Sandy Springs council previews three public-safety ordinances on solicitation, property access and worship buffers

The Sandy Springs City Council heard a presentation March 18 on three proposed ordinances that would (1) limit overnight door‑to‑door solicitation and canvassing, (2) set rules for ingress and egress that protect private property access during protests, and (3) create buffer zones around campus places of worship and similar facilities.

City Attorney Dan Lee said the proposals are intended to clarify the city code on where and when canvassing and solicitation can occur and to guide police enforcement in situations where protest activity could interfere with access to private property. He described the ordinances as content‑neutral rules about time, place and manner, not restrictions on message.

The Anti‑Defamation League’s Ryan Pelfry, senior associate regional director for ADL Southeast, told councilmembers the model ordinances were developed in response to an increase in extremist and hate‑motivated incidents. “We have seen a nearly 900% increase in these incidents over the last decade,” Pelfry said, and he cited ADL data finding a 115% increase in anti‑Semitic incidents in Georgia in 2023. Pelfry said ADL has shared model language with other jurisdictions and urged Sandy Springs to adopt protective, content‑neutral measures.

City staff described details of each draft: the overnight solicitation ordinance would prohibit canvassing at private residences between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.; the ingress/egress ordinance would establish a distance (staff described a 50‑foot radius for some private‑property access situations) to prevent blocking vehicle or pedestrian access; and the campus/place‑of‑worship buffer ordinance would adopt principles consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Colorado v. Hill to prohibit approaching unwilling listeners or handing unwanted leaflets in certain controlled zones.

Councilmembers raised constitutional and enforcement concerns. Councilmember Jody Rochelle asked whether the ordinances have been litigated elsewhere; Dan Lee said the local wording has not itself been the subject of litigation but that courts have upheld similar time‑place‑manner limits and cited Colorado v. Hill as precedent. Rochelle and others asked whether the rules should extend to commercial properties; staff replied the drafts focus on private residences because incidents commonly occur at night when homeowners are indoors.

Councilmembers also discussed practical enforcement limits. Staff and the city attorney said enforcement depends on catching violators in the act or having evidence such as video; members noted that daylight distribution of unwanted materials would remain difficult to police under a time‑of‑day approach.

Rather than act on the ordinances that evening, councilmembers asked staff to place each of the three drafts separately on the public‑hearing calendar so members of the public can comment at that hearing. City staff said the ordinances will be returned to council for public hearings and further consideration.

Supporters, staff and council members framed the packages as attempts to balance constitutional speech rights with protections for residents, places of worship and visitors who should not be physically accosted or blocked from entering property.

Council action/direction: Council requested staff to schedule three separate public hearings on the proposed overnight solicitation and canvassing ordinance, the ingress/egress ordinance, and the campus/place‑of‑worship buffer ordinance; no ordinance vote or adoption occurred March 18.