Print This Post Print This Post

Mar

20

Update: Pepper Pike restriction of one political yard sign per election


Here is the post just before the debate occurred just over two weeks ago.

In addition to the six municipalities adjacent to Pepper Pike which have no similar restrictions, I’ve also learned that towns of similar affluence on the West Side (Rocky River, Westlake and Bay Village) also do not have similar restrictions (Westlake limits by the size of the property and that could be equal to six, Bay Village appears to have no limit on the number of political yard signs; Rocky River appears to have a limit of four).

Bay Village: 1179.10 (B)(3)

Rocky River: Code Section 1163.10

Westlake: 1223.09, 1223.04

Practically speaking, here’s what the Pepper Pike restrictions mean:

If two people who support different candidates for anything live in same house? Tough. They have to choose one to support via yard sign.
If one or more people in a home want to support the school’s levy and a political candidate? Tough. He or she has to choose between the levy and the candidate.
If one or more people in a home want to support a state legislative candidate and a presidential candidate? Nope – he or she would be breaking the law if they tried to do that with two yard signs.

And of course there are myriad permutations, given that only one sign in total per election is allowed to be placed on a residential lawn.

One judicial candidate from the 2006 election cycle who lives in Pepper Pike was not even aware of the restriction until a neighbor apologized profusely when telling the candidate that he, the neighbor, could only put up one sign and was not choosing this judicial candidate.

At the debate on March 5, Lew Katz, myself and David Pomerantz (who has been active in Solon and other politics), asserted the legal background of how governments can restrict signage but the restrictions must be reasonable and noted the interpretation of “reasonable” as applied by every surrounding community in our area of NEOhio.

Rick Taft and Allan Krulak spoke on behalf of the city. They stated that 1) no one other than those of us at the meeting were raising the issue, 2) they believe that the residents of Pepper Pike prefer that the aesthetics of the town dictate what kind of signage is allowed and 3) putting those two items together, they believe that Pepper Pike residents do not want the current restriction changed.

We stated that it was not a matter of whether residents want the change or not. We all want our city to be attractive.

However, the Pepper Pike restriction of one political yard sign per residence is a matter of a constitutional right being obstructed by an antiquated, out of step, unnecessary and burdensome law that favors incumbents over newcomers (because of how yard signs impact name recognition) and people with money over those without (yard signs are the biggest bang for the buck for local races as opposed to print, radio or television ads).

Rick Taft mentioned that within the last few years, people with an interest in having real estate signs on Pepper Pike property came to the city with a desire to change the city’s law regarding real estate signs. Through a process that involved the people interested in the changes providing information to the city and the city checking out the law and then reconvening with the people who wanted the change, a change was made that satisfied the parties.

We implored Rick to tell us what the critical mass of information would be to get things moving so that we could proceed with having this issue reviewed by the town legal department. I sent Rick several pieces of information and was told to check back.

It’s now been just over two weeks, I’ve not heard anything more but I did write Rick this morning to learn of any updates.

In the meantime, we’d hoped to be able to go in front of the Pepper Pike Civic League – in part because it was suggested to us by Allan Krulak that we try to do that. However, the League says that its agenda for the spring cannot accommodate us and that they’ve spoken with a local professor in urban planning and law who says that the law supports the city’s position.

I’ve been in extensive conversation with other people who want the sign law changed and we agree that there is no question that the law is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.

At this point, we await hearing from Rick Taft. If you have any experience, recommendations or other information to assist in this effort to help Pepper Pike comply with constitutional law, please e-mail or comment. Our preference is, of course, to have the city council members and the mayor recognize the violative nature and inherent unfairness to Pepper Pike voters in expressing their support or opposition to candidates and issues, and work to change the law and make it more in line with what courts consider to be reasonable restrictions. And that is what we are pursuing at this time.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:40 pm March 20th, 2008 in 'Roots News, Campaigning, Civil Rights, Elections, Government, Law, OH17, OH24th, Ohio, Pepper Pike, Politics, Social Issues, Voting 

Comments

5 Responses to “Update: Pepper Pike restriction of one political yard sign per election”

  1. 1 Ben on March 20th, 2008 8:04 pm

    I wonder how much that happens – two members of a household supporting competing candidates in a race?

    Reminds me of a car I saw a couple of years ago on I-77 that had a Dennis! and Bush/Cheney 2004 sticker on it. Maybe the weirdest combination I have ever seen.

  2. 2 Jill Miller Zimon on March 20th, 2008 10:16 pm

    I have no idea, but let me tell you – last year, when I was helping re-draft a constitution for my synagogue? Well, there was only one vote per family in the constitution. And for years I guess this drove some members crazy. Because it meant that when they voted on things at the annual meeting, the husband and wife only had one vote to cast.

    Even though I was just the messenger, what I thought was dumbest about this was that no one was voting ANYWAY – and now people were saying that they wanted MORE voted per member family.

    On the other hand, if you are just doubling what everyone is already doing, then the result is unlikely to be that different.

    HOWEVER, on the other hand, many of the issues in the Conservative Judaism movement revolve around gender and clergy etc. just as in other religions. So, in that regard, I can understand that wives in particular really wanted their own vote.

    It was passed.

    And, again, the right to free speech isn’t about use. It’s about the fact that the right exists and we are to protect that right – even if it’s not used to its fullest extent.

    But you know all that. :)

  3. 3 Suzanne Blum on March 21st, 2008 9:05 pm

    I think that the Beachwood regulation is the best interpretation of a “reasonable” restriction. That regulation allows only one sign per candidate or issue. While it is highly unlikely that someone is going to fill their yard with a sign for every candidate that they support, they should have the right to do so. They should not have to chose. On the other hand, it is reasonable that the city can limit the signs on one per candidate so that someone can’t have 5 signs in their yard for the same candidate. And, by the way, it is Allan Krulak, with an “a”.

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on March 21st, 2008 9:08 pm

    Thank you for reading and for the comment! I’ve corrected the error in Allan’s name – which I have correct in my e-mail, sorry about that! I have three other “Allen”s in my email and they are all with an “e.”

    I agree with you and the way you state it. Thank you, as always.

  5. 5 Ohio resident takes town to federal court for political yard sign restrictions | Writes Like She Talks on June 14th, 2008 2:11 pm

    [...] not me and not Pepper Pike. I’m holding out great hope and expectations that my city will do the right thing, which [...]

Leave a Reply




"));