Poll: Should zoning laws allow kids to sell cookies, lemonade, etc in front of their homes?
The St. Louis region made the national news this month:
In Hazelwood, Mo., Carolyn Mills and her daughters, Abigail, 14, and Caitlin, 16, have sold Girl Scout cookies from their driveway for years. But after a neighbor complained that the cookie stand created too much traffic and was causing dogs to bark, city officials told the Millses that selling cookies there violated the city’s zoning code.
Hazelwood officials say scouts are allowed to sell cookies in the city but must go door to door or set up at a place like a grocery store parking lot (with the store’s permission). So while the front yard snack stand is one American tradition, the lawsuit is another. The girls urged the family to sue, and it did. (NY Times)
Other national coverage:
But the lawsuit didn’t go far:
CLAYTON • A St. Louis County judge [Circuit Judge Maura McShane] has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the mother of two Hazelwood teens who were ordered last spring to stop selling Girl Scout cookies in front of their home.
In her dismissal, McShane wrote that the Mills first should have exhausted their appeals asking the city to reconsider barring cookie sales before taking the case to circuit court. (STLtoday.com)
This  recent history is to introduce the poll question this week: Should zoning laws allow kids to sell cookies, lemonade, etc in front of their homes? The poll is in the upper right corner of the blog. Results on Wednesday August 31st.
– Steve Patterson
I couldn’t get to the poll from my phone, but wanted to say that the same rules governing garage sales should be applied to lemonade or cookie sales.
I couldn’t get to the poll from my phone, but wanted to say that the same rules governing garage sales should be applied to lemonade or cookie sales.
Just had to turn off the mobile version and it worked great- voted. Thanks!
That’s what I was wondering…. I understand the comparison to vending carts – hot dogs, T-Shirts, etc. But what about the comparison to garage sales? What makes me having a garage sale okay but me having a hot dog stand against zoning laws? I’m not debating… I’m legitimately curious.
Just had to turn off the mobile version and it worked great- voted. Thanks!
I think zoning laws should be silent on children’s sales of cookies, lemonade, etc (things that have gone on for YEARS with no real harm, and potential benefit to cities – people out and about meeting neighbors – a good thing). Police and code enforcement should work with extenuating issues on a case-by-case basis. This neighbor in Hazelwood should have dealt with the issue w/ the parent and worked out a mutually agreeable arrangement (specific dates/times/etc.).Â
I think zoning laws should be silent on children’s sales of cookies, lemonade, etc (things that have gone on for YEARS with no real harm, and potential benefit to cities – people out and about meeting neighbors – a good thing). Police and code enforcement should work with extenuating issues on a case-by-case basis. This neighbor in Hazelwood should have dealt with the issue w/ the parent and worked out a mutually agreeable arrangement (specific dates/times/etc.).
These codes prohibit stands by anyone, child or adult, in residential zones. They are silent with respect to kid’s stands.
Colleen, you’re assuming that all parents are reasonable when it comes to any perceived criticism of their kids’ activities – they’re not. I’d bet that, in this case, there WAS neighbor-to-parent contact before the city became involved. But if a “mutually agreeable arrangement” can’t be worked out, it falls on the city to enforce the laws, as written. And no, kids should not be exempt. They obviously shouldn’t, and don’t, face the same potential criminal penalties as adults, but there’s no reason to exempt them from following validly-enacted laws.
These codes prohibit stands by anyone, child or adult, in residential zones. They are silent with respect to kid’s stands.
Yes, but with restrictions. Too often, the kids who are selling cookies, etc from their front yard could care less about what they are selling. It is instead the Type A supermoms who are dead-set on setting new sales records. I have no qualms at all about putting an end to that crap. My rule of thumb when buying cookies–stay away from the professional-looking signs, elaborate displays, and overall a general look that shows the kid has little to nothing to do with it. Usually there is a sulking kid who is bored and angry that mom took over. Find me a kid on a card table doing the selling while mom/dad is in the background visiting and looking like they want to be on the back porch with a cold beer. That is where I want my cookies.  My guess is the Hazelwood case is the former not the latter.Â
Yes, but with restrictions. Too often, the kids who are selling cookies, etc from their front yard could care less about what they are selling. It is instead the Type A supermoms who are dead-set on setting new sales records. I have no qualms at all about putting an end to that crap. My rule of thumb when buying cookies–stay away from the professional-looking signs, elaborate displays, and overall a general look that shows the kid has little to nothing to do with it. Usually there is a sulking kid who is bored and angry that mom took over. Find me a kid on a card table doing the selling while mom/dad is in the background visiting and looking like they want to be on the back porch with a cold beer. That is where I want my cookies. My guess is the Hazelwood case is the former not the latter.
