I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I can empathize.. my HOA is run by Gustapo too.
What a racket!
Hey, fly the flag but follow the rules you agreed to when you bought the house. He won't be the first idiot to lose his home to a homeowners association. He won't be the last. Now he is just making it worse by increasing the legal fees he is ultimately responsible for.
While Atrios is correct in his overall assessment of this; "The Joys of Private Government," the real problem here is the homeowner.
HOA's are, sometimes, a necessary evil. If you've ever lived nextdoor to someone who's yardkeeping skills are somewhat lacking, you know how frustrating it can be. And yes, sometimes they go too far.
However, this guy (apparently) signed the agreement when he moved into his house, or alternatively when his neighborhood was "incorporated." So he's breaking a rule he said he wouldn't. Is auctioning off his home a bit overkill? Yes.
I'm not sure where to stand on this...
What kind of a POS doesn't let a veteran fly a flag?
Looks like Florida misses the limelight of being the most embarrassing state in the Union, back in the glory days of 2000. Stories like this one aren't enough for it to catch up with Texas, though, not by a long shot.
If his lawyer were truly acting in his BEST interests, he would have advised him that he couldn't win and shown him, point by point, why. No, he didn't do that. Instead, he kept the case alive and kept charging those fees. I'll bet he contined to assure him that he would prevail. Now he's going to end up ruining the man he was supposed to help. On to the next sucker.
Let's see. What's a good word to describe this lawyer?
HOAs have taken over many of the functions of government, yet because they are "private" aren't bound by pesky constitutional restrictions.
bad bad bad.
If he wants to wave the American flag why doesn't he move to Iraq? Besides, he served manfully in the armed services, doesn't that prove that he's a traitor?
I'd live in a goddamn cardboard box under a freeway overpass before I'd submit to a goddamn "homeowners" assholeciation. Same goes for a gate community.
I guess the HOA hates America...
""There has to be a way to give the association a right to enforce its claims on the property," he said."
You notice that quote doesn't say "their" property. Hey, this man bought the house, it's his, he should be able to do what he wants with it (short of having rusted out old chevys up on blocks in the front yard, that is). Why aren't the "support the troops" wingnuts all over this issue? Oh yeah, that's right, they're the ones who are ON Homeowners' Associations.
By the way, in response to one of the previous comments: I don't think the guy is an idiot for standing up for his rights, so why don't you take that bullshit back to the Yahoo! message boards where it belongs.
There are only nine homes in our HOA. One owner has been a nightmare. We've tried conversation, letters, mediation, and fines. It's taken four years, and we've only made progress in the last year. We've even amended the by-laws to make things easier for everyone.
The HOA could have voted to change the rule about the flag. Did they? Majority rules.
We're in an HOA neighborhood, but it's a pretty small one and congenial. The big brouhaha has been what to do with the foxes who live in the common area.
However, HOAs are getting so widespread it's very difficult to avoid them in some areas, and it's basically a very local government that has little government accountability. If you find yourself on the wrong side of the Neighborhood Nazis, your best option is usually to cave in.
It's also striking how the people who denounce big, intrustive government take to small, very intrustive government. I think it's like the office black sheep who gets promoted to shake things up, and then imposes iron-fisted rule on everyone else. They don't have a problem with intrusive government: they have a problem with intrusive government they don't control. Once they do control it, watch out.
Can't this guy display his flag without putting up a 12 foot flagpole? Seems that is more the issue than the flag.
Is there a gulag for HOA infidels?
You won't find a stranger dichotomy along these lines than in Columbia, Maryland. For a community that's so progressive and diverse, their HOA has covenants that would make Kim Jong Il blanch.
What's the issue here: politics or esthetics? Because his politcal right would seem to trump the homeowner's esthetic right.
I've always felt that it is not the big issues of the day, but rather the small, mundane ones which seperate those who truly do believe in Liberal ideals from those who just talk the talk. That many of you on this board are (apparently) coming down on the side of the so-called "Homeowners Association" in this issue is something I find quite interesting. If the Bush regime tried something like this (give them time and they probably will), most of you would be outraged (and rightfully so, I might add). But when a small cadre of individuals whose only claim to power over you is the fact that their home probably cost more than yours, presumes to dictate what you can or can't do with property legally purchased with your hard-earned money, no one seems to have a problem with that. Just as with the wingnuts, I guess it's OK when this kind of crap is happening to somebody else. Look. The guy doesn't want to turn his property into a 7-11; he just wants to put up a goddamn flagpole. For that he should be hounded by lawyers and lose his home? I don't think so, but then, that's just me.
"What kind of a POS doesn't let a veteran fly a flag?"
What kind of veteran buys a house in a community that bans flagpoles?
- Apparently the kind that wants to give his house to a law firm.
By the way, in response to one of the previous comments: I don't think the guy is an idiot for standing up for his rights, so why don't you take that bullshit back to the Yahoo! message boards where it belongs.
He choose to stand up for his beliefs, and now he is going to pay for that. He moved into the community 6 years after it was built. He could have flown a flag from a slanted pole off his house. He said the flag would have touched a bush, so instead choose to plant a twelve foot flag pole, and fight the HOA. That was his choice. He could have just trimmed the bush instead.
I used to live in an subdivision with covenants, and when I wanted to make changes, I researched the covenants, and took the appropriate action. The HOA protected my investment from idiots who wanted to clear cut their land, install above ground pools, or put up sings near their house. Now I live in a place without a HOA or covenants. I hate it. We have commercial trucks parked all over the place, unkept landscaping, and serious density problems in a few houses where they are sleeping 5 or 6 to a bedroom. The place sucks and property values are dropping. Never again will I live in a community without some form of covenant to protect my investment.
The whole battle is one of his choosing. Personal responsibility on his half is paying the bills after he gets his ass smacked.
Take that back to your Yahoo boards!
gene214, I knew someone would bring this up. Look, the guy agreed to abide by the rules when he bought his house. They were steps he could have taken to try to change the law. I don't know if he did or not. It seems silly and stupid and over-the-top that he might lose his home because of this.
There are always going to be rules that we don't like, and some will choose not to follow them and will suffer the consequences.
I think the best thing to do is not enact certain rules in the first place. Or try to get the rule changed. Or don't buy a home in an area that has an HOA with those
rules.
And gttim is absolutely right in saying these convenants protect property values. That trumps flying a flag from a flagpole any day. If they make an exception, the floodgates could open. My flag flies from my front porch. I'm just as patriotic as this guy, and I don't break any rules or piss off my neighbors.
What's needed is some sort of Bill of Rights applying to HOAs, a set of rules for what they can't do, individual rights that they can't infringe.
This kind of case is a pretty good illustration of the wisdom underlying the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. Unfettered majority rule can be tyrannical, particularly when the majority is composed of a small number of people.
