By Anne Levin

At its meeting on March 23, Princeton Council held a work session to review a draft ordinance focused on the regulation of special events and the use of public space. That session was viewed by some in the community as potentially infringing on free speech, leading several people to voice opposition to the potential ordinance at the Council’s meeting on April 13.

Aware of the concerns, Councilwoman Mia Sacks, who was not initially involved in the efforts to update the ordinance, shared a statement from Council at the April 13 meeting saying that the Municipality was working to draft an updated ordinance governing special events and the use of public space.

“Recent commentary has suggested that this initiative could restrict or burden free speech,” she said. “That characterization is incorrect and reflects a misunderstanding of the discussion that took place during a recent Council work session. That work session was focused specifically on cost recovery and permitting for non-expressive events.”

Municipal attorney Lisa Maddox had told Council at the work session that there has been an increase in public interest in holding events in Princeton “You have more events, more people, and a greater use of public resources,” she said.

The ordinance under discussion proposed that any organized outdoor gathering would be considered a special event that would need a permit. The proposed ordinance would consolidate rules into a single framework, possibly increasing costs for the presenters.

Several of those who expressed concerns about the ordinance were from the local immigrant advocacy organization Resistencia en Acción NJ, and Indivisible Princeton.

“We do want to make it very clear, we do not support measures that create barriers to protest or freedom of expression,” said Richard, a member of Resistencia. Another member of the public asked what events inspired the consideration of the ordinance. Yeou-Shiuh, who identified himself as a Palestine solidarity activist, called the proposals “undemocratic and unconstitutional, and should therefore be scrapped.”

The impetus for the ordinance dates back several years, reflecting concerns by various municipal departments about the consistency of review, processing, and administration of what were termed special events, and their impact on certain neighborhoods and areas of town. Public gatherings are currently in two separate categories — those in parks or plazas, and those on streets and sidewalks.

Since hearing concerns at the April 13 meeting, Sacks said she has met with Lynda Dodd, who leads Indivisible Princeton, and representatives of the ACLU of New Jersey, and has reviewed the ordinances devoted to public gatherings from other towns.

“The intent of this effort by various municipal departments was designed to address what was known to be a long-standing issue — one that emerged in part from the consolidation of Borough and Township codes — and to provide clearer guidance for staff,” Sacks wrote in a more recent statement. “Anyone reviewing the current ordinance language governing parades and public assemblies in Princeton can understand why municipal staff have been seeking greater clarity. The existing provisions are fragmented and confusing, making consistent application difficult. Consistency is essential — not only for effective administration, but to ensure that constitutional protections are applied fairly and reliably. That said, even well-intentioned changes in this area require careful scrutiny, and it is essential that residents remain attentive to any proposal that could affect expressive rights. I appreciate Professor Dodd and others for highlighting the potential risks, which underscore the need to proceed thoughtfully. As a result of these discussions, it is now my view that a narrow effort to streamline existing provisions is insufficient. Rather than pursuing a limited revision, I believe we should take this opportunity to conduct a more comprehensive review and develop a framework that provides both clear guidance and durable, codified protection for First Amendment activity.”