Technically I think GSUSA would classify that as an unauthorized cookie booth, so the Hazelwood case I think is odd. But my kids do a lemonade stand from time to time, on their initiative, and all my husband & i do is help prepare the lemonade (my son insists on top-quality product that requires boiling) and carrying stuff. Adults – parents, governments, etc – are way too involved in everything these days.
I see nothing wrong with parents supervising their children’s retail efforts. You want to make sure they’re not giving the neighborhood food poisoning, and you want to make sure some neighborhood bully doesn’t steal their proceeds. Kids need supervision. That’s why I voted yes, with some restrictions. It takes a village…
Technically I think GSUSA would classify that as an unauthorized cookie booth, so the Hazelwood case I think is odd. But my kids do a lemonade stand from time to time, on their initiative, and all my husband & i do is help prepare the lemonade (my son insists on top-quality product that requires boiling) and carrying stuff. Adults – parents, governments, etc – are way too involved in everything these days.
I see nothing wrong with parents supervising their children’s retail efforts. You want to make sure they’re not giving the neighborhood food poisoning, and you want to make sure some neighborhood bully doesn’t steal their proceeds. Kids need supervision. That’s why I voted yes, with some restrictions. It takes a village…
I think the big problem in this case was the vehicular traffic and noise and nuisance it was causing. Â A kid selling a couple cups of lemonade is much different than one trying to sell 2000 boxes of cookies. Â Bad PR for Hazelwood, but they couldn’t allow the problems that might occur from this operation to continue. Â
I think the big problem in this case was the vehicular traffic and noise and nuisance it was causing. A kid selling a couple cups of lemonade is much different than one trying to sell 2000 boxes of cookies. Bad PR for Hazelwood, but they couldn’t allow the problems that might occur from this operation to continue.
Preventing the kids down the street from selling lemonade and cookies is asinine…plain and simple. Â I’m surprise that a nation so in love with the idea of small “stay out of my way” government would even have a law like this on the books anywhere. Â Shame on you Hazelwood, double shame!
Preventing the kids down the street from selling lemonade and cookies is asinine…plain and simple. I’m surprise that a nation so in love with the idea of small “stay out of my way” government would even have a law like this on the books anywhere. Shame on you Hazelwood, double shame!
A child’s lemonade stand or girl scout selling cookies in her driveway is NOT illegal commercial activity in a sacrosanct residential district, nor is it a food service business operating without health department licensing or inspections. Â These activities by children are nothing more than a learning experience where adult activities are patterned through play so that the child learns very important lessons about supply and demand, money management, budgeting, time management, hard work, customer service, interacting with adults, etc., etc. Â
A child’s lemonade stand or girl scout selling cookies in her driveway is PLAYING at commercial activity and PLAYING at running a food service business. Â That too many local zoning enforcement officials and state or county regulators do not understand and apply this simple truth speaks volumes about the quality of their education and training. Â Most local ordinances and state/county regulations are silent on these child-businesses because past generations of local officials, neighbors, and regulators would have been accused of misplacing their common sense if they had done what the current crop keep doing!
Sadly, someone in each state legislature will now have to push through a bill specifically exempting these activities of childhood from all manner of overzealous regulators, undoubtedly triggering another mess of unintended consequences!
A child’s lemonade stand or girl scout selling cookies in her driveway is NOT illegal commercial activity in a sacrosanct residential district, nor is it a food service business operating without health department licensing or inspections. These activities by children are nothing more than a learning experience where adult activities are patterned through play so that the child learns very important lessons about supply and demand, money management, budgeting, time management, hard work, customer service, interacting with adults, etc., etc.
A child’s lemonade stand or girl scout selling cookies in her driveway is PLAYING at commercial activity and PLAYING at running a food service business. That too many local zoning enforcement officials and state or county regulators do not understand and apply this simple truth speaks volumes about the quality of their education and training. Most local ordinances and state/county regulations are silent on these child-businesses because past generations of local officials, neighbors, and regulators would have been accused of misplacing their common sense if they had done what the current crop keep doing!