Gee gttim,
I'm sorry the real world sucks for you so badly. Imagine, the nerve of people, letting their lives get in the way of your property investment!
Git.
"Now I live in a place without a HOA or covenants. I hate it. We have commercial trucks parked all over the place, unkept landscaping, and serious density problems in a few houses where they are sleeping 5 or 6 to a bedroom. The place sucks and property values are dropping."
So why did you move?? If you were living in your cute little whitebread gated community, where you have to practically hold a tribal council meeting (al la "survivor") just to get permission to make any sort of changes to YOUR property, why'd you leave? It sounds like that sort of thing works for you. Yeah, I can see it now. You must really be traumatized by the sight of all those disgusting working-class people in your neighborhood. Why, the nerve of them, trying to have some sort of life and dragging down the value of your "investment". Hell, I'll bet some of your neighbors aren't even white. OOOOOOOOh, what a shame, huh??
OK now, this is an interesting fight. My 2 cents is this: The HOA and their rules about flagpoles, whatever one may think of them, existed there prior to the vet's arrival. There are rules for changing rules and every true protester knows that when you go up against the man you are likely to get busted.
I agree that HOAs are often ass clenching babushki that need to be reigned in on occasion but, it's just wrong headed to enter one and then thrash around about how you don't want to follow the rules that existed before you signed on. New stupid rules are fair game for whatever kind of fight you feel you need to wage, but you can't bitch about the ones you agreed to.
Now if he wanted to erect a monument to the 10 commandments.....just kidding.
I think it's truly sad, when people feel that protecting "property value" is more important than protecting liberty.
What is the value of any of our property, if we're denied our freedom of expression on it?
I think it's truly sad, when people feel that protecting "property value" is more important than protecting liberty.
Oh, for crying out loud. Get a grip. Considering what's going on in this country right now, that's really funny.
My question is, what kind of idiot HOA would ban flagpoles? I bet they ban lawn gnomes, pink flamingos and annoying bumper stickers, too. Jesus, what kind of tight-ass people are these? And to say the guy knew the rule doesn't make the rule any less stupid. Christ, cut an old jarhead some slack.
I live in a neighborhood without an HOA and yes, some people don't edge their lawns nicely (me), and have too many cars in their driveway, one guy had a Mustang under an ugly silver tarp for a while, and the guy across the street is building a sailboat in his driveway but man, this is America. Land of the brave, home of the free? Remember guys? Remember that song?
As a post script, I bet most of the members of that HOA would bitch up a storm if the EPA came in and told them they couldn't drain a pond on their lot. Private property rights! Private property rights!
I hate fascists of all kinds, but especially petty fascists. Fight the Power!
The whole HOA idea seems very privacy-invasive and creepy to me. (Anyone else remember that X-Files episode where the head of an HOA conjures up some ancient Tibetan monster to go around knocking off people who put unauthorized little doodads on the fronts of their houses?!)
Atrios raises a good point - it's all part of the trend to shunt public functions off to private bodies in order to circumvent constitutional protections, which only restrain public actors. Which is the sort of thing that should worry all of us, even those who like their neighbors' front yards to look exactly the same as theirs.
My, what a cat fight. And a pointless one at that. For those of you who consider HOAs to to be pestilent, remember that they're private, voluntary associations. I'm the sort of person who'd be disinclined to enter into such an association, but I haven't got a whole lot of sympathy for someone who enters into a private, voluntary association and then bitches about the fact that it places constraints upon his behavior. I do, however, have a bit of sympathy for people who enter into HOAs expecting that the other members (who didn't join at gunpoint, after all) will abide by the terms of the association they have joined. And there's nothing illiberal about expecting people to abide by the terms of their private agreements. So what's the pissing match about?
I'd be more interested in knowing why all his neighbors felt they couldn't back him. They're the ones that should be commenting about this. We, on this thread, can't help or hurt him.
This case, or another one like it, is one I would like to see work its way through the courts so the issue of what private homeowner's associations can and cannot do can be adjudicated.
Clearly, the covenents of this HOA and the property and free speech rights of the homeowner are in conflict - regardless of what the homeowner signed. The fact is that there are some rights no one can force you to give up, even if you sign something saying that you do. I have seen this several times in lease documents. The statutes in my state clearly describe which rights cannot be waived. Nonetheless, property owners put clauses in their leases that ask lessees to waive their rights. Are they ignorant? Hoping no one will notice? Who knows.
The truth is that cases like the one described by Atrios are not as black and white as they may appear. Granted, this guy's lawyer should have been able to tell him whether or not what he signed was enforcable.
If you were living in your cute little whitebread gated community, where you have to practically hold a tribal council meeting (al la "survivor") just to get permission to make any sort of changes to YOUR property, why'd you leave?
Have you ever had to go before a municipal planning and zoning commission or the like? They’re not much different sometimes.
Getting to the deeper issue of why so many of us sympathize with the homeowners’ association: First of all, this guy is probably one of those yahoo Texans who believe in all those capitalist Republican values George Bush claims to be for (but isn't, as more and more libertarians are realizing). If he wants to believe that private property is sacred, then TFB but he has to subordinate his patriotism to that if an agreement he has entered into freely and voluntarily demands that. We're sure he didn't crawl through mud under gunfire to preserve governments that feel free to abrogate contracts whenever it's politically popular to do so (of course, to be fair, we realize a lot of the brave people who have done that sort of thing probably don’t have visions of the rule of law dancing through their heads as they do so ... more like getting out of the way of the gunfire).
If this makes people realize that privatizing government functions involves some tradeoff of rights they had wrongly assumed were so sacred that no piece of paper they signed giving all or part of them away could possibly be enforced, well, then some good has come of it.
nolo,
My knee kerk reaction was exactly like yours, but then I started to think about all the various reasons a person might be stuck in a certain neighborhood (schools, close to work, etc.) and it struck the same ugly chord as the intrusive employer rules like having to pee in a cup when the most dangerous thing you operate is the Smoothie machine. Yes, you could work someplace else, but why do we allow corporations to have more power than we would give our government?
Sometime we have limited choices in where to work and where to live. If the public sector can't dictate this sort of pre-emptive bullshit, why should we let private organizations?
Yeah, I also tilt at windmills in my spare time.
Joe Bob, the First Amendment recognizes limitations on time and place of expression. There's no inherent conflict of the homeowner's right of free speech.
How's this for a liberal attitude?
Anyone who would sign an HOA agreement deserves whatever sodomizing the HOA gives them. Sign away your rights to "protect" some others and you lose no matter what.
Hey, does that sound familiar?
If you don't like the Homeowner rules, then you CHOOSE to not live in that particular community. That also doesn't mean I think anything goes as it relates to HOA - it means that if you aren't willing to risk your home in order to fight the covenants, then don't live there.
