COL Barfoot -Threads Merged - Page 2 - SOCNET

Section8 · #1 3 December 2009, 23:32

So As I understand the general consensus here is that we should all bow down to a HOA because they are right and we are sheople. They are above the federal and state statues. Interesting!!!

SOTB · #2 3 December 2009, 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section8

....and we are sheople....

Aww, look -- someone who meets the definition of melodramatic....

Section8 · #3 3 December 2009, 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOTB

Aww, look -- someone who meets the definition of melodramatic....

Patriotism is what this country is founded on!!!

"Stand for something or fall for everything" ............... your call!

AJG · #4 6 December 2009, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section8

So As I understand the general consensus here is that we should all bow down to a HOA because they are right and we are sheople. They are above the federal and state statues. Interesting!!!

No. The consensus is that you should follow rules that you voluntarily agreed to follow. Its called a contract.

KidA · #5 4 December 2009, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyr

I don't want the value of my house going down because someone setup an auto repair shop out of their garage

Shit that'd make me pay more for yours...

Dude lives in a place with an HOA. Sucks for him. What's next? Oh well this guy has a Presidential Medal of Freedom, who cares if he paints his house bright green? And this guy lost two legs in Iraq, let him play Motley Crue in his back yard on 11. And this woman is a Nun, so what if she has 30 cats?

Want to paint your house green, sit out naked with your stereo on 11, raise a permanent flagpole and have 30 cats?

Move to a place that doesn't have HOAs.

#6 3 December 2009, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longrifle

Link

Spin it any way you want, to me it's not about a flagpole. It's about the flag.

Absolutely. I read about this last night and think it's bullshit. I can't imagine his flag pole being that big of a distraction.

Section8 · #7 4 December 2009, 00:07

To answer the original posters question: No we do not need another law. We just need the current one removed!

KidA · #8 4 December 2009, 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section8

To answer the original posters question: No we do not need another law. We just need the current one removed!

What current one? There's no law saying I can't put up a flagpole in my yard. I can go put one up right now in fact.

But I don't live in a neighborhood with a voluntary HOA that has rules and statues I agreed to abide by.

mdb23 · #9 4 December 2009, 00:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by tip001

Absolutely. I read about this last night and think it's bullshit. I can't imagine his flag pole being that big of a distraction.

Right, but if they make an exception in his case, then they are going to have a hard time enforcing the stipulation in other cases.....a legal landmine to say the least. I think the following quote sums it up quite well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P38

My HOA has tried to be lenient on some things, but as soon as you allow one person to do their own thing with a flagpole, another thinks that justifies building a brick religious monument in their front yard. Literally, and it was a fricking shrine.

And finally, +10000 on the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by P38

I resent people making personal issues 'Patriotic' issues to win their way.

Section8 · #10 4 December 2009, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23

The first amendment states that the govt shall pass no law prohibiting free speech. This is not what is happening here, and is therefore not a first amendment issue.

This gentleman entered into a legally binding civil contract when he purchsed his home and signed on the dotted line with the HOA. It was a choice that he made. If the contract said "no flag poles," then he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. It's that simple.

I don't like HOAs, which is why I didn't buy a home in a neighborhood that had one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23

Right, but if they make an exception in his case, then they are going to have a hard time enforcing the stipulation in other cases.....a legal landmine to say the least.

Fair enough.

So..........how do display a flag without a flag pole?

Lets also keep in mind this:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RL30243.pdf

Last paragraph...

Quote:
Restrictions on Display of the Flag by
Real Estate Associations
The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 200556 prohibits a
condominium, cooperative, or real estate management association from adopting or
enforcing any policy or agreement that would restrict or prevent a member of the
association from displaying the flag in accordance with the Federal Flag Code on
residential property to which the member has a separate ownership interest.

mdb23 · #11 4 December 2009, 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section8

Lets also keep in mind this:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RL30243.pdf

Last paragraph...

Quote:
Restrictions on Display of the Flag by
Real Estate Associations
The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 200556 prohibits a
condominium, cooperative, or real estate management association from adopting or
enforcing any policy or agreement that would restrict or prevent a member of the
association from displaying the flag in accordance with the Federal Flag Code on
residential property to which the member has a separate ownership interest.

