To amend sections 4781.40, 5301.072, 5311.191, and 5321.131 of the Revised Code to prohibit manufactured home park operators, condominium associations, neighborhood associations, and landlords from restricting the display of the thin blue line flag and to name this act the Chief Steven DiSario Act.
HB75 would amend several sections of the Ohio Revised Code governing manufactured home parks, homeowners and neighborhood associations, condominium associations, and landlord-tenant relationships. The bill’s central purpose is to prohibit these entities from restricting the display of the “thin blue line” flag or emblem, alongside existing protections for the U.S. flag, Ohio flag, POW/MIA flag, and certain service flags. It also names the measure the “Chief Steven DiSario Act.”
The bill would make such restrictions unenforceable as against public policy and, in the landlord and manufactured-home contexts, would treat violating lease terms as unconscionable. It also allows tenants or owners to display the protected flags by flagpole, bracket, or in a window, subject to reasonable notice and discussions about placement, zoning, installation costs, lighting, and size. The bill preserves existing requirements about compliance with local law and does not relieve tenants of obligations to return property in its original condition at lease end.
In addition to the flag-display provisions, HB75 carries forward and reinforces a number of existing tenant and owner protections in manufactured home parks, including disclosure of fees and rules, limits on fee increases during a lease term, restrictions on mandatory purchases from park operators, and protections for the sale or transfer of manufactured homes. It also preserves remedies for violations, including actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and the option to terminate the rental agreement in some cases.
The bill appears to have been introduced and referred to the House Government Oversight Committee, with no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the measure is likely to draw support from proponents of flag-display rights and law-enforcement symbolism, while opposition could come from property owners’ associations and landlords concerned about limits on private covenants, aesthetic controls, and property-management discretion.
The main point of contention is the inclusion of the thin blue line flag, which is more politically and socially divisive than the other flags already protected in Ohio law. Supporters are likely to frame the bill as a free-expression and pro-police measure, while critics may view it as forcing private communities and landlords to allow a symbol associated with a controversial political stance. The bill also expands state preemption over private rules in multiple housing settings, which may be another source of concern for associations and property owners.
HB75 would amend sections 4781.40, 5301.072, 5311.191, and 5321.131 of the Revised Code to add the thin blue line flag or emblem to the list of protected displays that cannot be barred by manufactured home park rules, condominium declarations, neighborhood or homeowners’ association governing documents, or residential lease terms. It would make conflicting restrictions unenforceable and, in some contexts, unconscionable, while also defining the thin blue line flag/emblem for purposes of the statute. The bill would therefore expand state law limits on private property rules and landlord-tenant agreements in favor of protected flag displays, while leaving intact local zoning, safety, and lease-end condition requirements.
No votes or committee testimony were provided, so the formal legislative record in the materials does not show measured support or opposition. The bill’s introduction and referral suggest it is still early in the process. On its face, the measure is likely to be viewed favorably by supporters of police-related symbolism and flag-display rights, but it may also attract skepticism from housing associations, landlords, and others who prefer broader control over property rules and aesthetic restrictions.
The most notable contention is the bill’s protection of the thin blue line flag, which may be seen by supporters as a tribute to law enforcement and by critics as a politically charged symbol that private communities should not be compelled to accommodate. A second point of contention is the bill’s broader override of private covenants, bylaws, and lease provisions in manufactured home parks, condominiums, neighborhood associations, and rental housing, which could be opposed by property managers and associations concerned about reduced control over common standards and enforcement.