The problem this guy has is that he likes what this group created, wants to personally profit from it by living there and then doesn't want to abide by the restrictions that made it a desirable place to live in the first place. Me, me, me. Narcissism run rampant.
The guy isn't fighting for the right to fly the flag, he's fighting for the right to fly the flag any way he wants in violation of a covenant he agreed to abide by.
When I read he could fly it from his house, it was just the twelve foot flag pole they objected to, he lost all sympathy in my book.
Why did the guy sign the thing in the first place?
Why not just buy the house and leave it at that?
I'm curious if the agreement was buried in the real estate documents, or something equally coercive and/or sneaky.
When homes stop selling because prospective buyers don't like the rules, THEN you will definitely see some changes. Will that happen? Who knows.
Do you know why the Rightwing has been so successful in tearing this country to shreds? It's because the Right is made up of True Believers. There's no mistaking the fact that these guys (the Bush's, the Rumsfelds, the Wolfowitz's) BELIEVE in what they represent. Now, do you know why we on the so-called "Liberal" Left can't seem to get anywhere, even within the Democratic Party? It's because most of the people who call themselves "liberal" are really wishy-washy types who qualify everything. "I believe in freedom of speech EXCEPT when someone disagrees with me"; "I believe in civil liberties EXCEPT when someone else's conflicts with mine"; "I believe people should live anywhere they want EXCEPT when it affects the property values in MY neat little gated community", etc, etc. The Righwingnuts know this, and they call us on it every goddamn time. I had said in an earlier post that it's not the big issues, but rather the small ones which define a true liberal. The issue at hand isn't whether this guy should have his flagpole or not. The issue (for me, at least) is that I'm reading posts by people who bitch about the evils of the Bush regime, stating in no uncertain terms that yes, this man should lose his home because he dared to defy the rules of the all powerful Home Owners' Association. Anybody who honestly feels this way is really no better than the wingnuts currently destroying this country. I'll call out hypocritical bullshit wherever I see it, and if that upsets people such as pie or gttim, so be it.
Seraphiel,
Good question, but is it even a choice? Because most HOA fees are tied in with services like trash removal, landscaping, towing arrangements for parking enforcement, etc., I'm not so sure you can buy a home and specifically opt out of whatever HOA is in place.
I could be wrong, but I remember that in the weeks before closing on my townhouse, I was forwarded a copy of that community's HOA guidelines. If I didn't agree with them, or couldn't abide by them for some reason or other, then I could get out of the whole contract free and clear (and even get my deposit back.) Not sure how it is elsewhere, but that was the extent of my "choice" vis-a-vis the HOA at the time.
I'm not upset, gene214. What is a true liberal anyway? He should not lose his home! If I lived there, I would have said let him have the darn flagpole. Geez. But can we fight every single battle that comes along? No! We'd never have any kind of life. But we can't help him, can we? Or are you going to go down to Florida and organize a march? We come here with different backgrounds and different priorities. I'm sorry if I don't measure up in your eyes. Carry on the fight. I'll keep hoping that some kind of compromise is reached, so that both sides benefit.
It's been in my lifetime, and I would bet most of your lifetimes too, that it was not unusual for a lease to have a covenant attached regarding the selling of the property to Jews or blacks. It took people to say, "this is bullshit" for the law to wake up and agree. While you guys are probably right about this guy, that he's full of himself and is most likely an awful neighbor, that doesn't make the rule any less wrong.
OK, now I'll shut up about this.
pie: The sort of person who says that you must choose your battles is the sort that chooses almost none. Even the ones he chooses are only for his own benefit and don't have anything to do with making the world a better place for anyone but himself.
Seraphiel | Homepage | 09.12.03 - 11:21 am |
>Why did the guy sign the thing in the first place?
>Why not just buy the house and leave it at that?
According to the article, the HoA was recorded in the land records, and so it probably was basically a covenant that went with the house. He didn't have to sign anything. When he bought the house, he bought it subject to the HoA.
It seems to me that a title search should have turned up the covenant, but maybe it didn't.
BTW, according to the article, the HoA forbade flag poles. A possible solution for him: tack a flag onto the side of the house. No flag pole.
Or are you going to go down to Florida and organize a march?
First of all, I live in Florida and no, I'm not going to organize a march. As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't even be an issue. This guy shouldn't be faced with losing his home because of legal bills resulting from some suit brought by someone devoid of a life, who has had their precious little aesthetic sensibilities offended. If people choose to express an opinion contrary to that, that's OK, but be ready to defend it in a public forum such as this. Yes, there are greater issues confronting us, but we're not dealing with those on this thread. There! I promise I've said the last on this.
A few points and corrections from the above:
First, note that this guy's property is not being auctioned to pay his OWN legal fees, but the legal fees the HOA ran up by suing him. Presumably it's a lot like the standard lease where the tenant agrees to reimburse the landlord for collection costs, including paying the landlord's lawyer. (Not every state allows this as an enforceable contract provision.)
Second, when you buy a property, you don't get the entire bundle of rights. Typically the developer writes covenants into the deed which withhold some of those rights from you, the buyer. When this guy bought the house, it didn't come with the right to put up that flagpole.
Third, the First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) applies to government action, not private action. Employers, property owners, HOAs and the like routinely suppress political speech, and it is well within their rights to do so.
Fourth, a home is by far the biggest thing that most people will ever buy. It is no wonder that most people are highly risk averse about this investment. For the past 150 years at least, homeowners have sought to reduce the risks of owning property by exchanging restrictions with their neighbors: the legal term is "reciprocal benefit and burden." And RRB is the legal basis for zoning laws.
Any real estate person will tell you that a house will be more appealing to home buyers if its surroundings are made more predictable by restrictions. Indeed, especially for upscale buyers, the more restrictions the better. That's why HOAs are so widespread, so popular, and promulgate such astonishingly strict and detailed rules.
mndean, I'm old and cynical, I guess.
Frankly, if your heart's not in the fight, you're going to be a mediocre participant. No, I'll choose my battles, thank you.
We had a big lawsuit a couple of years ago here in my hometwon over an HOA suing some homeowners for putting composition shingles on their house instead of wood shakes. Back when the rules for the HOA were adopted, comp shingles were of lower quality than wood shakes. Today, composition shingles can be of higher quality (and lower fire risk) than wood shakes (although quality varies depending on the type of shingle). The judge ultimately ruled that the homeowners had to remove their comp shingles and install wood shakes, which are a fire hazard.
I grew up in a neighborhood where one eccentric neighbor left his house about 20% unfinished for years, apparently under the theory that he could keep a low assessment and pay less property taxes. Nobody much liked it, but nobody ever did anything about it either. In that place and time, community values included tolerance and minding one's own business.