They aren't prohibiting him from displaying the flag, merely stating that he cannot have a flagpole in his yard. There are other ways to display the flag.

Decon · #12 4 December 2009, 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section8

Fair enough.

So..........how do display a flag without a flag pole?

Lets also keep in mind this:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RL30243.pdf

Last paragraph...

Quote:
Restrictions on Display of the Flag by
Real Estate Associations
The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 200556 prohibits a
condominium, cooperative, or real estate management association from adopting or
enforcing any policy or agreement that would restrict or prevent a member of the
association from displaying the flag in accordance with the Federal Flag Code on
residential property to which the member has a separate ownership interest.

Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005:
SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with--

(1) any provision of chapter 1 of title 4, United States Code, or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag of the United States (as established pursuant to such chapter or any otherwise applicable provision of law); or

(2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association.

#13 4 December 2009, 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23

Right, but if they make an exception in his case, then they are going to have a hard time enforcing the stipulation in other cases.....a legal landmine to say the least. I think the following quote sums it up quite well.:

That's a good point. I just feel bad because he is a 90 y/o MOH recipient who deserves to display the flag. But you're right.

Sigi · #14 4 December 2009, 02:08

Oh for Christ's sake, legal shmegal. The man is a MOH recipient. Give the man his flag pole and move forward.

Richard · #15 4 December 2009, 08:22

Personally - I don't understand why the COL and the HOA cannot reach a compromise which would make an exception to honor his MOH status within the community by (1) allowing him to properly fly the flag until he dies and then (2) either remove the pole or (3) move it to an appropriate place of agreed upon honor within the community and place a plaque at its base with the good COLs information on it.

Kinda makes me wonder if there isn't more to the issue and who's pissed whom off around that neighborhood.

Richard's $.02

sfmedicw9 · #16 6 December 2009, 14:28

I understand its about the pole in the yard - he's wrong by the letter of the law - given

I have never understood why people move into neighborhoods with a HA

Why would anyone subject themselves to little Nazi busybodies?? I mean these are people that actually think its important that their precious little grass i trimmed correctly, They think it actually matters that everything looks like Ward and June Cleavers House

Fuck I would just as soon rather these little twerps would just do the little lemming thing and jump off a cliff. If your worried how your precious little toys look to the point of it actually causes you to give a damn - your living a worthless life anyhow - you need to get a life

SOTB · #17 6 December 2009, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfmedicw9

I mean these are people that actually think its important that their precious little grass i trimmed correctly....If your worried how your precious little toys look to the point of it actually causes you to give a damn - your living a worthless life anyhow - you need to get a life

I suppose I live a worthless life, then....

sfmedicw9 · #18 6 December 2009, 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOTB

I suppose I live a worthless life, then....

No No No

Im talking about those that get upset over this stupid shit. Those that actually make it there business to get confrontational over someones elses lawn or how they choose to paint their own house

Or those that maintain that sterile suburbia neatly trimmed Ward Cleaver shit to the point they think that somehow it matters in the grand scheme of things.

No offence meant to anyone here

P38 · #19 6 December 2009, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfmedicw9

Why would anyone subject themselves to little Nazi busybodies?? I mean these are people that actually think its important that their precious little grass i trimmed correctly, They think it actually matters that everything looks like Ward and June Cleavers House

Fuck I would just as soon rather these little twerps would just do the little lemming thing and jump off a cliff. If your worried how your precious little toys look to the point of it actually causes you to give a damn - your living a worthless life anyhow - you need to get a life

1. I like my home owners association, the "Nazi busybodies" don't control it, and I can fly the American flag on my property any day of the week.

2. As to "your living a worthless life anyhow", that's just such a stupid statement that I don't even know how to respond to it. What do you know about me?

The Fat Guy · #20 6 December 2009, 20:13

What a bunch of shithouse lawyers we all are.

Read the good Colonel's story again. Its not about the flagpole, its about the fight! Its about his ability to stay alive and fight for what he thinks is right. I would hate to say that he would probably get sick or worse if he were to win this case and then have nothing to fight for.

