomes (single family attached, fee simple properties). The board is considering the No Sol, No Tres rule since there is so much trash floating around from these ads and there is a huge security risk if your neighbors won't pickup your fliers and ads. Nothing says "Rob this House" better than a few accumulated fliers stuck in the door.
We DO have the ability to call the local free paper and ask them to put folks on their "SKIP".

We have several other communities (LIKE OURS) that are heavily involved with the Neighborhood Watch program and they all have NOSOL/NOTRES signs at every intersection where a private street intersects with a state maintained road.

I have nothing against free speech, but this is all private property and I'm not so sure that our founders were thinking about adpacks and free newspapers when they were talking about Free Speech. In our area, many communities have stopped the advertisers and free newspapers dead in their tracks.

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202

Posted:

Private property - No soliciation

Post these signs at entrances.

Then ask for help from the local municipality. Take the flyer into the Clerk's office and/or police dept. and ask for help in enforcing your private property rights.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Again, what may work for a CONDO in cases like this aren't necessarily going to work for a detached home, ungated subdivision.

Two completely different animals.

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

I had a sign on my door in Tempe that essentially stated no solicitation, leave no flyers, etc..

Luckily, Tempe has a city code/law that states that if you have such a sign, companies leaving flyers can be charged.

So, every time someone left a flyer, I called the city code office (i learned exactly who early on in the process). I copied the flyer, address, info, etc., and provided it to the city. they would call the business, tell them they were doing something illegal, and to desist. I kept a record of what businesses failed to listen, and typically, they all stopped the first time they got the warning. some didn't, and in those cases, the city would fine them (they ignored the warning, so they get a fine).

Sadly, you have to do this every time, and every business gets a warning: you can't fine Domino's for leaving a flyer just because Pizza Hut got a warning last week. But, it did lower the amount of crap I received, and sometimes, businesses learned that their junk is litter, and we don't appreciate it being taped to our garage doors, tossed in a plastic bag on my driveway, etc..

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By BrianB on 06/23/2009 10:27 AM
I had a sign on my door in Tempe that essentially stated no solicitation, leave no flyers, etc..

Luckily, Tempe has a city code/law that states that if you have such a sign, companies leaving flyers can be charged.

So, every time someone left a flyer, I called the city code office (i learned exactly who early on in the process). I copied the flyer, address, info, etc., and provided it to the city. they would call the business, tell them they were doing something illegal, and to desist. I kept a record of what businesses failed to listen, and typically, they all stopped the first time they got the warning. some didn't, and in those cases, the city would fine them (they ignored the warning, so they get a fine).

Sadly, you have to do this every time, and every business gets a warning: you can't fine Domino's for leaving a flyer just because Pizza Hut got a warning last week. But, it did lower the amount of crap I received, and sometimes, businesses learned that their junk is litter, and we don't appreciate it being taped to our garage doors, tossed in a plastic bag on my driveway, etc..

Please note:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090612/NEWS01/906120395/1008/rss01

I'm not saying you can't try the "no soliciting" sign, and condos are a different animal with the "private property" and all, just keep that link in mind.

Notice that the city did not try to BAN the leaving of the advertising completely since the business (in this case the local paper) could prevail on a First Amendment challenge.

It may work for some as a bluff, but if the bluff is called, then it's called.

We were told if we had a gated community AND if we already had a covenant banning solicitation then we could probably get away with posting a sign. Otherwise, it would be a waste of money.

Not saying one way or the other for anyone else, just what happens in our neck of the woods.

JohnK3 (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 967

Posted:

The signs and the messages posted in our 21 SFD HOA are universally ignored.

LushaneC3 (Texas)
Posts: 3

Posted:

WE can put individual door signs but I am wondering about the effectiveness of larger signs at the entrances. Does anyone have any experience with that? I've heard mixed reviews of whether the entrance signage is effective. Additionally, do our covenants need to specify that solicitation is prohibited?

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

i think the newspaper will lose their court arguement.

Yes, they have a right to free speech. However, they do NOT have a right to post, toss, or otherwise litter their free speech on MY property. If they want to post/put/distribute an ad on my property, they can pay me to do it.

I dislike our local phone book companies here where i live now: four times a year or so, they simply dump hundreds of phone books on the ground beneath our mailboxes, where they sit for months in the sunshine and decompose. If i did that with my trash, it's littering. But they can do it repeatedly, and it somehow isn't trash.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Then you would be wrong, Brian.

Because they already won it once.

That's why the Metro Council made the ordinance they did.

NOT BANNING the advertisements directly, just regulating where they can and can't put them.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Lushane,

IMO, unless your community has private streets, you cannot restrict solicitors from coming on the premises. Unless the BOD erected a huge sign with blinking lights, IMO, most solicitors would just ignore it. If they're apt to see a sign at all it would be one staring them in the fact as they walk to the door of a residence. The BOD should just tell the members who are complaining to put a "no solicitors" sign on their door.

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MicheleD on 06/23/2009 11:49 AM
Then you would be wrong, Brian.

Because they already won it once.

That's why the Metro Council made the ordinance they did.

NOT BANNING the advertisements directly, just regulating where they can and can't put them.

Oops, sorry.. the article I saw (linked in an above post) stated that the newspaper was planning to take it to court, not that they had, and won.

THat's what i get for trusting a newspaper that would sue to preserve the right to litter.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Brian, this is not the first time this has come up.

It bubbles up in both the Metro area and in the various class cities surrounding every so many years.

The paper always wins.

The local county attorney's office pretty much concedes as much.

But, as usual, these things can always go wonky.

Several other attempts to ban the advertising altogether have been snuffed because of it.

That's why the Metro Council is trying to limit where the packets can be placed.

To be sure, they're pretty obnoxious.

In our neighborhood the mailboxes have newspaper ports attached to the bottom. However, those who distribute these packets STILL leave them on the driveways.

In other locations there either stand-alone newspaper boxes or like ours, attached to the bottom of the mailbox. STILL the deliverers leave the cr** in the driveway.

So local government tried to get them to cease completely, unless the resident has REQUESTED or OPTED IN to the advertising packet delivery.

All attempts in that regard have been struck down.

Which is where they are right now. Trying not to cease the activity, but to limit or control where they can and can't place it.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here