Stories like this one aren't enough for it to catch up with Texas, though, not by a long shot.
I'm sorry, but Texas never, never, never will catch up with Kansas.
Nobody much liked it, but nobody ever did anything about it either. In that place and time, community values included tolerance and minding one's own business.
We now live in a different place and time where people buy and sell homes much more often, and a bad house on the street can knock your appraised value down at least a couple thousand dollars, not to mention warding off potential buyers.
Oooh! Should I make a comment or will I be perceived as being unpatriotic?
OK then my guess: The guy is doing his patriotic as a kind of in-your-face, don't-you-dare-question-my-patriotism, fuck-the-rules-cause-just-try-to-make-me-take-it-
down-and-see-what-a-big-stink-I-can-make-
pretending-to-be-a-martyr-and-painting-you-all-as-
anti-American thing. He's grandstanding. Look at that practised downcast countenance. A 12 foot flagpole? At that level the flag is probably ridiculously eyecatching - and meant to be. And how big is this flag? Does the guy live in a circular courtyard where it dominates the view? Are his windows littered with patriotic slogans. Is he an asshole in general and this is his way of rubbing his neighbors face in it? Does he have a history of acting a jerk there?
OK, so what if someone wants to put up a similar sized flag and pole but this one with the Mexican flag (or what have you) on it? Okey Dokey? I doubt it.
That's the problem with today's brand of patriotism, it's not just something one feels quietly and lives, no, it has to be loud and obnoxious, a "take THAT you assholes!" "Rah, Rah Bush!" hypocracy.
Sorry, but that's my gut reaction.
Now on the other hand if the guy had a normal sized flag a couple of feet long or so attached to a post on his porch I don't think anyone would mind.
Kind of like the difference between your neighbor having that obnoxiously noisy giant monster pickup truck that he has to Rev REv! REV!! RREVVVV!!! up every morning and a guy who has a typical pickup and respects his neighbors right to quiet.
It's an issue of respect.
So why did you move??
Because sometimes people move. They get transferred, they get divorced, they want a bigger house. It is not just my property values that covenants protect, but also my quality of life. I don't want 40 people with 20 cars living in the house next to me. I don't want somebody with two trailers, a boat, and two cars on blocks in the house behind me. I don't want the people accross the street to paint their house purple. I don't want chain link fences going out to the street. So I usually choose to live in neighborhoods with HOAs and covenants. That is my choice. I choose to live there, and abide by their rules, in exchange for what I believe to be a better living environmaent for me. It is not for everybody, but that does not make them bad. If you feel that covenants are too restrictive, live elsewhere.
The guy with the flag chose to live there and abide by the rules. He then decided that he did not have to follow one rule. He was going to lose that fight. It is not a free speech issue, as he tried to make it. He was allowed to fly a flag, just not with the type of pole he chose to use. Again, it was not about the flag, but the pole. There is usually language in the covenants about legal fees and fines. He made the choices, and now he is going to have to pay the piper.
I also agree with Anonymous. Sounds like he was grandstanding and trying to wrap himself in a flag. Sound like any president we know?
If I didn't agree with them, or couldn't abide by them for some reason or other, then I could get out of the whole contract free and clear (and even get my deposit back.)
According to the article, the HoA was recorded in the land records, and so it probably was basically a covenant that went with the house.
Thanks for some clarifications. This sort of thing doesn't sit well with me though. Did he know he was buying part of an association?
Couldn't the previous owner have simply sold the house without mentioning that burden, or attaching it to the property? How does something like that get inexorably linked to the house? There must be some way to dissociate a piece of property from the HOA.
Since when did ugliness get written into nuisance doctrine? Odors, dust, light, fine. But ugly rays? You can sue me if ugly rays emanate from my property onto yours?
HOA = COMMUNISM
And Atrios, you are really misrepresenting the issue. He is not losing his home for flying a flag, and he was not told he could not fly the flag. He was told he could fly the flag using a wall mounted pole. He just chose not to do that. He is having to pay legal fees and fines for planting a flagpole.
I think you all miss the point. Pretty much completely and totally.
The point is that freedom is going down the tubes. The reason it is going down the tubes, is that nobody has any respect for it. Freedom means from the government and that's it. You can screw your neighbour over, but if it's the government? Raise holy hell.
Seriously people. What is the REAL harm of a flagpole? Even for property values..I mean, it's not even damaging. Just asthetic. A matter of opinion.
I guess here's the thing..the HOA has the ability to do it, I think, but should they do not? No. This sort of behaviour is a poison that is making its way through western society, making us forget how wonderful..and fleeting..freedom really is.
Spot on.
To put it in perspective, he could put any of the following on his flagpole:
* the American flag
* the Japanese flag
* a banner reading "Bush lied - Soldiers died"
* an airbrushed picture of Rip Taylor
and be just as wrong in the eyes of his HOA. It's not an issue of "he's not allowed to be patriotic" at all.
Well then Karmakin let's say we live in a HOA with a common courtyard and let's say that I happen to live next to you as well. How's about my freedom to park the broken down old public bus that I got for a steal to satisfy my new hobby on my front lawn where you all have to look at it (and it blocks your view)? And how about my perennially working on it, greasy pieces and parts strewn all about, in futile hope of restoring it.
Really one can come with all kinds of scenarios.
Not camparing the flag to the bus but just testing the limits. And as a rule I am not a friend of the too restrictive rules of so many HOAs but if one joins knows what the rules are don't be surprised at conflict when one wants to break them.
In Shelley v. Kraemer, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictive racial covenants even though they were a product of private contract, because though private they implicated government when it came time to enforce them.
So stop with the bullshit about how HOA isn't a public agency and so doesn't have to abide by the Constitution.
I ask you: what kind of country do we live in where a veteran can't fly a flag with an airbrushed picture of Rip Taylor?
What's needed is a bill of rights covering private contracts. Simply because something may be agreed to by private contract doesn't mean it should be enforceable.
If I own rental properties and hire a company to manage them, should I be able to have in that contract that I never have to deal with any blacks or jews in the company? that the company refuse to rent to blacks or jews?
If you don't like living by someone who puts a Chevy on blocks, on their property, move. It's not their job to keep your property value up.
Frankly, after reading this story, my conclusion is: this guy's an idiot. He lost the case in court. The Association offered a compromise solution so he wouldn't lose his house and he's still bitching. Take the compromise, sell the house, buy a house where there is no Homeowner's Association.
Yes, Homeowner's Associations are groups of little Nazis comprised of a bunch of Gladys-types from the old "Bewitched" series. That's why you should get a place without a Homeowner's Association. You won't be able to do that unless you eat shit and go along with them until you can dump the place. That's life...