NOTE: This is the opinion of someone who never has and never will live under the fascist rule of a home owners association, which is really just a collection of uppity sheep that desperately wish they were born as sheep dogs or wolves. This is their next best thing for them, controlling lesser sheep.

mdb23 · #21 6 December 2009, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Fat Guy

What a bunch of shithouse lawyers we all are.

NOTE: This is the opinion of someone who never has and never will live under the fascist rule of a home owners association, which is really just a collection of uppity sheep that desperately wish they were born as sheep dogs or wolves. This is their next best thing for them, controlling lesser sheep.

I think at least one person in the thread is an actual lawyer of the non shithouse variety.

I don't live in a neighborhood with a HOA, but I think your description of those who do is, at best, unfair. Not every issue in the world is one of patriotism, sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. Some things are just simple economics.

A lot of people save for years to buy the home of their dreams. Other people buy a home in the hopes of selling it, making a profit, and moving one step closer to the home that they dream of. In either case, I can understand the fear that someone will move in next door, let their grass grow waist high, and paint their fucking home purple, making your home an unsellable piece of shit...... for people in these situations, I can understand the appeal of a HOA.

I know of one neighborhood where a guy moved in and erected huge (car sized) models of the space shuttle, a rocket, and even built a brick tower in his back yard. The dude was a nutter...... now if you are the person next door, who wants to buy your house? Nobody.

The simple fact is that the Colonel signed a contract. If he didn't like the rules, then he shouldn't have signed it. I respect that man greatly for what he has done, but I respectfully think that he is in the wrong here.....

Mother · #22 6 December 2009, 22:57

Some on this site that have commented about this issue may not have lived in a townhome type community with an HOA and are confused on the facts.

“Barfoot had sought permission to install the pole shortly after he moved into the community — a complex of townhouses where the grounds are community property — last June. The board denied his request in July.”

The key words there are “community property”. No one is saying he cannot fly the flag nor have a flag pole, they are saying he can’t do it on the piece of land that is considered an area that is used by the entire community. Granted, most townhome type communities do not have much private property aside from the living structure but as stated by others there are other ways of displaying the flag that would not violate any rules.

Maybe what I should be saying is; Read the whole story.

#23 7 December 2009, 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mother

Some on this site that have commented about this issue may not have lived in a townhome type community with an HOA and are confused on the facts.

“Barfoot had sought permission to install the pole shortly after he moved into the community — a complex of townhouses where the grounds are community property — last June. The board denied his request in July.”

The key words there are “community property”. No one is saying he cannot fly the flag nor have a flag pole, they are saying he can’t do it on the piece of land that is considered an area that is used by the entire community. Granted, most townhome type communities do not have much private property aside from the living structure but as stated by others there are other ways of displaying the flag that would not violate any rules.

Maybe what I should be saying is; Read the whole story.

If the HOA was smart, they would have approved his request, put in a flagpole at the entrance to the community at their own expense and politely asked the Colonel if he would take care of raising and lowering the flag there. They then would have got coverage from a local newspaper and TV stations of their community.

#24 7 December 2009, 01:31

For many veterans, and particularly the WWII veterans I know well, the reverence paid to the United States through the act of hoisting its flag is anything but a passive endeavor. It is a solemn ritual which reminds them of the commitment they made to the United States to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic,” and that they would, “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” This remains a lifelong oath for many veterans, as it does for me.
<o></o>
Our country and Constitution, and reverence for the same should come first in our thoughts when we enact rules for our various organizations, but it doesn't happen.

#25 7 December 2009, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi Brr

My Post

The letter I wrote is attached. Sometimes getting folks to see the bigger picture may be all it takes. I hope that's what I conveyed. I'll take the heat from you guys, either way... I'm not holding my breath for success, but, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I believe there's a fundamental issue of being able to display the flag. It's not a Barney flag or a flower flag, it's out national standard.

