On Good Friday, Dallas City Councilmember Gay Donnell Willis filed a memo with five signatures seeking to amend city code and impose fines of up to $500 on residents whose holiday displays require Dallas Police Department officers to manage traffic.
The memo revives a dispute over a Preston Hollow Christmas light display that drew thousands of North Texas visitors last December. It was co-signed by Councilmembers Paula Blackmon, Paul Ridley, Kathy Stewart, and Chad West.
Critics say the proposal would unfairly target homeowners such as Ryan De Vitis, whose Christmas light display went viral last year and drew large crowds. Willis has previously called the display a “tremendous nuisance” and unsuccessfully pushed an ordinance targeting it after last Christmas, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
The city also launched a Code Enforcement survey last December seeking resident feedback about holiday lights, noise, and gatherings, which Councilwoman Cara Mendelsohn criticized as an effort to limit “free, festive & fun holiday cheer.”
Dallas watchdog Damien LeVeck, who posts under the name Dallas En Fuego and has closely followed the controversy, was among the first to publicly flag the Good Friday memo.
“I have been closely watching council member Willis target one of her own constituents ever since she first dragged his elaborate holiday displays before the Quality of Life Committee,” LeVeck told The Dallas Express. “It is unprecedented and downright egregious for a Dallas city council member to single out a resident for exercising his First Amendment right to decorate his own home, especially when those displays bring joy to thousands of North Texas families every year.”
LeVeck said the memo reflects misplaced priorities within city government.
“Dallas residents should be alarmed and furious that one of their elected representatives is more focused on slapping fines on a homeowner for the traffic generated by his Christmas lights than on fixing our crumbling streets, improving public safety or addressing the homeless crisis,” he said. “Her priorities are completely misplaced. Her approach feels vindictive, and the whole effort is blatantly unconstitutional.”
LeVeck also rejected the premise that a homeowner should bear financial responsibility for the public’s response to their Christmas display.
“Fining someone for the free expression of their religious and cultural convictions is a direct assault on First Amendment rights. What’s even more absurd is that the homeowner has zero control over how many people show up to enjoy the lights. Using police for basic crowd and traffic control is a core city responsibility, just like they do for sporting events, concerts or any large public gathering. The burden shouldn’t fall on the hard-working Dallas taxpayer who simply wants to celebrate the season,” he added.
Willis has argued that managing traffic and large crowds near Christmas displays can create an unreasonable burden on police resources and surrounding neighborhoods. Her office did not respond to a request for comment on the Good Friday memo as of press time.
De Vitis, for his part, has maintained that he is not breaking the law and has accused the city of selectively enforcing code violations on his property that go unaddressed elsewhere on the block.
The memo does not include full ordinance language, but says the proposed amendment would revise the city’s “special event” definition and add a penalty of up to $500.
Legal Concerns Raised
Natalie LeVeck, an attorney and adjunct professor at the SMU School of Law, said the recent memo raises constitutional concerns.
“As a constitutional matter, this proposal raises serious First Amendment concerns because it risks regulating expressive conduct based on its impact rather than its content neutrality,” LeVeck said. “Holiday displays, particularly Christmas, religious ones like nativity scenes, are a form of protected expression. When the government begins to impose burdens, fees or restrictions triggered by how popular or visible that expression becomes, it creates a chilling effect, even if the intent is traffic control. The practical effect is that residents may feel discouraged from engaging in expressive activity, especially religious expression, which is at the core of First Amendment protection.”