The Great Medford Lakes Gypsy Moth Free Speech Fight

When we tried to post signs in our yard to protest pesticide use, we found our rights sacrificed to the community "image". The following account is reprinted from The Central Record , Medford, New Jersey, July 12, 1990, written by reporter Adrianne Miller:

In some neighborhoods, residents waged a war on gypsy moths by having the pesticide Sevin sprayed on their properties. When the Enfield family of Kihade Trail learned the battle had come to their own neighborhood, they resumed a fight against pesticide use that began eight years ago when their daughter, Jennifer, then 17,was fighting her own battle¾against cancer.

Ronald Enfield said his family posted signs in their yard which read, Pesticides Kill People," "Don't Spray Sevin,'. "Sow the Wind, Reap the Whirlwind," and "We Can't Enjoy Trees if we Are Dead"

The Enfields also hung a large banner bearing the plea, "Don't Destroy The Earth." between two trees. By using signs to warn the public about use of a pesticide he described as "toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic," Enfield found himself embroiled in a different battle, this time for the right to free speech.

The signs went up Memorial Day weekend after a neighbor informed Enfield that she [the neighbor], along with a group other neighbors, had arranged to have their properties sprayed with sevin for gypsy moth control.

Since her property did not adjoin Enfields', she was not obligated under the borough's pesticide ordinance to notify them of any pesticide' application. She did so, Enfield said, because of his family's history of opposition to use of the pesticide sevin.

In 1982,Enfield said the borough was sprayed with Sevin by air for gypsy moth control, but many residents also contracted privately with commercial pesticide applicators for ground spraying.

While this was occurring, Jennifer was undergoing treatment for cancer which included radiation therapy. Both the disease and radiation therapy. weakened her immune system, making her vulnerable to illness and at risk for exposure to toxins that could have caused her cancer to spread, Enfield said.

At the time, Enfield said, he asked his neighbors to consider his daughter's health and not spray Sevin, but despite his pleas, many went ahead with their plans and sprayed.

Enfield said someone complained about the signs in his yard. and Sgt. Larry Filinuck of the Medford Lakes Police Department told him the banner violated the borough's tree ordinance and had to come down. The signs staked into the ground could remain.

The banner was removed from the trees and Enfield placed it on stakes in the ground.

Enfield learned several other neighbors had plans to spray Sevin on June 4. Some of the properties were adjacent to his

Enfield pointed out a state regulation requiring that no pesticide spray drift onto adjacent properties. Enfield erected a plastic shield about six feet in from his neighbor's property line. Even though he said the applicator stood 20 to30 feet way from his property, the shield was coated with mist when the spraying was complete.

The pesticide applicator sprayed Sevin with what Enfield said "looks like a big fire hose. It's impossible to spray without drift"

Enfield has filed a complaint with the State Department of Environmental Protection, and is waiting for laboratory results, which take about six weeks. These tests will determine whether the mist on the plastic shield is Sevin which drifted onto Enfield's property from the adjacent property.

On June 4,spraying was aborted when Enfield told the applicator that he never received notice of this pesticide application from the owner of the property, which was adjacent to his. Enfield told the applicator if he proceeded to spray, a complaint would be filed.

The borough's pesticide ordinance requires that at least 24 hours notice be given to all occupants of properties adjacent to the property to be sprayed. The notice must include the purpose for spraying, the pesticide to be used, the name, address and phone number of the commercial pesticide applicator the proposed spray date

No spraying took place. but Enfield as involved in a confrontation with the neighbor whose property could not be sprayed.

Enfield said the neighbor became abusive with him. Enfield went to the police station to sign a complaint for disorderly conduct.

After he returned home from the police station, Cpl. Jeff Goetschius of the Medford Lakes Police department arrived at Enfield's home and handed him a summons for violating the borough's zoning ordinance, which restricts signs.

Enfield called the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for advice The ACLU contacted Edith K. Payne of Newark, an attorney who volunteered to take Enfield's case.

Payne located a 1980 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling which exempts political speech from restrictive zoning ordinances.

Enfield said that decision, written for case known as State vs. Miller, involved a homeowner who posted signs his yard warning prospective buyers I their homes were in a flood hazard area.

In its ruling. the court wrote, "The case before us now is a fine illustration of the problems in and the limits to esthetic zoning, particularly when it conflicts with beauty of a different sort-speech... In particular. the ordinance's restrictions on the manner and place of defendant's speech, so severe as to amount to an absolute ban on political speech, offend the First Amendment. The message on the defendants sign concerned matter of public interest. As such, it is political speech, and occupies preferred position in our system of constitutionally protected interests."

Enfield said Payne spoke to the borough solicitor James Vogdes about Enfield's case and its legal precedent, When Enfield appeared in municipal court on June 19, he was told the charges against him were dismissed.

Vogdes could not be reached for. Comment on Enfield's case.

"I lam happy with the outcome. Ever since they passed the (sign) ordinance I thought it was an infringement of free speech, Enfield said.

Medford Lakes Police chief Roger Smith was asked why Filinuck first allowed Enfield's ground signs and then Goetschius later issued him a summons for the same signs. Smith said the borough's sign ordinances have always been very confusing.

Signs are covered by zoning and litter ordinances. "The police department plays a juggling act as to which ordinance applies to which signs," Smith said.

Smith was asked whether he thought the borough's sign ordinances, as written, violate the state constitution. Smith said Vogdes would be the one to answer that

As for enforcing the sign ordinances, Smith said, "We will continue to enforce the existing ordinances when there is a violation that does not involve limitation of the right of free speech for political expression or public interest matters. This excludes commercial speech."

"I wouldn't have been so diligent about this whole thing, were it not for the fact that I am very concerned about the degradation of the environment Look at the long- term effects of things we have been using, like DDT. Clearly, spraying Sevin because you don't like (worm) droppings is a frivolous use. I hope one day nobody Sprays" Enfield said.

His daughter, Lauren, added, "the harmful effects of pesticides is not immediate. It's not like putting your hand in a fire. Twenty or 30 years down the line, when people get cancer and ask, "Why us?," maybe they will remember Sevin."

Return to Ron Enfield's Home Page