The text:
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:SimSun; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-alt:宋体; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format

ther; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@SimSun"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} span.articlefont {mso-style-name:article_font; mso-style-unhide:no;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style>
Dear Mr. Wilson and Members of the Sussex Square Service,
<o></o>
I am writing you in support of Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Colonel Van T. Barfoot effort to fly the United States flag atop a flag pole in front of his house.
<o></o>
While I understand the rules of the home-owners association may prohibit alterations to the front of one’s domicile, I ask you and your members of the association to reconsider your stance with regard to display of our national standard, not only for the sake of a brother veteran, but for any
<o></o>
I further understand you allow your association’s members to passively display the American flag off of one’s house. I assure you that for many veterans, the reverence paid to the United States through the act of hoisting its flag is anything but a passive endeavor. It is a solemn ritual which reminds them of the commitment they made to the United States to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic,” and that they would, “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” This remains a lifelong oath for many veterans, as it does for me.
<o></o>
American citizen who wishes to exhibit pride in his nation by doing the same. Our country and Constitution, and reverence for the same should come first in our thoughts when we enact rules for our various organizations. The brethren of VFW Post 9086 implore you and your members to reconsider the Association’s position regarding the display of our national standard from a flagpole for all citizens who reside within the scope of its influence.

#26 7 December 2009, 01:34

In reference to, "There oughtta be a law"...

The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 prohibits a condominium, cooperative, or real estate management association from adopting or enforcing any policy or agreement that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag in accordance with the Federal Flag Code on residential property to which the member has a separate ownership interest.

The question here comes up in the last section of the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 (http://www.govtrack.us/con<wbr>gress/billtext.xpd?bill=h1<wbr>09-42)

Section 4: Limitations
(1) any provision of chapter 1 of title 4, United States Code, or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag of the United States (as established pursuant to such chapter or any otherwise applicable provision of law); or

(2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association.

In regards to the flag pole and the HOA rules, the 2 paragraphs come into conflict within that law. With the HOA denying the use of a flag pole, which is established under customs and rules of proper display of the US Flag, then is it reasonable for an HOA to deny that proper use for concerns of neighborhood aesthetics?

In what way does a flag pole detract or harm the visual appeal of the neighborhood, and is the HOA within their rights/authority to ask for its removal?

These are the likely key questions a judge would want answers for in court to make a ruling.

Outofcontrol · #27 7 December 2009, 07:52

Im sad to see this issue turn into a circus. I think a damning issue for the HOA in this matter is that the good Col. states in the article that "he cannot get any communication from them." In most any dispute resolution case, it is usually defered to arbitration (if not already outlined that way in the contract), and is looked down upon by "Triple A" (American Arbitration Assoc....not the car people) when one of the parties is shown to be less than reasonably communicative.

Personally, Im still scratching my head why the HOA had a problem with a flag pole to begin with? I mean...its just a flag pole.

The good Col. could tell them that he is donating the flagpole and its care and maintenance to the community.

OOC, out

KidA · #28 7 December 2009, 10:18

All I'm saying is I want to buy the house across the street from the guy with the flag, and nestled between the dude who works on cars in his garage and yard on one side, and the "nutter" who builds models of spaceships on the other.

SOTB · #29 7 December 2009, 10:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by KidA

All I'm saying is I want to buy the house across the street from the guy with the flag, and nestled between the dude who works on cars in his garage and yard on one side, and the "nutter" who builds models of spaceships on the other.

Move to any location between FL-VA-WV-TX, without a HAO, and you will find at least 2 out of three. You might get an added bonus of pretty police lights responding to drunken spouses fighting at 0300 on Fri and Sat nights....

Mother · #30 7 December 2009, 10:54

Not that I'm backing the actions of the HOA but the fact of the entire thread is that the good Col. constructed something against his CC&R's on community property.
I agree with Green Hat, that would have been a great gesture. Maybe the HOA could have worked with the Col. to erect the flagpole on a piece of property that is part of the Col. property.
Unfortunatly the HOA might not have the liberty to allow the flagpole to stay on community property in fear of being inundated (I can hear the retorts now) with other special requests for community land use.
Yes! Raising the American flag every morning is held in highest of respect to many Americans and I applaud the Col. for the dedication he has for his country in both past and present actions and if he can continue doing so and not violate regulations that he has voluntarily agreed to that would be a great ending to an unfortunate issue.