How the notice was issued
A September 29 complaint alleged that eight political signs were displayed at a home on Henthorn Road in Upper Arlington. Code Compliance Officer Joe Topazio counted seven and sent the homeowner a notice directing her to remove two to meet the city’s five-sign limit. The Columbus Dispatch reported that the home was one of three properties to receive a notice for exceeding the limit.
Failure to comply could result in a fourth-degree misdemeanor. The Dispatch reported that the offense normally carries a fine of up to $150, and that the city may also assess a $1,000-per-day fine for noncompliance. The homeowner’s attorney, Jim Becker, told the newspaper he was prepared to challenge the penalty, potentially by seeking a preliminary injunction, arguing that political yard signs receive strong First Amendment protection.
What the city’s rules cover
Upper Arlington’s ordinance limits yard signs by size and number. The Columbus Dispatch reported that the city updated its sign code in 2007 and later removed the word political to make the ordinance viewpoint neutral. The city’s property-maintenance page describes a temporary-sign program for removing illegally displayed signs and directs the Code Compliance officer to remove signs on public property or in the city right-of-way.
An exception to the five-sign allowance
The city’s published political-sign guidelines allow a property under construction or on the market for sale or lease to display one additional sign or banner per street frontage beyond the five-sign allowance, according to Upper Arlington.
The free-speech arguments
David Carey, managing legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, told The Dispatch that enforcement prompted by complaints could let objections to political expression affect which cases the city pursues. He said the city should address genuine safety concerns through a narrowly tailored rule rather than a broad numerical cap.
Legal experts cited by The Dispatch said sign restrictions generally must serve a government interest while leaving other ways to communicate. The newspaper reported that traffic and safety concerns can support restrictions, whereas aesthetics alone are a weak justification. It also noted that yard signs offer ordinary residents an inexpensive way to communicate.
A separate challenge to sign removals
A separate dispute concerns the city’s removal of signs critical of the government from private yards. The ACLU of Ohio said in a letter to the city manager and city attorney that some of the removed signs complied with the ordinance and that removing them without notifying owners may have violated due-process rights. The organization also raised a First Amendment concern about possible differences in treatment based on sign content and requested records about the removals. The ACLU characterized the signs as temporary noncommercial speech; its account is available in the organization’s statement.
