Committee hears bill to bar HOAs, landlords and park operators from banning thin blue line flag

Representatives Kay Miller and Brennan presented sponsor testimony on House Bill 75, which would prohibit manufactured home park operators, condominium and neighborhood associations, and landlords from restricting the display of the thin blue line flag where other protected flags are permitted.

Sponsors told the House Government Oversight Committee the bill is narrowly crafted to add the thin blue line flag to a list that already includes the U.S. flag, the Ohio flag, POW‑MIA and military service flags. Representative Kay Miller described the thin blue line as “a symbol of respect, remembrance, and solidarity with the brave men and women in law enforcement,” and said the bill is meant to protect that expression in rental and association contexts where rules otherwise might prohibit it.

Miller and Brennan recounted the case that motivated the bill: the father of Chief Steven Eric DeSario was ordered by an HOA to remove a thin blue line flag the father had flown at his home after the chief’s 2017 death in the line of duty. Sponsors said the measure anticipates private fundraising and stakeholder input and includes provisions on flag size and placement to protect property appearance. Miller told the committee groups including the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association and the Ohio Manufactured Homes Association were consulted and expressed support in prior sessions.

Members asked a series of practical questions: whether tenants’ rights or owners’ rights take precedence; how landlords and HOAs would enforce flag removal or reclaim flagpoles after a tenant leaves; whether the bill would create a slippery slope extending protection to other symbols; and the consequences for landlords, HOAs or park operators who do not comply. Sponsors repeatedly said the bill is narrow in scope and would not automatically expand to other flags; they also said the bill would not upend existing practical processes for flags (for example, existing rules on placement and landlord approval would remain in place). Sponsors said enforcement would likely proceed through civil action and that details such as deposit deductions for removal costs would be handled under existing landlord‑tenant practices.

There was no committee vote at the hearing; sponsors said they would follow up with members about specific drafting points and precedence for renters versus owners.

Ending: The committee concluded the first hearing on House Bill 75 after extended member questioning; sponsors defended the bill’s narrow scope and pledged to clarify language on landlord‑tenant mechanics and enforcement.