Message on sign on S. Side property upsets neighbors
The sign says vandals created the offensive phraseology.
YOUNGSTOWN — A South Side building known for the colorful words on its exterior is again displaying words that offend the sensibilities of some neighbors — and the city may be powerless to change it.
The vacant, white building at 1422 Midlothian Blvd., owned by Jamie Ludt, has been the topic of past discussion and legal action with the city over words displayed on its exterior.
Now, an expletive is spelled out on a portable sign in the building’s parking lot.
The sign, one of two portable ones attached to a blue pickup truck, reads: “Done 3/18/08 this is graffiti vandalism.” An arrow points to the offense words spelled out on the bottom of the sign.
Ludt filed a police report in March detailing how vandals had come onto the property and rearranged the letters on the sign to leave the offensive wording.
The manager at Lucky 7 Express Mart on Midlothian, who did not give a name, said she and her employees no longer pay the building or its exterior any attention.
She said no one even noticed the wording on the portable sign had been changed.
Some people, however, have noticed the sign and made their concerns known to city officials.
Ray DeCarlo, zoning specialist, said he has been informed about the sign from concerned citizens living in the area but said there may be little the city can do to address the issue.
According to DeCarlo, the city’s zoning regulations concerning signs were created in the mid-1950s, before portable signs such as the one being used on the Midlothian property were an issue.
The code put into place then, and still being used today, deals more with structural concerns with fixed signs, he said.
“We don’t have any laws addressing portable signs, and there has never been anything concerning content on the signs,” DeCarlo said. “We need a law that says you can’t use portable signs. Portable signs are not allowed in most cities.”
Councilman John R. Swierz, D-7th, said he also has been informed about the sign by citizens. He said he plans to touch base with the city prosecutor to determine what, if anything, can be done about the sign.
“The way it looks now, our hands are tied at this time, but that does not mean we are going to stop making an effort. Kids should not have to see that, and we are going to keep going forward and try to get this resolved,” he said.
DeCarlo said the city does have a new set of zoning regulations that would address the sign issue, but those codes have not been approved by city officials, so they cannot be enforced.
He said the codes are being reviewed by various city officials.
The new set of codes, DeCarlo said, would limit the use of portable signs to 48 hours.
Other signs, such as those announcing sales, would be limited to 30 days.
This is not the first time the city has taken issue with words floating around the building’s exterior.
City officials said Ludt painted his building several years ago in an attempt to bring public attention to a next-door bar that featured scantily clad women after his efforts to bring it to the attention of various public officials went unheeded.
The bar has since closed.
In December 2004, three charges of violating the city’s graffiti ordinance were dismissed against Ludt, based on free speech.
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.
jgoodwin@vindy.com