Case dismissed; protester was right

It took a new mayor to fix this problem, Jamie Ludt's attorney said.
YOUNGSTOWN -- Messages that Jamie Ludt scrawled on his East Midlothian Boulevard building attacking the zoning legality of a bar next door that featured nearly nude dancers turned out to be accurate.
Ludt had been set for trial Monday afternoon in municipal court on a charge of defacement of property that was filed in September 2005. Judge Robert P. Milich granted the state's motion to dismiss the case.
"I think it took a new administration to get this right," Ludt's Bedford, Ohio attorney, Randi A. Barnabee, said after court. "The previous mayor said he couldn't do anything."
City Prosecutor Jay Macejko, in his motion to dismiss, said Ludt has painted his building a uniform color and provided assurances that he won't use it as a form of protest without first contacting the prosecutor's office to discuss his issues.
"It appears [Ludt] was correct as to the location of the bar within a restricted area. An examination of county records and satellite photos indicates that the New Affair Lounge is well within 500 feet of several private residences," Macejko wrote. "When this office initiated efforts to cite the New Affair for violations, [Ludt] began removing" the painted messages.
Macejko said that, by all accounts, the bar is no longer operating as an adult-oriented business or cabaret.
What's in law
Zoning requires that adult-oriented businesses be 500 feet from places such as churches, schools, parks and homes.
The city prosecutor said Ludt painted his building in an attempt to bring public attention to the bar after his efforts to bring it to the attention of various public officials went unheeded.
"While many may not appreciate the manner in which he went about his protest or cared for the defendant on a personal level, it appears he was right," Macejko wrote. "Regardless, his efforts lie at the core of one of our most treasured protections -- the ability to question our government."
In December 2004, Barnabee was successful in getting three charges of violating the city's graffiti ordinance dismissed against Ludt, based on free speech. She said the ordinance prohibits defacing public or private property "without privilege to do so" and Ludt had his own permission to paint messages on his own building.
In her motion at the time, Barnabee said the bar was not properly licensed as a "burlesque theater" nor had it been granted an exemption to operate within 500 feet of a church, public or private school, library, playground, park or private residence.
"The city may not like the fact that [Ludt] has called attention to flagrant and illegal zoning violations that the city has failed to remedy to date," Barnabee wrote. "The city's disapproval of such [attention] does not permit it to wield the heavy hammer of criminal sanctions for the purpose of silencing the defendant."