Colorful Dog Park Mural Subject To Federal Lawsuit

ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) - A colorful mural at an Arlington dog park depicting cartoon puppies frolicking and chasing bones is the subject of a federal lawsuit.

Arlington County has ordered Kim Houghton to cover up a 1,000-square foot mural painted on the side of Wag More Dogs, her doggie day care business in Shirlington.

The county said the mural's content - replete with puppies, bones and paw prints - makes it a commercial sign subject to county regulations, and those regulations don't allow signs larger than 60 square feet.

"Arlington County has said because her picture of dogs, bones and paw prints has a relationship with her business, it's an illegal sign," says attorney Robert Frommer with the Institute for Justice, who filed a free speech lawsuit on behalf of Houghton Thursday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

Houghton's lawyers say the county law is unconstitutional because it requires bureaucrats to determine whether the mural's content makes it artwork or commercial advertising.

Houghton says the mural is not advertising, but artwork intended to brighten up the adjacent dog park. She acknowledges that some of the cartoon dogs in the mural bear a resemblance to the dogs in her company logo.

She says her primary purpose was to brighten up the dog park, and that she deliberately avoided including the name of her business or any text that would associate the mural with her business.

But the county says that under its code, a mural on the side of a dog business that depicts dogs is a sign, not art.

"Once we have decided it's a commercial sign, we have an obligation to make sure it complies with our ordinance," says county spokeswoman Mary Curtius. "We were surprised by the lawsuit. ... We have been working with this business owner for quite some time and trying to accommodate her." Frommer says the county can't be in the business of reviewing a mural's content and deciding for itself whether a mural is artwork or advertising. That's an unconstitutional infringement of free speech, he says.

Frommer says counties clearly have the right to regulate commercial signage. But the fact that Houghton's mural says nothing about her business places it outside the scope of any legitimate regulation.

"Whatever gray areas there might be (in distinguishing advertising from artwork), this mural is far from it," says Frommer, whose institute has filed numerous lawsuits challenging what it sees as overzealous regulation of small businesses.

The law leads to ridiculous interpretations, Frommer says. Houghton was told the mural could depict anything but dogs, even though it would be seen outside a dog park. At one point, Houghton planned to have the dogs repainted as flowers to comply with the regulations.

"The problem with Arlington sign code (is) whether a sign can go up or not or whether artwork can go up or not depends on the identity of who is speaking and what it is they're saying," Frommer says.

Curtius says the county offered, as a compromise, to allow the mural if Houghton painted "Welcome to the Shirlington Dog Park" or words to that effect to clarify that the mural promotes the dog park and not her business. Houghton says the proposed compromise wasn't that simple. The county was insisting on 8-foot high letters spelling out the exact phrase "Welcome to Shirlington Park's Community Canine Area," which wouldn't fit on the side of the building and would cost $7,000 in addition to the $4,000 she already spent on the mural.

After several months of discussions that Houghton says were ultimately not productive, she decided to sue.

"I wasn't going to just walk away and whitewash " the mural, Houghton said.

Houghton says she was told to paint over the mural or cover it with a tarp. She's had a tarp over it for months.

"My heart is wrapped up in that mural right now," she says.

www.wtop.com

New Jersey City Sues Mosque Imam

JERSEY CITY, N.J., Sept. 14 (UPI) -- Union City, N.J., sued the imam planning the controversial Islamic center in New York, saying he is a "terrible landlord" to his tenants there.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday in Hudson County Superior Court is unrelated to the dispute over the so-called Ground Zero mosque, a proposed cultural, sports and religious center two blocks from the World Trade Center site, The Star-Ledger of Newark reported.

Union City officials say that Feisal Abdul Rauf ignored citations for violations of housing codes in two buildings for years, including 12 violations of fire codes handed out a year before a fire.

"He's a terrible landlord who's unresponsive to the residents who live in his building," said Mark Albiez, a city spokesman. "City officials and inspectors have reached out to him to express the urgency in correcting problems in his buildings, and it's unfortunate that it's gotten to this point, but it's our responsibility to insure that residents receive the care that is needed."

The city is seeking to put the two buildings into receivership, using rents from tenants to make repairs. The larger building has been empty since the fire in 2008.

www.upi.com

Oglesby: Subject Of Lawsuit Regarding Unpaid Campaign Expenses

(Aug. 27, 2010) Beau Oglesby, candidate Worcester County state’s attorney, is being sued for alleged unpaid campaign expenses related to the 2006 election when he narrowly lost to State’s Attorney Joel Todd.