It's been in my lifetime, and I would bet most of your lifetimes too, that it was not unusual for a lease to have a covenant attached regarding the selling of the property to Jews or blacks.
Excellent point. Can we at least agree that covenants can go too far? The problem I see with HOA's is that they completely disregard minority rights. That's always wrong whether the minority in question is blacks, Jews, or people who put 12' flagpoles in their lawns.
Without knowing what particular dangers, annoyances, or loss of property values might be associated with 12' flagpoles, I can't really judge this case. But to simply say, "That's what the majority decided, so he has to follow the rules or suffer serious punishment," without even considering that he may have some rights too seems wrongheaded and dangerous.
This is more ‘Saddam was behind 9/11’ doublespeak./associative reality. The issue has nothing to do with an ex-marine flying (showing) his flag. It has to do with an unsightly pole in the middle of his front lawn in violation of the HOA rules that the homeowner agreed to when he bought the house. Guaranteed if was an American of Iraqi descent flying an Iraqi flag, the pole would have been torn down immediately with no legal recourse and the homeowner probably would have been on Guantanimo already. Why do Americans hate living by the rules, especially ones they’ve agreed to live by?
HOAs are no different than the dictatorships that run the millions capitalist businesses, of all shapes and sizes. Where’s the outcry there?
No, of course it's not about his right to "patriotism."
When I was growing up in NY, it was not uncommon to see Irish flags around St. Patty's Day; Italian flags around Coumbus day, etc etc etc....
I think the real point here is in Atrios' title: "Private Government." Unless I'm mistaken, the HOA has no legal claim to "ownership" of the vet's property. And it's hard to see where the guy had any real option w/r/t joining/not joining the HOA when he moved in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but voluntary participation is a cornerstone of contract law, is it not?
HOA's, as far as I can tell, pretend to be contract organizations, but in fact act as de facto local governments, with the power to exclude "the wrong people" from their neighborhoods, and drive out those who don't conform. They can do this because they're governments who pretend not to be governments, and thus are free from any of the restrictions of the bill of rights or the state Constitutions--because legally they're just Contracts. But if the HOA in this case has no claim on ownership of this guys house, how do they have to power to drive him out of it?
I get the impression that the flag guy is, er, a little difficult to reason with. The whole situation got completely out of hand for nothing and if I were in that neighborhood I'd be seriously pissed about wasting all this time and effort on a minor issue. This isn't black and white situation.
"Owning" property is a complex legal situation. I own a house, but I don't think I have the mineral rights to the property, I have a page of easements I'm required to honor, and I can't stop planes from flying over my house even though technically that's my property too. The HOA is one more level of agreements that I've accepted when I bought the house.
That being said, in many parts of the country HOAs are almost impossible to avoid (basically they were originally there to keep minorities out). You can't opt out of them as they're part of the deed. HOAs can change from civilized neighborhood groups to fascist dictatorships if the leadership changes. It's also amazing what principles people will abandon if they feel their property values are at stake.
I'd feel better if local and state governments started treating these HOAs as real governments, and make it a lot clearer what can and can't be controlled. Sometimes the smallest governments are the least representative.
"If you've ever lived nextdoor to someone who's yardkeeping skills are somewhat lacking, you know how frustrating it can be."
HOA are crutches for people who are afraid to deal with other people. I would rather live with a messy neighbor (and I have a few) and face him personally with my complaints then hide behind an HOA. If I want to park an old car on my lawn for a couple of years and watch it rust then thats tough noogies for everyone else. Anyone who buys a house in a HOA community is a sucker.
"There must be some way to dissociate a piece of property from the HOA."
No, there isn't. And it doesn't necessarily make sense that there would be. I work in a planning department and the Conditions of Approval for a large number of new housing tracts that we approve include a Homeowners Association. This isn't done for the reasons given above (although HOAs are often created for those reasons), but because there are leftover, unusable parcels that need to be owned and administered by SOMEONE, so they are given to everyone in the tract through the creation of a HOA that owns and administers them. You can't let people opt out, because if everyone opted out, you would be left with a piece of land that no one owns and no one takes care of.
HOAs, while useful, are also often harmful. I agree with what I think Atrios point is: that private governments can be just as harmful and abusive of our rights as public government. There is usually the balance that you can opt out of private government, and you have a direct say in public government, and both have some restrictions placed on them.
But a lot of HOA are difficult to opt out of. The whole "you can buy a house elsewhere" doesn't work very well; that's the same arguement that is used to show that there is some choice in public schools. Both times its weak because too much of the situation is determined by factors outside of the individual's control. (unlike, say chosing between Pepsi or Coke)
The difference is that we get a say in public schools at a variety of levels and there are very concrete restrictions as to what schools can and cannot do when it comes to civil rights. HOA are theoretically democratic, but not so much in practice, and have fewer restrictions on them when it comes to civil rights.
Regarding zoning laws being restrictive: I've never seen a zoning law that bans flagpoles, only ones that restrict overall height. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I don't see how they would be anywhere near as common as HOAs that outright ban them. Zoning can, and all to often does, go over the top, but most Zoning ordinances I've see are more concerned with making sure you don't set up an autobody repair shop in a residential neighborhood or place your wherehouse within the clear sight triangle.
Just my HO.
Again, the HOA does have a legal claim on the property. In effect, the developer sold the house without the right to put up a flagpole. The property rights he didn't sell to the homeowner were transferred to the HOA. So some of the bundle of rights for that house and lot DO belong to the HOA.
If the flagpole guy bought the house without being informed that his title was limited, then he has a cause of action against the previous owner, and/or the title company.
Yes, Shelley v. Kraemer held that racially restrictive covenants are void as being against public policy. And as I mentioned previously, the you-pay-my-lawyer-fees provision is void in some states. But that does NOT mean that all parties to all contracts everywhere therefore have to comply with the Bill of Rights.
Again, the HOA does have a legal claim on the property. In effect, the developer sold the house without the right to put up a flagpole. The property rights he didn't sell to the homeowner were transferred to the HOA. So some of the bundle of rights for that house and lot DO belong to the HOA.
If the flagpole guy bought the house without being informed that his title was limited, then he has a cause of action against the previous owner, and/or the title company.
Yes, Shelley v. Kraemer held that racially restrictive covenants are void as being against public policy. And as I mentioned previously, the you-pay-my-lawyer-fees provision is void in some states. But that does NOT mean that all parties to all contracts everywhere therefore have to comply with the Bill of Rights.
Oops, sorry about the double post.
You can't sign away your constitutional rights, that's why they are called rights.
The vehicle of the contract is in error.
If I own rental properties and hire a company to manage them, should I be able to have in that contract that I never have to deal with any blacks or jews in the company? that the company refuse to rent to blacks or jews?
