Median Safety Ordinance Referred to Committee

September 3, 2025

🛑 Median Safety Ordinance Referred to Committee

Last night at the Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting, I had the opportunity to present a narrowly tailored ordinance aimed at improving pedestrian and driver safety along South Willow Street and other high-traffic areas in Manchester.

After I introduced the proposal during public comment, the Board voted to refer it to committee for further consideration. This is a positive step forward, and I want to explain why this ordinance matters and why it stands on solid legal ground.

🛠️ The Problem: Unsafe Use of Traffic Medians

In my conversations with residents and business owners in Ward 9, one concern comes up repeatedly: people standing in traffic medians and soliciting donations from drivers. Nowhere is this more common than along South Willow Street, Manchester’s primary retail corridor.

These medians are not designed for pedestrians. They are narrow, unprotected, and surrounded by fast-moving traffic. This is not just uncomfortable. It is unsafe.

📜 The Solution: A Focused, Legally Sound Ordinance

What I have proposed is straightforward and compliant with constitutional protections:

"If a traffic median is not designed for pedestrian use, it should not be used for solicitation, standing, or lingering."

This ordinance does not ban panhandling. It does not restrict speech. It simply regulates unsafe use of traffic medians. It is about public safety, not speech.

⚖️ Why It Holds Up in Court

Two major federal court cases define what cities like Manchester can and cannot do.

1. Petrello v. City of Manchester (2017)

This ruling struck down the city’s former ordinance, which broadly targeted panhandling and cost taxpayers in legal fees and damages. The court found that while cities cannot ban speech, they can regulate unsafe conduct in roadways.

“The court recognizes that public safety and ensuring the free flow of traffic are significant and legitimate government concerns.".  Petrello v. City of Manchester, Opinion No. 2017 DNH 173, p. 30

2. Cutting v. City of Portland (2015)

In this case, the city of Portland Maine banned all activity on all medians. The court ruled the ordinance was too broad and not narrowly tailored. The lesson is clear. Cities must focus only on locations that present a genuine safety risk and must avoid blanket bans.

“The City might also have considered an ordinance limited to the few medians… where the City had identified safety hazards in the past, or an ordinance limited to the smallest or most dangerous medians...”. Cutting v. City of Portland, No. 14-1421, p. 27

✅ Why My Ordinance Complies

My proposal avoids the legal pitfalls of past ordinances:

• It does not regulate based on message or viewpoint

• It only applies to medians not intended for pedestrian use

• It allows for exceptions, such as crosswalks, emergencies, or public employees

• It uses civil penalties, not criminal enforcement

• It leaves sidewalks, parks, and other traditional public spaces untouched

  
  

This is exactly the kind of targeted, public-safety-focused ordinance that courts have upheld.

👥 What Happens Next

Now that the ordinance has been referred to committee, it will be reviewed more deeply and discussed in detail. I will continue to be part of that conversation and will offer legal background, draft language, and public feedback as needed.

This ordinance will not eliminate panhandling across the city, and I have never claimed that it would. But it is a first step. It addresses a specific concern that residents have raised for years, especially as we approach the holiday shopping season, when South Willow Street sees increased traffic and foot activity.

🧭 Guided by Values, Focused on Outcomes

I brought this proposal forward because I believe in acting when you see a problem. I am not waiting to see what happens in November. Whether I am elected or not, I will continue working on solutions that protect public safety while respecting constitutional rights.

This proposal reflects the kind of representation Ward 9 deserves. Listening to concerns, doing the research, and taking action.

Troy Micklon

Candidate for Alderman, Ward 9

📧 Micklon4Manchester@gmail.com

🌐 http://www.TroyMicklon.com

📘 www.facebook.com/TroyMicklonWard9

---------------------------------------------------------------

§ XX.XX – Use of Traffic Medians by Pedestrians

A. Purpose

The purpose of this section is to promote the safety and general welfare of pedestrians and motorists by prohibiting individuals from occupying traffic medians not designed for pedestrian use. Persons who stand, remain, or engage in exchanges within these medians present a hazard to themselves and to the free and safe flow of vehicular traffic.

B. Definitions

For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

1. Traffic Median: Any area within a roadway, raised or painted, that separates lanes of traffic traveling in opposite or same directions.

2. Pedestrian-Use Median: A median that is part of a designated pedestrian crossing, including those that feature marked crosswalks, pedestrian signals, signage indicating pedestrian access, or other design elements intended to facilitate safe crossing. These may include refuge islands and curb cuts.

3. Non-Pedestrian-Use Median: A median that is not part of a designated pedestrian crossing. These medians are typically located in areas without pedestrian signals, crosswalk markings, or signage indicating pedestrian access. They may be sloped, landscaped, or otherwise inaccessible for safe pedestrian use. Non-pedestrian-use medians may contain physical obstructions such as utility poles, traffic control signage, signal boxes, or other fixtures that further indicate they are not intended for pedestrian occupation.

4. Roadway: All public roads and streets open to motor vehicle travel within the city, excluding private roads, private property, and areas where parking is legally permitted.

C. Prohibited Conduct

1. No person shall stand, sit, remain, or otherwise occupy any non-pedestrian-use traffic median, except while actively and continuously crossing the roadway at a marked crosswalk or signalized intersection.

2. No person shall engage in the distribution, receipt, or exchange of any item with the occupant of a motor vehicle while located in a non-pedestrian-use traffic median.

3. No Person shall stand, loiter, or solicit on any raised portion of a pedestrian-use median that lies outside the designated crosswalk path. Pedestrian-use median may only be occupied for the purpose of actively crossing the roadway.

D. Exceptions

This section shall not apply to:

1. Law enforcement officers, emergency personnel, or municipal employees acting within the scope of their official duties.

2. Persons rendering emergency aid to a motorist or pedestrian due to a vehicle accident, mechanical failure, or medical emergency.

3. Persons lawfully using crosswalks, including those that pass through or alongside a traffic median, provided they remain within the crosswalk and proceed without unreasonable delay. Raised portions of the median outside the crosswalk path shall not be used for standing, loitering, or solicitation.

E. Penalties

Violations of this section shall be considered a civil infraction. The following penalties shall apply:

1. First offense: Verbal warning or written notice with offer of educational information.

2. Subsequent offenses: Subject to a fine not to exceed $100 per violation.

This section shall not be construed to permit arrest or criminal prosecution solely for violation of this ordinance.