Council Changed Law to Allow Signs

History is always a good thing to remember.

This week's issue of CityBeat details the city of Cincinnati's latest proposal to regulate how signs may be displayed on public rights-of-way like sidewalks and streets.

The proposal was in response to a request made by the Mount Auburn Community Council and the Mount Auburn Chamber of Commerce about anti-abortion signs displayed almost every weekday in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic on Auburn Avenue. Dozens of signs often are erected on both sides of the street for the length of one city block that some residents and businesses allege disrupt the neighborhood.

The signs contain anti-abortion slogans and photographs of aborted fetuses.

Under the proposal, people participating in any protest or demonstration would no longer be able to erect an unlimited number of signs of any size. Instead, signs would be limited to two manually carried by an individual, plus two more signs that are temporarily leaned against or attached to structures such as fences.

If approved, the new regulations mean one person could have a maximum of four signs. Also, no signs could be bigger than 3-by-4 feet.

City Councilwoman Roxanne Qualls, a Charterite, asked the city’s lawyers for the report that suggested the proposal. Council’s Law and Public Safety Committee currently is reviewing the measure, but no vote is scheduled and some supporters believe a council majority is trying to quietly kill the proposal.

Many U.S. cities -- like Cleveland and Pittsburgh -- don’t allow any signs at all on public rights-of-way to avoid such controversies. Cincinnati used to have the same restriction but it was changed almost 11 years ago at the request of then-City Councilwoman Jeanette Cissell, a Republican who opposed abortion.

Council voted 7-2 on April 30, 1997, to change the law and allow signs of any number and size to be erected. Qualls — then mayor — and Charterite Bobbie Sterne were opposed.

Supporters were Cissell; her fellow Republicans Phil Heimlich and Charlie Winburn; and Democrats Minette Cooper, Todd Portune, Dwight Tillery and Tyrone Yates.

Portune now is a Hamilton County commissioner, and Yates is a state representative. Heimlich was a county commissioner until he lost a re-election bid in 2006. Cooper and Winburn both tried unsuccessfully last fall to return to council after sitting out a few years due to term limits.

— Kevin Osborne

Comments

[Anon]

Fortunately all of those members of the Anti-Choice Taliban are gone now.

[Pickled Integrity]

God, this makes me remember what a bunch we had on City Council in the 1990s. Portune stuck like glue with Cissell -- they always looked to each other for "bipartisan support," which is why Todd probably voted for this weird thing.

Unfortunately, a lot of these folks are still around in one form or another, or working to get back.

[CincyJeff]

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the viewpoints of certain people, their right to 1st Amendment speech shouldn't be infringed.

It's also pretty amazing, that for the 3rd or 4th time in the last 6 months, Leslie Ghiz is actually making a lot of sense:

"City Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz, a Republican, is skeptical about the sign proposal. She believes the new rules are aimed solely at the anti-abortion display, which could make the city vulnerable to a lawsuit.

"The new rules don't specify content, but that's the intent," says Ghiz, who's also a lawyer. "As far as I know, there's been no other complaint given to council besides the one in Mount Auburn."

I may not say this much, but Ghiz is right. This entire article is showing that this proposed law is targeting a few protesters.

The proposal doesn't even make sense. The group can have 20 signs if there's 5 people there. But if there's only 1 person, then the law must protect society from having to deal with 5 signs? 32 signs is perfectly legal - if there's 8 people, but 9 signs is a legal violation if only 2 people show up. So society can't handle 9 protest signs but 32 is fine?