‘Is chalk art free speech?’ cities ask

By Scott Sullivan
Editor
Is chalk art in public places free speech or vandalism? Douglas City Council Monday weighed a measure banning it on heels of neighbor Saugatuck removing a sidewalk message many found offensive.
Saugatuck City Council was slated to discuss its attorney’s advisory on the matter at its Wednesday, Oct. 10 Wednesday’s workshop, too late for this week’s deadline.
A complaint was lodged early Sept. 20 about a chalk message reading “Soldiers don’t belong in our neighborhoods” accompanied by a drawing on a Culver Street sidewalk near Butler Street.
Police, who called it a non-crime event, notified the city public works department to spray it down and wash it off. The incident drew many comments on social media.
Douglas city councilmen Matt Balmer, Greg Freeman and John O’Malley asked peers Monday to add an agenda item to consider whether similar sidewalk markings might constitute vandalism.
“We wish,” the three apprised council in writing, “to protect the City’s publicly owned property, help maintain order, and an aesthetically clean and pleasing environment of our downtown public spaces, as well as all other areas of public property within the city limits.
“We believe that any writing or drawing on public property is a violation of Ordinance 132, Malicious Destruction of Property. We believe that the ordinance is content neutral.
“It is not the content of what is being drawn or written, but the actual writing or drawing is an act of marring and defacing public property,” they continued.
“The ordinance does not distinguish between permanent or temporary writing or drawing, therefore both acts are a violation of the ordinance. Writing or drawing without city council approval constitutes vandalism, per Ordinance 132.
“We will be asking for an opinion from city staff and requesting a legal opinion from the city attorney, if needed,” the three councilmembers said.
Balmer said he had seen the lawyer’s opinion, but fellow council members Neal Seabert and Randy Walker had not. Mayor Cathy North wondered why it wasn’t shared more widely.
Spokesmen for two groups — Saugatuck-Douglas Indivisble and Saugatuck-Douglas Good Trouble Indivisible — spoke on the matter during public comments.
“We have the same name but are different groups,” explained S-D Indivisible member Jane Dickie. “We don’t do chalking.
“We did do a candlelight vigil last week in Saugatuck with more than 200 participants. We engage others with respect,” Dickie said.
A Good Trouble Indivisible spokesperson said, “We believe this is a matter of free speech. Are you going to arrest children for marking hopscotch boards on sidewalks? Businesses marking promotions outside their shops?
“When does it stop and end? We will not be dictated to,” she said.
Jan Cohen, who described herself as founder of Good Trouble, said she had spoken with the police chief and city manager about sidewalk art.
“We are not destroying, defacing or marring anything permanently. This is washable sidewalk art,” she continued.
“I’ve seen social media comments. I wish we would all talk before assuming something. Some crazy things are going on in the world right now,” she said.
“Why is free speech being challenged?” asked Saugatuck Township resident Judith Schneider. “None of the messages were aggressive. Would you be asking this if Trump supporters were writing them?”
Another Good Trouble member said she had read the statue and consulted with the American Civil Liberties Union. “Free speech is the First Amendment for a reason,” she said. “If you deny it, get ready to be sued.”
“We’re here for a discussion,” said Balmer. “There’s nothing personal about this. Someone chalked ‘Vote for Matt’ outside my business. I appreciate the sentiment but didn’t ask for it.
“It is not a restriction of free speech, it’s on conduct; not the content of the message but act of marking it that’s the problem. It cost the DPW about $500 to wash it off.”
Skeptics in the audience were incredulous.
“I’ve heard many people ask it be stopped,” said councilman Jerry Donovan. “Words like ‘deface’ or ‘malicious’ are not specific, but are in the ordinance.”
“When I read the ordinance — about six times,” said Walker, “it did not make clear it’s illegal to chalk.
“I think this is much ado about nothing,” she continued. “I can’t believe the matter is even coming up. It’s a waste of time.”
“I wish we all had the attorney’s opinion before tonight,” repeated North. “I agree with Jerry and agree this is freedom of speech. We are looking for directions to give city staff and citizens.”
“I think this ordinance needs work,” said Seabert. “It needs reconsideration by the planning commission.
“I think we have to support our ordinance. You can always have the PC amend it,” Seabert said.