City Hall's Chalk Crackdown: Your Child's Hopscotch Could Be Next
Technically illegal since 2014, but don't worry - City Hall only enforces the chalk ban when adults write about democracy.
City Hall Uses Water Sprayers to Wash Away Democracy
This week, I watched the City of Woodstock send staff out with water sprayers to erase chalk messages from our sidewalks.
Not graffiti.
Not obscenity.
Not a threat to public safety.
Just chalk messages pointing neighbors to local candidates’ websites and inviting people to a Town Hall on September 17.
I have seen children and families across Woodstock chalk hopscotch squares, flowers, and rainbows on these same sidewalks for years. The City itself has sponsored chalk activities at festivals. Nobody called that vandalism. Nobody sent workers with sprayers.
But the moment the chalk carried a political message, the moment it pointed toward democracy instead of hopscotch, City Hall rushed to scrub it away.
A Pattern of Suppression
Back in April, the City tried to label our Earth Day chalking “vandalism.” When that did not stick, they shifted to calling it an “unpermitted special event.” Neither was true. Families were celebrating Earth Day with positive, temporary chalk art that Woodstock has always embraced.
Now it is happening again. The same chalk that is harmless in a child’s hand suddenly becomes a crime when it carries a message about housing, traffic, or accountability.
The Hypocrisy in Black and White
The problem is not chalk. The problem is selective enforcement.
Woodstock’s graffiti ordinance, last revised in 2014, literally defines chalk as graffiti. Yet for ten years, the City never enforced it against children drawing hopscotch or festivals encouraging chalk art. The rule sat on the books, ignored, because everyone understood chalk is harmless.
Only when the chalk carried a political message did City Hall suddenly decide to act. Workers with water sprayers were sent out, not because chalk had suddenly become dangerous, but because the message made those in power uncomfortable.
That kind of double standard is not just unfair, it is unlawful. Courts have ruled again and again that selective enforcement of speech rules violates the First Amendment. If chalk is allowed for hopscotch, it must be allowed for democracy.
The courts have been clear:
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (1969): Permit rules cannot be used to suppress disfavored speech.
Watchtower Bible v. Stratton (2002): Government cannot force citizens to get permission just to speak on public sidewalks.
Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992): Rules cannot be enforced based on the content or popularity of speech.
Have you ever seen Brian Borden accost parents and children for writing with chalk on sidewalks?
Have you ever seen him accost any other adults, aside from this one instance, about writing with chalk on sidewalks?
Wouldn’t you be appalled if he called the police on them — as he did with me?
The law is on the side of open sidewalks and free citizens, not selective crackdowns by City Hall.
Why This Matters
Sidewalks are public property. More than that, they are one of the most protected spaces for free expression in America. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that political speech on public sidewalks is at the core of the First Amendment.
When City Hall enforces a law one way for children and another way for citizens, it is not protecting Woodstock. It is protecting itself. Children are also citizens. Their chalk drawings deserve the same protection as the words of adults.
The incumbents already have money, power, and media access to spread their message. Challengers do not. Chalk is one of the few truly grassroots tools available, a way to reach people directly in the community without big money. If the City erases that, they are not just scrubbing sidewalks. They are stacking the deck.
The way a city treats the “little things” — sidewalk chalk, community gatherings, citizen questions — reveals its true attitude toward public participation. Small-d democratic norms matter just as much in everyday governance as they do in major policy decisions. When those in power show contempt for small acts of expression, they show contempt for democracy itself.
My Stand
I am not running for mayor to accept a Woodstock where joy is criminalized and democracy is washed away with a hose. I am running to crank up democracy, to make sure children, parents, and neighbors alike can be heard in their own hometown.
If City Hall thinks it can silence us with water sprayers, it has underestimated the people of Woodstock. The chalk may fade, but our voices will not.
Questions That Remain
What exactly did the chalk messages say and how were they formatted?
They were short, positive, campaign-style slogans written in bright colors, paired with campaign websites and an RSVP link for the Town Hall. For example:
“Crank Up Democracy → marthajeanformayor.com”
“Smart Growth, Safe Streets → gopiforwoodstock.com”
“A Neighbor You Can Count On → councilforcouncil.com”
“Town Hall Sept 17 → bit.ly/AskWDSTK”
Each message was simple, legible, and written in large block letters so pedestrians could read them. No images, no obscenity, no threats — just straightforward invitations to learn more and participate.
Are there legitimate concerns about the scale, location, or manner of the chalking?
No. The chalking was limited to public sidewalks and crosswalk approaches where chalk is commonly seen from children and festivals. It was temporary, non-obstructive, and did not cover entire surfaces or interfere with pedestrian traffic. No spray paint, adhesives, or permanent markings were used. In other words, it was indistinguishable in form from the chalk art Woodstock routinely tolerates and celebrates.
Has the city articulated any non-content-based reasons for the enforcement?
Not really. Staff pointed to the graffiti ordinance that technically includes chalk, but they have admitted in the past that temporary chalk isn’t necessarily vandalism. Instead, they reframed it as an “unpermitted event” — a claim that doesn’t hold up given the small scale, lack of crowd, and absence of city services required. In practice, the only difference between tolerated chalk (kids, festivals) and scrubbed chalk (political speech) is content. That is exactly what makes this selective enforcement unlawful.
How does this compare to other cities’ approaches to temporary political messaging?
Most cities treat chalk as a harmless, temporary medium unless it creates a genuine hazard, such as covering traffic signals or defacing private property without consent. Courts have consistently ruled that chalk is protected speech when used on public sidewalks in non-obstructive ways. Cities like Seattle, Denver, and New York have faced lawsuits after cracking down on political chalking while allowing decorative or commercial chalking. Those lawsuits usually end with the reminder that the First Amendment applies to chalk just as much as to leaflets or speeches. Woodstock is now putting itself on the wrong side of that line.
P.S. - If you care about democracy and making our city work for EVERYONE, not just the wealthiest, most powerful, and most radical rightwing voices, then attend our town hall this Wednesday, 9/17: Turn Up the Volume: Woodstock Town Hall