Different issue. That goes against equal housing and discrimination laws. You can't have a murder contract either because murder is illegal.
You can't sign away your constitutional rights, that's why they are called rights.
Not the issue. The guy was allowed to fly the American Flag. He just was not allowed to install a 12 foot pole. He was allowed to install a pole on the side of his house and fly the very same flag. HE just chose to be a dick about it.
People should really read the article.
Exactly, EE, but until the Supreme Court recongizes that, prevailing law lets you.
And we doubt they will. When you join the military, you sign away your right to criticize the president and some other officials publicly. When you take a job at a unionized company in a state without a right-to-work law, you sign away your freedom of association (as to whether or not to join the union). When you are on criminal probation or parole, you often sign away your right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure.
There are good solid reasons for all of these, and the Supreme Court has let them all stand.
So it's probably not going to give this guy his flagpole.
BTW, we bet we could post this on Free Republic and those people would mostly come to the same conclusion.
(Of course, it would be fun to see the property absolutists over there get into it with the people who think patriotism is a valid reason for anything).
Thank you, Larry Kestenbaum, gttim, and anonymous for your informed and mature comments.
I guess I'm getting too old (4
for the "rules = fascism" mentality. I live in a coop in NYC. All NYC coops are controlled by coop boards, which sound very much like HOA's. Some basic restrictions in my buidling:
all work in your apartment must be done on weekdays between 9:00am-5:00pm.
laundry rooms are open seven days a week between 8am-10pm.
no "disturbing noises" (presumably TV and music) in your apartment after 10pm.
These are rules that were presented to us BEFORE my wife and me bought the unit. We accepted them: with 120 units in the building, you sure as hell wouldn't want to live next to an aspiring, insomniac drummer who practises until 3am every morning.
I would assume that before this guy purchased his home, he was interviewed by a quorum of the HOA where the "house rules" were clearly presented. Sale of the property would not go forward without the purchaser's signature on a document which acknowledges the "house rules."
By the way, I don't know how the hell that happy face with the sun glasses got inserted into my comment. I don't even know how to create those images.
So, constitutionally, it seems the whole HOA to-do is a clash between the Contracts Clause (Article I sec. 10) and the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments...
Of course, for most of US history, the courts put the contracts clause pretty much above everything else--check out A People's History of the Supreme Court by Peter Irons...maybe some of the lawyers around can educate me on this.
This guy w/ the flag may indeed by a stubborn asshole; hell, he could be a wingnut militiaman for all I know. That doesn't change the problem that HOA's are really mini quasi-governments that are not beholden to any of the checks of the US or State constitutions. Their history is certainly based in part in racism and redlining, and the idea that they can (defacto) foreclose on his home as if they were a bank, for nonconformance with the aesthetic decrees of a bunch of busybodies is not too appetizing to me.
"It's been in my lifetime, and I would bet most of your lifetimes too, that it was not unusual for a lease to have a covenant attached regarding the selling of the property to Jews or blacks." ---
cosmic grappler
Right on! cg. I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it.
What this country needs is the EXPANSION of areas that come under the protections of the Constitution, not the EROSION of Constitutional coverage by the parceling out of portions of our lives to "private" bodies that take away our privacy.
I gag when I read (as in some comments above) those who shout about a "freedom" to opt out of something when all the coercive power works against the individual. Think not only of the residence issue (as in this case), or employment (as in the example cg gives of the Smoothie machine operator), but of school prayer, and Pledge of Allegiance refusals.
Well, in fact "property absolutism" and "anything patriotic goes" coincide in this case. The rights the covenant grants other homeowners are not property rights, but personal. They have the right to expect other homeowners to abide by the contract. They did not have the right to go dig up the thing themselves.
I live one block from this guy's house. I live under a different homeowner's association (and I'm secretary of mine).
Here's the deal with Andres and his fight with his HOA: He used to be on his HOA's board, and a group of dissatisfied homeowners tossed out the board. Andres decided to tweak them by installing a flagpole in his front yard. He didn't do it because of patriotism or principal. He did it to put a bug up the asses of the board members who overthrew him and his fellow board members.
His neighborhood consists of small townhouses with small front yards. A lawn service mows the yards. To make it easier and cheaper for everyone, the HOA has a rule that you can't place obstructions in your yard that would get in the way of the lawn equipment. That way, the yard service can run one swath all the way down the block (it's a long, semicircular block), then turn around and do another swatch down the block, instead of doing each yard individually.
By planting a flagpole in his front yard, Andres broke the HOA rule that was designed to help the lawn service do its job quickly, efficiently and cheaply.
Homeowners on that street are allowed to display flags on brackets attached to their homes. That's exactly what some of them do. Andres could do it, too. But that wouldn't provoke the board members who replaced him.
I have met the president of that homeowner association just once, and she's just as disagreeable as Andres seems to be (I've never met him, but I've seen him driving his big black pickup truck). She refuses to talk to the press because "they just print what they want." What a bitch. When she told me this, she was unaware that I'm a journalist. I'm not a liar, and neither are the reporters for the Palm Beach Post whom she won't talk to. Bitch.
She was such a bitch that I didn't bother trying to tell her that sometimes you're legally and morally right, but you're politically on the wrong side. The HOA should have compromised and told Andres to put up a removable flagpole, and to remove it on lawn-mowing day. But the HOA, too, says it's fighting for principal.
People on both sides of this issue can go to hell. But don't believe that George Andres is some white knight fighting for principal. He's a rogue and an opportunist.
I don't dispute that the HOA may be able to legally enforce this rule currently. My beef is that checks and restrictions need to be placed on what rules can be made and enforced.
In a practical sense, I fail to see how a flagpole lowers anyone's property values, or affects them in any way. What if they don't like long, shaggy hair? Can hippies be banned from being seen in the yard? After all, the presence of hippies in the yard may lower property values across the street.
Metro99,
HOAs and coop boards don't operate the same way. You can easily buy a home in a neigborhood without being told the rules. That doesn't excuse misbehavior, but the situations are slightly different. In any community, there are certain laws such as noise abatement laws that all residents have to adhere to. But they can't take my home if I play my guitar at 3 a.m.
Michael in DC,
I agree with you that it's the point of giving a non-governmental body more power than you would give an elected government that bothers me. It bothers me when corporations do it, it bothers me when employers do it, it bothered me when the Army did it (I was drafted) and it bothers me when HOAs do it. Yes, as Emerson said, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" but sometime Emerson was drunk.
I live one block from this guy's house. I live under a different homeowner's association (and I'm secretary of mine).
Here's the deal with Andres and his fight with his HOA: He used to be on his HOA's board, and a group of dissatisfied homeowners tossed out the board. Andres decided to tweak them by installing a flagpole in his front yard. He didn't do it because of patriotism or principal. He did it to put a bug up the asses of the board members who overthrew him and his fellow board members.