Sadly, someone in each state legislature will now have to push through a bill specifically exempting these activities of childhood from all manner of overzealous regulators, undoubtedly triggering another mess of unintended consequences!
What lessons are the girls learning? Let’s see:
Dont like the law….ignore it.
Instead of trying to change the law….sue first.
Instead of going door to door (which is how the GS tradition started)..let’s be lazy and have the customer come to us.
Be nice to your neighbors…screw them, it’s our driveway. They can put up with it for a few weeks.
To those that think it’s no big deal..it isn’t UNTIL it is next door to you.
What lessons are the girls learning? Let’s see:
Dont like the law….ignore it.
Instead of trying to change the law….sue first.
Instead of going door to door (which is how the GS tradition started)..let’s be lazy and have the customer come to us.
Be nice to your neighbors…screw them, it’s our driveway. They can put up with it for a few weeks.
To those that think it’s no big deal..it isn’t UNTIL it is next door to you.
I don’t think it’s a question of girls being lazy…. Aren’t groups pushing for this more for safety reasons? More groups are selling in front of grocery stores now too, instead of having girls walk around neighborhoods.
I could be mistaken though. I don’t have kids or know kids in Scouts.
Here’s an extreme example: Police: Colorado Springs resident fires handgun at door-to-door solicitors (which happened to be 3 high school students)
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18754669
There are several facets to quality of life issues, such as this one, the two biggest being intensity and duration. The real problem here isn’t the specific activity, it’s that it’s happening for an extended period. Most “lemonade stands” happen for an afternoon or a weekend, not for weeks on end. The same holds true for P.O.D.S., recreational vehicles, reroofing, house parties, garage sales and a whole host of other neighborly issues. Most of us understand that unusual activities happen, even irritating ones, but most of us are willing to be “good neighbors” and put up with them, up to a point, especially if we see an end in sight.
Remember, the city isn’t going around looking to shut down kids’ “learning experiences”. A neighbor needs to notice, a neighbor needs to figure out or know that it’s against the law, a neighbor needs to complain and an enforcement officer needs to investigate. This usually takes days, and the first step by any enforcement officer is usually education, not a citation – they have and do use discretion. Since this has ended up in court, it’s pretty obvious that the property owners think the law doesn’t apply to them. I have little sympathy for them – if you don’t like the law, change it. In the meantime, now that you know what it is, follow it or pay the consequences.
Finally, the kid part. I really don’t care what age the violators are. If there are negative impacts, it doesn’t matter if the violator is 6, 16 or 66, it’s still impacting my life. If it’s against the law, there must be a reason why. Yes, kids sometimes do things they shouldn’t. But part of growing up is learning that you can’t always do whatever you want!
There are several facets to quality of life issues, such as this one, the two biggest being intensity and duration. The real problem here isn’t the specific activity, it’s that it’s happening for an extended period. Most “lemonade stands” happen for an afternoon or a weekend, not for weeks on end. The same holds true for P.O.D.S., recreational vehicles, reroofing, house parties, garage sales and a whole host of other neighborly issues. Most of us understand that unusual activities happen, even irritating ones, but most of us are willing to be “good neighbors” and put up with them, up to a point, especially if we see an end in sight.
Remember, the city isn’t going around looking to shut down kids’ “learning experiences”. A neighbor needs to notice, a neighbor needs to figure out or know that it’s against the law, a neighbor needs to complain and an enforcement officer needs to investigate. This usually takes days, and the first step by any enforcement officer is usually education, not a citation – they have and do use discretion. Since this has ended up in court, it’s pretty obvious that the property owners think the law doesn’t apply to them. I have little sympathy for them – if you don’t like the law, change it. In the meantime, now that you know what it is, follow it or pay the consequences.
Finally, the kid part. I really don’t care what age the violators are. If there are negative impacts, it doesn’t matter if the violator is 6, 16 or 66, it’s still impacting my life. If it’s against the law, there must be a reason why. Yes, kids sometimes do things they shouldn’t. But part of growing up is learning that you can’t always do whatever you want!
JZ71 – “If it’s against the law, there must be a reason why.”
