#32
|
|||
|
|||
To answer the original posters question: No we do not need another law. We just need the current one removed!
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by mdb23; 4 December 2009 at 00:19. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by mdb23; 4 December 2009 at 00:19. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. John Adams |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"Your honor, I understand the purpose of the HOA and am sure they serve a wonderful purpose. However, we are talking about restricting the first amendment rights of a man who risked his life for our nation." |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I have a legal right to burn a flag.....which means that the govt cannot come after me (legally) if I do so. However, if I have signed a contract with a HOA stating that I will not burn anything on my property, and then burn a flag in my front yard, the HOA can still take legal action for violation of the agreement. That's not a first amendment violation. It's no different than accepting a private sector job where there are codes of conduct that I must stipulate to in order to get hired....I may have freedom of speech, but if I choose to hand out pro life literature to every customer that comes through my KMart checkout lane, my employer can still fire can fire me...... Well, I have a right to burn a flag.....but if I enter into a binding agreement that says I won't burn anything on my property, then I can still get sued by the HOA.... In both cases, the govt isn;t taking any action against me...a private entity is based upon authority that I gave them by entering into a binding agreement... This may suck, but it isn;t a violation of freedom of speech. Last edited by mdb23; 4 December 2009 at 01:21. |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
While the government may not be able to restrict certain rights... you sure as all hell can sign them away in a private contract. From initial very tired read it doesn't sound like he has much leg to stand on "legally." On the other hand the HOA is human and if enough media attention gets involved including as someone mentioned a senator they could very quickly vote to amend the agreement and make an exception. plus most contracts these days have a clause that says "just because we choose not to enforce our rights in this case doesn't mean we give up the option to enforce these rights in other cases / in the future" aka if you enter into a contract to pay x amount on y date, but end up paying it late on z date 3 times in a row and the lender doesn't call the loan and accelerate / ask for damages... doesn't mean they can't do it on the 4th time, or to your neighbor that does the same thing. - Local |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I agree in terms of the law. But reality is that a lawyer works emotion as well as the law. And regardless of how the law favors the HOA, this lawsuit will shoot them in the foot if played properly. Finally, the First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) protects our rights from the government... but those rights exist regardless. The concept on which the USA was founded is that those rights are inalienable... so, although the First Amendment protects us from the government infringing on them, the basic concept of inalienable rights means that no one has the right to infringe on those rights (as long as they don't infringe on others). I think a good lawyer could make the HOA wish they had never denied that application. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
True. However, it is not an infringement if the individual knowingly, and of their own free will, enters into a private agreement which governs their conduct and/or activity.
Last edited by mdb23; 4 December 2009 at 02:04. |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Oh for Christ's sake, legal shmegal. The man is a MOH recipient. Give the man his flag pole and move forward.
__________________
* bravodelta: "If they start taxing lapdances, I think I'll call it quits and become a chaplain." Chaplain: "God moves in mysterious ways...", but ... well.... uhh... welcome aboard! |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB[/size] |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But I don't live in a neighborhood with a voluntary HOA that has rules and statues I agreed to abide by.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB[/size] |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time.... |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
I think it is a stupid ass decision by the HOA. Yeah they had their rules, etc. but if they really stopped to think about the NEGATIVE press they would have (and now are receiving) because of this issue - they might have decided to turn the other cheek. I mean, really, it's a flagpole - not a trashy trailer or some shit. According to the article the neighbors don't mind anyway. Sure the HOA is in the "legal right," but now they look like ass to a lot of people and people know about the area and this issue and many may think twice when moving somewhere in that area. Wonder what THAT will do to their precious home values.
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Easiest solution:
Allow a flagpole at the entrance to the subdivision that the MOH recipient attends to daily. Done and done.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB[/size] |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As stated previously in this thread, there are "protections" already in place regarding flying the flag on your property, including within an area covered by an HOA. IE, there is FLORIDA. I think people might find that the HOA in this instance does have rules, so does the State of FL, and these rules did not prevent this vet from flying a flag. Some orgs are forward-thinking and looking to prevent issues from occurring -- some of the readers of this thread will state there are no issues when flying a flag. Whatever. To those with a desire to have an open mind, read that link. I lived in Westchase when THIS issue was big news. I supported the HOA's ruling -- except when it voted to lower the fine. There is more to the issue than just putting up a sign to say you support the troops. Some people won't see that. I'm sure that I can now have the obligatory comments about my patriotism as well. Right. 'Cause I sure as fuck haven't EVER done anything that could be termed as supporting my country....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time.... |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
On one hand, I see the point of those who say "Hey, he signed a contract". I really don't think anybody should be idiotic enough to live somewhere with an HOA at all unless they want to obey all kinds of gay rules.
Then again, what if the HOA made a rule like "No African Americans shall visit said property" or "No acts of oral copulation shall be permitted within the premises"? Is that okay because he signed it? Or would everybody say that is unconstitutional. So isn't it unconstitutional to prohibit the display of an American flag? What if the flag was gigantic and said "Go fuck yourself, fuckers" on it instead of being a patriotic flag? I don't know what to think. Easy solution is don't live where there is an HOA.
__________________
Quote:
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
This is the solution:
Quote:
Now if Virginia (and other states) had something like this . . .
__________________
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry "Sēlre bið æghwæm þæt hē his frēond wrece, þonne hē fela murne." ~Bēowulf, bearn Ecgþēowes “So, let it rock on-“ Gen’l (R) Thomas S. Woodward, Wheeling, La, 2 May, 1857 |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Of course different states will interpret it differently. But, here in Nebraska several years ago, and HOA took a guy to court for painting his house an obnoxious purple. The court sided with the homeowner, saying that private property trumped the HOA rules.
On a similar side note. My Uncle, was taken to court by his neighbors back in the 1980's, for flying his flag. They said it was too loud. My uncle was a vet, and head of civilian security at White Sands missle base. The original suit agianst him was won by the neighbor. My uncle took it to the NM supreme court, and they threw it out. It's been awhile so my memory is hazy. I do rememeber Paul Harvey talking about it,and it was in People magazine as well.
__________________
Be nice, until it's time to not be nice! |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
[QUOTE=Local;1231768]On the other hand the HOA is human and if enough media attention gets involved including as someone mentioned a senator they could very quickly vote to amend the agreement and make an exception./QUOTE]
Yeah, kinda, but no not really. The HOA is a not-for-profit entity that is controlled by humans subject to articles, bylaws and CC&Rs. If the developer is still in control and reserved the right to amend the provision at issue, then yes, it is likely an easy fix. If, however, turnover has occurred, then it will likely require the consent of a certain percentage (as least a majority) of the homeowners, which can be an uphill battle for even the most logical of requests. Having to go back to the homeowners is almost always a worst case scenario. |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Agreed - a great fix. I could not open the article so in case it does not correctly reflect the law, Section 720.304 provides in pertinent part: Quote:
|
#58
|
||||
|
||||
OK, last post in this thread tonight - sorry, I am a dirt lawyer at heart....
Quote:
LOL. Yep, don't purchase or rent in a deed restricted community if you don't like the rules. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
For a background on the rise of H.O.A.s, and the problems they have created, read this article (2,200 words) from seven years ago.
And then visit Evan McKenzie's blog. He used to be an H.O.A. lawyer. The choice of whether or not to live in an H.O.A. is not a simple matter of consumer choice as H.O.A. proponents make it out to be. Quote:
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
And continuing with the thought of "choice," see
www.bethyoung.org/ibeth/2008/08/hoas-r-on-ur-pr.html (emphasis added. See original for all hyper-links): Quote:
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|