His neighborhood consists of small townhouses with small front yards. A lawn service mows the yards. To make it easier and cheaper for everyone, the HOA has a rule that you can't place obstructions in your yard that would get in the way of the lawn equipment. That way, the yard service can run one swath all the way down the block (it's a long, semicircular block), then turn around and do another swatch down the block, instead of doing each yard individually.
By planting a flagpole in his front yard, Andres broke the HOA rule that was designed to help the lawn service do its job quickly, efficiently and cheaply.
Homeowners on that street are allowed to display flags on brackets attached to their homes. That's exactly what some of them do. Andres could do it, too. But that wouldn't provoke the board members who replaced him.
I have met the president of that homeowner association just once, and she's just as disagreeable as Andres seems to be (I've never met him, but I've seen him driving his big black pickup truck). She refuses to talk to the press because "they just print what they want." What a bitch. When she told me this, she was unaware that I'm a journalist. I'm not a liar, and neither are the reporters for the Palm Beach Post whom she won't talk to. Bitch.
She was such a bitch that I didn't bother trying to tell her that sometimes you're legally and morally right, but you're politically on the wrong side. The HOA should have compromised and told Andres to put up a removable flagpole, and to remove it on lawn-mowing day. But the HOA, too, says it's fighting for principal.
People on both sides of this issue can go to hell. But don't believe that George Andres is some white knight fighting for principal. He's a rogue and an opportunist.
Holden Lewis,
Thanks for the factual update. In that case I'd suggest that a responsible contingent of homeowners get together and quietly kick Andres' ass.
Holden: ok, stupid question, but...why can't they all just mow their own damn lawns? Or make him mow his own damn lawn? Is this one of them "over-55" type neighborhoods?
Anyway, thanks much for the context. I suspected there were no heroes here, but I still think it's an interesting case w/r/t the legal & constitutional issues involved.
I'm reminded of the old remark about academic politics--the fights are so vicious because the stakes are so small...
This shit makes me nuts. I have read the following on this thread:
"HOA's are, sometimes, a necessary evil. If you've ever lived nextdoor to someone who's yardkeeping skills are somewhat lacking, you know how frustrating it can be."
Um, no. I don't. I'm tolerant of a wide range of things that are none of my business.
"Now I live in a place without a HOA or covenants. I hate it. We have commercial trucks parked all over the place, unkept landscaping"
Oh horrors!! Commercial vehicles! They probably belong to people who *gasp* work with their hands! And unkempt landscaping ... how can you possibly cope??
" these convenants protect property values. That trumps flying a flag from a flagpole any day."
Property values trump flying the flag. *boggle*
"The point is that freedom is going down the tubes. The reason it is going down the tubes, is that nobody has any respect for it. Freedom means from the government and that's it. You can screw your neighbour over, but if it's the government? Raise holy hell."
Yep
Boycott HOAs folks. Unless, of course, you think neat grass matters more than freedom. In which case you deserve what you get.
This sort of thing doesn't sit well with me though. Did he know he was buying part of an association?
Yes. You are given a copy of the covenants, deeds and restrictions before the deed is transferred.
Unfortunately, if you want to live in Jupiter, Fla., you're almost certainly going to have to live in an HOA-governed community. Some are run more strictly than others. (Mine, for example, is the most live-and-let-live HOA in our umbrella community of nine HOAs, of which Andres's is one.)
If you don't like living by someone who puts a Chevy on blocks, on their property, move. It's not their job to keep your property value up.
It's their job if they live in a community with rules that say you can't put your car on blocks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but voluntary participation is a cornerstone of contract law, is it not?
Yes, and Andres voluntarily bought his townhouse. Furthermore, he voluntarily served on the HOA board, enforcing the HOA's rules. While he was on the board, either he never tried to overturn the flagpole/yard-obstruction rule, or didn't succeed. My bet is that it's the former. He probably could have pushed through a change in the yard-obstruction rule when he was on the HOA board, but he didn't. That was voluntary, too.
In that case I'd suggest that a responsible contingent of homeowners get together and quietly kick Andres' ass.
And then find some grownups to be on the board of their HOA.
Why can't they all just mow their own damn lawns? Or make him mow his own damn lawn? Is this one of them "over-55" type neighborhoods?
Hmmm ... That question never occurred to me. The lawns are quite small, and since they're townhouses, two homeowners share a front yard. If you saw the neighborhood, you instantly would see that it just makes sense to have a lawn service come over and mow all the yards at once. At least, that's the way it looks to me.
One other thing -- the flagpole is rather inconspicuous. Out of curiosity, I rode my bike down that street several times before I finally spotted the flagpole. It's not an eyesore.
Formatting note: the digit eight followed by a close parenthesis character apparently gets changed into a smiley face with glasses.
It has happened to my posts too.
Why can't they all just mow their own damn lawns? Or make him mow his own damn lawn? Is this one of them "over-55" type neighborhoods?
Hmmm ... That question never occurred to me. The lawns are quite small, and since they're townhouses, two homeowners share a front yard. If you saw the neighborhood, you instantly would see that it just makes sense to have a lawn service come over and mow all the yards at once. At least, that's the way it looks to me.
One other thing -- the flagpole is rather inconspicuous. Out of curiosity, I rode my bike down that street several times before I finally spotted the flagpole. It's not an eyesore.
One other thing and I'll shut up: The version of events that I gave -- about Andres once serving on the HOA board, then getting kicked out by dissatisfied residents -- is the version I was told by the bitchy president of the HOA. Caveat lector.
Thanks Holden for filling in the story. I'd suspected there had to be assholes on both sides for such a silly argument to go so far. When you have two people who can't distinguish between pettiness and principal, things are bound to escalate to absurd levels.
Boycott HOAs folks. Fine. You do what you have to do, Sasha. If you don't like the HOA, buy a house somewhere else. I like ours, and the rules are very relaxed. We all try to get along and have respect for each other. It's not just about what I want to do all the time. I also have consideration for others. Some here don't seem to be at all concerned with anyone but themselves. Okay. That's their choice.
Amen, gttim. I've said it before here and I'll say it again: There's nothing in those rules that I want to do and I don't want to live with people who do them. If you don't like your HOA move someplace where there isn't one and live with the crosses and right-wing paraphernalia all over the lawns and the flags of lots of organizations you are NOT gonna like.
Well, sure, pie: HOA's can be as useful and unintrusive as their members make them, just like PTA's, Co-op boards, fraternities/sororities, faculty committees, local party org's...any small-time politics you can name. They can also be places where petty personality conflicts escalate into WWIII. Depends on the maturity/pettiness and tolerance/prejudice of the folks involved.