It is in the very nature of zoning laws to prohibit any land use not specifically permitted by the text of the ordinance. With the post World War II “separation of uses” doctrine and suburban residential building explosion, the pre-war “residential” neighborhood of homes, a few apartments, and shops on the corner or mixed in amongst the houses became the walled residential subdivision compounds of today.
The “separation of uses” doctrine is the only reason, if any could be found, for prohibiting lemonade stands. It is based on a discredited planning theory, and more and more of the ordinances based upon it are revised or replaced every year.
However, JZ71, that is not the real reason why lemonade stands are prohibited, in my opinion. The real reason is a growing war on families and children in the U.S. The see-no-child-hear-no-child movement is growing, and the number of singles, aging boomers, and purposely childless couples owning homes in suburban neighborhoods is increasing. With this trend comes decreasing tolerance for families and children in some neighborhoods.
I am amazed at how brazen some of these see-no-child-hear-no-child folks are getting, pushing grocery stores and shopping malls to offer “no-child” hours, AND pushing local governments and health departments to enforce rules that do technically apply but were never originally intended to regulate a cild’s lemonade stand.
So kids should have carte blanche to do anything and everything they damn well please? Just because “they’re kids”?! No, kids need to learn to respect authority, whether it’s their parents, their teachers or the law. It’s not a “growing war”, it’s an expectation that we all need to learn how to get along, how to play well together.
The issue here is not a lemonade stand, it’s a cookie stand. I agree, having the health department clamp down on a kid’s lemonade stand is assinine. But any home-based business, which this cookie stand is apparently becoming, is, and should be, subject to zoning regulations that limits its external impacts. It doesn’t matter if it’s kids or adults, we all need to compromise to live together in close, urban quarters. And if you don’t like the separation of uses mandated by zoning, change the law, don’t assume you can simply ignore them in the name of “family values”!
Colleen, you’re assuming that all parents are reasonable when it comes to any perceived criticism of their kids’ activities – they’re not. I’d bet that, in this case, there WAS neighbor-to-parent contact before the city became involved. But if a “mutually agreeable arrangement” can’t be worked out, it falls on the city to enforce the laws, as written. And no, kids should not be exempt. They obviously shouldn’t, and don’t, face the same potential criminal penalties as adults, but there’s no reason to exempt them from following validly-enacted laws.
JZ71 -Â “If it’s against the law, there must be a reason why.”
It is in the very nature of zoning laws to prohibit any land use not specifically permitted by the text of the ordinance. With the post World War II “separation of uses” doctrine and suburban residential building explosion, the pre-war “residential” neighborhood of homes, a few apartments, and shops on the corner or mixed in amongst the houses became the walled residential subdivision compounds of today.
The “separation of uses” doctrine is the only reason, if any could be found, for prohibiting lemonade stands. It is based on a discredited planning theory, and more and more of the ordinances based upon it are revised or replaced every year.
However, JZ71, that is not the real reason why lemonade stands are prohibited, in my opinion. The real reason is a growing war on families and children in the U.S. The see-no-child-hear-no-child movement is growing, and the number of singles, aging boomers, and purposely childless couples owning homes in suburban neighborhoods is increasing. With this trend comes decreasing tolerance for families and children in some neighborhoods.
I am amazed at how brazen some of these see-no-child-hear-no-child folks are getting, pushing grocery stores and shopping malls to offer “no-child” hours, AND pushing local governments and health departments to enforce rules that do technically apply but were never originally intended to regulate a cild’s lemonade stand.
So kids should have carte blanche to do anything and everything they damn well please? Just because “they’re kids”?! No, kids need to learn to respect authority, whether it’s their parents, their teachers or the law. It’s not a “growing war”, it’s an expectation that we all need to learn how to get along, how to play well together.
The issue here is not a lemonade stand, it’s a cookie stand. I agree, having the health department clamp down on a kid’s lemonade stand is assinine. But any home-based business, which this cookie stand is apparently becoming, is, and should be, subject to zoning regulations that limits its external impacts. It doesn’t matter if it’s kids or adults, we all need to compromise to live together in close, urban quarters. And if you don’t like the separation of uses mandated by zoning, change the law, don’t assume you can simply ignore them in the name of “family values”!