“I just want to be paid,” said Thom Gulyas, owner of ACE Printing and Mailing, who filed a lawsuit against Oglesby on Aug. 19. “I think waiting four years is long enough.”

Oglesby ordered printing and mail advertising that totaled $13,751.62. In November 2006, he made a $4,000 payment, Gulyas said. According to the online Maryland Elections Center at http://www.mdelections.org/, Oglesby made a $1,000 payment to ACE in August, a $4,000 payment to ACE in October and a $3,000 payment in November.

Also according to that Web site, Gulyas made a $4,000 contribution of campaign materials to Citizens for Beau Oglesby in November. The same Web site says Gulyas’ wife, Belinda, made a $2,000 contribution of campaign materials. Gulyas, however, denies that he or his wife ever donated campaign materials worth thousands of dollars, although he did donate some small printed items such as copies and fliers that he often donates to candidates who do business with him. The campaign materials, the envelopes, the mail processing and postage were not campaign contributions, Gulyas said. They were part of a business transaction.

Oglesby

In a press release issued Wednesday, Oglesby said Gulyas was a big supporter of his campaign and in the fall of 2006, “convinced Oglesby to use his services for a direct mailing in the closing days of the campaign.”

The statement said Gulyas was told to limit the scope of the mailing to that which would be covered by the balance in Oglesby’s campaign account. However, the Oglesby release said Gulyas insisted on expanding the coverage of the mailing, agreeing that his estimated $6,000 in additional printing and mailing cost would be viewed as a campaign contribution from his wife and him.”

Also in the press release, Oglesby said he had not seen the lawsuit filing, which Gulyas said contains a copy of an invoice from ACE to Oglesby dated Dec. 13, 2006. It shows the total of $13,751.62, a payment of $8,004.89 and a balance of $5,746.73. It says the terms are “Net 10 Days.”

In December 2006 and January 2007, Gulyas said, he received telephone calls from Oglesby saying he was getting funding together to pay the bill.

Oglesby’s press release said Gulyas contacted him more than a year after the campaign ended and the campaign account had been ended “and requested additional payment for the work that had been contributed.”

Gulyas continued to send bills and continued to be unpaid. Oglesby left his position as a prosecutor in the Wicomico County State’s Attorney’s Office and moved to the Western Shore where he worked as a criminal defense attorney in Montgomery, Prince George’s and Howard counties. Gulyas found his addresses by looking online at the Web site for the Maryland Judiciary Case Search, http://casesearch.courts.state.md/. us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp. One of the addresses was for a law firm in Rockville. Oglesby also had a Greenbelt address.

Last spring, Oglesby, who had returned to the Eastern Shore and is now the deputy state’s attorney for Caroline County, called and said he would pay the bill, Gulyas said. Then he e-mailed Gulyas in April and May. In May, Gulyas was fed up and got a promissory note and asked Oglesby to sign it. Nothing happened for a few days, then Gulyas notified Oglesby that he would turn the matter over to his attorney. Oglesby responded with a phone call.

“He lit me up,” Gulyas said Monday. “He was extremely angry.”

The promissory note, Gulyas told Oglebsy, meant that he would drag Oglesby to the courthouse to get paid, but he also told him he would give him 90 days to pay the outstanding balance of $7,746.73.

“He was cursing and swearing at me,” Gulyas said. “He kept ranting and raving.”

According to the lawsuit, “The Defendant’s inability to maintain a civilized dialogue with the Plaintiff severed all further communications.”

In July, Oglesby sent Gulyas a $2,000 payment.

“That’s the last I heard,” Gulyas said.

Oglesby explains the $2,000 payment by saying in his press release that despite the prior agreement in which he had no legal obligation to repay the additional money, he decided he “would refund his donation from my new account as soon as it became active.”

Oglesby said the timing of Gulyas’ lawsuit is political.

“Now that Thom has publicly endorsed my opponent, the timing of this frivolous lawsuit, just two months before the election, a lawsuit that he knows is barred by the statute of limitations, speaks for itself,” he said.

Gulyas said the lawsuit is not politically motivated.

“That’s a damn lie,” Gulyas said. “Business comes first. It’s my money and I want to be paid. It has nothing to do with politics.”

The case is scheduled for Oct. 27 in District Court in Snow Hill.

www.oceancitytoday.net