But when HOA's and the like take on the powers of a de-facto local gov't, with the right to deprive people of liberty and/or property, can you see how that would strike some of us as a)dangerous precendent; b) contrary to our American "Don't Fence Me In" ideals; and c) possibly unconstitutional?
The fact that the folks on both sides here are probably being petty and small-minded is hardly surprising; and I still think that Atrios is onto something with the term "private government," which I think is a lot larger issue than just this old Marine & his flagpole.
As I said before, if any of the legal geniuses in Atriosland can clue me in on the legal history/issues here that'd be way cool.
pie....dont blame the lawyer. Chances are, he told the client everything you mention. ("We can make that argument, but the chances are pretty good we're gonna lose. And not only do you have to pay me, but you have to pay them, too." "I don't fucking care.") In the end, its the client's call on how he wants to go, and as long as the plan isn't violating court or professional condct rules, its the lawyer's job to do the best job he can for his client.
HOA's are private, and 99.9% of the time, can limit residents' constitutional rights in ways the government can't.
"If you don't like your HOA move someplace where there isn't one and live with the crosses and right-wing paraphernalia all over the lawns and the flags of lots of organizations you are NOT gonna like."
My God, redhead, what whacko community do you live in? We don't have an HOA in my neighborhood and we don't have those problems at all. In fact, everyone sort of laughs about the guy who's been building the sailboat in his driveway for the past 12 years. He and his family are great.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say maybe getting to know yur neighbors is the key. It'll make them more considerate and everyone else more tolerant. Just a Pollyanna thought. Now back to the real world.
Michael in DC. I'm only a lawyer, not a geius, but generally speaking, the Bill of Rights only provides protection from government action. You can thrown out of Camden Yards for wearing a "Ripken Sucks" shirt, but you can't get arrested just for wearing it, unless you refuse to leave when asked.
As to the overall question of private government, its a good point, but like with our "public government," you get the one you deserve. Think of Kramer running for President of the condo board in Seinfeld.
Here's the deal with Andres and his fight with his HOA: He used to be on his HOA's board, and a group of dissatisfied homeowners tossed out the board. Andres decided to tweak them by installing a flagpole in his front yard.
Oh yeah, now I remember - this was on "Seinfeld!"
But when HOA's and the like take on the powers of a de-facto local gov't, with the right to deprive people of liberty and/or property, can you see how that would strike some of us as a)dangerous precendent; b) contrary to our American "Don't Fence Me In" ideals; and c) possibly unconstitutional?
I absolutely see your point. But this is also true:
As to the overall question of private government, its a good point, but like with our "public government," you get the one you deserve.
It is possible to gather together as mature, respectful individuals and effect change. We don't have to necessarily live in a freaking fascist state because we live in an area with a HOA.
just have to point out...yesterday I followed Tbogg's link to get my very own "pimp name"...today we've got an extended thread on "HOA's"...hmmm.
I hate to say it but the guy should have read and understood the HOA agreement before he bought the house. I would never live under a HOA. Hell, I would never live in a subdivision. (Give me my two and a half acres with woods on two two sides. Privacy is a wonderful thing.)
I feel bad for the guy but he is the one that agreed to these limitations on his rights. And just to be clear, the issue is the flagpole and not his "patriotism" or the type of flag he chooses to fly. He could be flying an Eco-flag and still be in the same sh*t.
Homeowners Associations...
OMFG - Don't EVEN get me started.
I always say the last people you ever want to have power over you are your neighbors.
I can't even bring myself to be calm when it comes to this subject.
Well, all of this is making me feel much more kindly towards my condo board. We have a few, mostly utilitarian rules (ie, don't block fire exits or the city will fine us into bankruptcy) and violations are usually dealt with in a face-to-face neighborly manner.
Larry Kestenbaum,
You are a veritable cornucopia of information. Thanks on the tip.
OK, so what if someone wants to put up a similar sized flag and pole but this one with the Mexican flag (or what have you) on it? Okey Dokey? I doubt it.
Well, there was a different case recently of a guy who flew a UN flag rather than a US flag, and got shat upon by the HOA for doing so. That seems like a much more tendentious case than a rule saying 'don't install a huge fuck-off flagpole'.
Surely, though, there's a place for local government to determine the scope of HOA regulations? Particularly when the suburban spread of certain parts of the US means that it's barely possible to buy housing without being subject to these private guardians of aesthetics?
This is the same story featured on Scarborugh Country in which open support was given by Jeb Bush himself. I don't discredit this veteran's service to our country but waving the flag doesn't give you free reign to break contractual agreements. Don't even try to turn this into some kind of freedom of speech patriot crap.(See the Frasier episode where Frasier rails against the upstairs neighbor who drapes a massive American flag over his balcony.)
Heh heh heh. I gotta laugh. I'm having FUN FUN FUN with my neighbors right now. We do not, thank the cloud being, have a HOA.
I've lived in my house for 20 years, and always got along great with my neighbors, until recently. We've had some deaths, and other houses just changed hands...anyway, somebody new on my street didn't like the way I kept up my property (house needed painting - yeah, it did, but I was trying to repair it before painting it), and called the city on me. They called about all kinds of nit-picky little crap (like not having screens on all my windows), and even called the pound with lies about my dog. I mean, LIES. Lotsa hassle for me.
Apparently these people are concerned about their property values. So I moseyed down to the Home Depot and got some 'OOOPS' paint to ease their little brains. My house is now painted bright yellow, white, blue, green and lavender in front. I have two giant candy canes flanking my sidewalk, a 5 ft long tugboat (I think I'm gonna make a planter out of that), various flamingos, a tire planter (no plants yet, just the planter-man, turning a tire inside out is hard work! The wheel serves as a pedestal; the end result is very sophisticated, as you can imagine),a ceramic life sized cow skull, a Chinese dragon head, a plastic swan planter, a pink bowling ball, and I'm doing mosaic on two giant plastic Easter eggs. (Grouting tomorrow! EEEK!) I plan to build lavender shutters for the windows. Oh, I have a two foot Peace sign with flowers on it on my chimney. I DID have a 'No War on Iraq' banner stapled to the front of my house for awhile, but I took it down, 'cause, well...you know. Seemed pointless once the war started.
Found a great forum on GardenWeb called 'Garden Junk'. OH, it's been a help in my quest to improve the curb appeal of my home. If only I could find a gnome...I trash pick most of my decorations, and make the rest. I was gonna make a toilet fountain/planter, but my SO put his foot down. What a fuddy-duddy!
I sure hope my neighbors appreciate all the improvements I've made. It's been a lot of work, but it's worth it to be a good neighbor. And I've discovered the hidden artist inside myself, as a bonus! Wow! We're ALL winners!
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
