Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Gathering Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pocono Township sends two draft public‑gathering ordinances to solicitor after heated debate over buffer zones and fees
Summary
After a two‑hour discussion and extensive public comment, the Pocono Township Board of Commissioners voted to send two competing drafts of a public‑gathering ordinance to the township solicitor for review and possible advertisement. Commissioners and residents disputed 50‑foot buffers near playgrounds, insurance requirements and whether the drafts would chill First Amendment expression.
The Pocono Township Board of Commissioners voted June 1 to send two competing drafts of a public‑gathering ordinance to the township solicitor for review and possible advertisement for public hearing and adoption.
The motion to refer the drafts passed after more than an hour of debate between commissioners and a long string of public commenters. Commissioner Charles (speaker 7), who sponsored one draft, said his version was intentionally pared down to avoid placing onerous restrictions on residents and to use objective, measurable standards—such as expected attendance and parking—rather than discretionary waivers. “My draft treats all gatherings the same,” he said, arguing the alternative draft’s repeated use of the term “content neutral” and its 50‑foot buffers around playgrounds, ponds and other park features risked constitutional problems and a chilling effect on speech.
The solicitor (speaker 12) told the board that carefully crafted time, place and manner rules can survive judicial scrutiny if they are narrowly tailored, objectively applied and provide alternative avenues for communication. He recommended removing waivers that create discretion to avoid later claims of content‑based enforcement.
Opponents and supporters in the public spoke at length. Lou Ginsburg and other parents urged protections around playgrounds and splash pads to prevent loud demonstrations near children. Another commenter, Frank Greeley, said courts recognize a government interest in shielding children and argued buffer zones could be lawful if narrowly tailored to public safety. Other residents warned the draft’s fee and insurance requirements—one section proposes sizable insurance certificates for larger gatherings—would be effectively prohibitive for grassroots organizers.
After public comment, commissioners debated next steps: some favored a focused workshop to reconcile differences; others said the solicitor should draft a single, constitutionally sound permit model based on examples from other municipalities. The board ultimately voted to have the solicitor review both drafts and to prepare any recommended changes.
What happens next: the solicitor will review both drafts for legal risk, including the insurance and waiver provisions, and the board indicated it will schedule future hearings or workshops as appropriate. The referral does not adopt either draft; it merely directs legal review and potential revision prior to any public hearing.