I don’t think it’s a question of girls being lazy…. Aren’t groups pushing for this more for safety reasons? More groups are selling in front of grocery stores now too, instead of having girls walk around neighborhoods.Â
I could be mistaken though. I don’t have kids or know kids in Scouts.Â
That’s what I was wondering…. I understand the comparison to vending carts – hot dogs, T-Shirts, etc. But what about the comparison to garage sales? What makes me having a garage sale okay but me having a hot dog stand against zoning laws? I’m not debating… I’m legitimately curious.Â
Why would we need another layer of gov’t intervention into the lives of private citizens? Wouldn’t existing nuisance laws allow individuals who over step the bounds of sanity and operate megacookie centers in their driveway apply?
Why would we need another layer of gov’t intervention into the lives of private citizens? Wouldn’t existing nuisance laws allow individuals who over step the bounds of sanity and operate megacookie centers in their driveway apply?
I mean wouldn’t existing laws apply to crazy cookie sellers…
In theory, yes. I guess they could be charged with disorderly conduct or impeding traffic. But, since the zoning ordinance is clear cut in its prohibition, it’s easier to use the existing law.
Bigger picture is the whole discussion about why zoning is required and how far should it go in restricting any property owner’s use of their property. Government is tasked with protecting the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. To cite an extreme example, you probably wouldn’t want to have a fireworks factory or a hog farm go in next to your home or apartment – zoning typically prohibits such a conflict. And to cite a more typical example of differing priorities would be a home-based business. If a lawyer or an architect operates as a sole proprieter out of there residence, there are few external impacts, maybe a delivery two or three times a week, maybe the occasional client, maybe a second or third phone line. But what if they do well and hire an employee? What if they do really well and hire 3 or 5 or a dozen employees? Or, what if you start an internet business selling widgets out of your house? What if your passion is used cars? Is one in front of your home too many? 3? 6?
The real challenge with zoning is creating a fair-yet-enforceable document. Traditional practice has been to prohibit any use that is not specifically allowed. More recently, form-based zoning attempts to provide more general guidelines and to give city staff more discretion in approving or denying any specific use. The problem with the latter solution is that it creates many more grey areas. Applicants, especially those with potentially-controversial uses, have been, and will continue to be, less-than-forthcoming in defining their proposed uses (is it a boarding house or a group home?). City staff has brought, and will continue to bring, personal prejudices to any application review. If you agree with the decisions, all is good, but if you feel like you’ve been treated unfairly, decisions can seem to be arbitrary and capricious, which, in turn, can and do end up in extended litigation. Bottom line, there is no simple answer to your apparently simple question . . . .
I mean wouldn’t existing laws apply to crazy cookie sellers…
In theory, yes. I guess they could be charged with disorderly conduct or impeding traffic. But, since the zoning ordinance is clear cut in its prohibition, it’s easier to use the existing law.
Bigger picture is the whole discussion about why zoning is required and how far should it go in restricting any property owner’s use of their property. Government is tasked with protecting the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. To cite an extreme example, you probably wouldn’t want to have a fireworks factory or a hog farm go in next to your home or apartment – zoning typically prohibits such a conflict. And to cite a more typical example of differing priorities would be a home-based business. If a lawyer or an architect operates as a sole proprieter out of there residence, there are few external impacts, maybe a delivery two or three times a week, maybe the occasional client, maybe a second or third phone line. But what if they do well and hire an employee? What if they do really well and hire 3 or 5 or a dozen employees? Or, what if you start an internet business selling widgets out of your house? What if your passion is used cars? Is one in front of your home too many? 3? 6?
The real challenge with zoning is creating a fair-yet-enforceable document. Traditional practice has been to prohibit any use that is not specifically allowed. More recently, form-based zoning attempts to provide more general guidelines and to give city staff more discretion in approving or denying any specific use. The problem with the latter solution is that it creates many more grey areas. Applicants, especially those with potentially-controversial uses, have been, and will continue to be, less-than-forthcoming in defining their proposed uses (is it a boarding house or a group home?). City staff has brought, and will continue to bring, personal prejudices to any application review. If you agree with the decisions, all is good, but if you feel like you’ve been treated unfairly, decisions can seem to be arbitrary and capricious, which, in turn, can and do end up in extended litigation. Bottom line, there is no simple answer to your apparently simple question . . . .
Here’s an extreme example:Â Â Â Police: Colorado Springs resident fires handgun at door-to-door solicitors (which happened to be 3 high school students)
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18754669