At least, not under a proposal being considered by the Salisbury City Council.

The proposed ordinance, which was submitted by the city’s Neighborhood Improvement Task Force, would ban upholstered or interior furniture and appliances from being used outdoors, including on porches. Outdoor couch potatoes caught by the couch patrol could face fines.

In seeking the ordinance, the task force is trying to remedy an undeniable problem. Nobody wants to live near a house that has a mouse-gnawed sofa on the front porch and a rusty refrigerator as the main lawn ornament. The city has worked hard to enhance and preserve the attractiveness of its neighborhoods. It needs a legal mechanism to continue that effort and relieve neighborhoods of obvious eyesores.

But it needs to ensure that any such ordinance isn’t an un-Constitutional intrusion into private property rights. It also needs to make sure that it balances the need for neighborhood beautification against the realization that many people simply can’t afford nice outdoor furniture, but have as much a right as richer neighbors to sit and enjoy the view from their front porch.

In its initial form, the ordinance appears to miss the mark on both of those counts. In banning the outdoor use of any upholstered or “indoor furniture,” the measure could apply as equally to a neatly kept home that happened to have a chintz sofa on the sleeping porch as to a cluttered eyesore. Would a homeowner in the historic district with a daybed on the porch be liable — or likely — for prosecution?

Then there’s the matter of somehow proving that a particular piece of furniture was intended solely for “indoor” — i.e. non-porch — use. We can just see that CEO of Barcalounger being subpoenaed to testify on that count.

Beyond the serious legal concerns, however, the council needs to consider the city’s image and its attitude toward our less fortunate citizens. Not everyone can afford to have wicker furniture for the front porch. But, so long as they aren’t hurting their neighbors, everyone does have a right to be comfortable in their own home, in their own way.

Until the council members can be certain that they’re protecting everyone’s rights and interests, we’d suggest they put this measure on hold. They might even want to sleep on it.