COL Barfoot -Threads Merged - Page 6 - SOCNET | Special Operations | SOF | Military

#76 7 December 2009, 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

Because that law would be violating federal laws and probably state laws also, depending on what state you are in.

If a lawyer could demonstrate that this rule is violating a federal law or a basic principle on which the United States is founded, would that not constitute a similar circumstance?

A number of people have stated that he is allowed to display a flag, just not on a flagpole.

However, by denying him his flagpole, isn't the HOA denying him the ability to raise and lower the flag in a manner consistent with military protocal and pay respects to that flag in a manner which is indicative of his status as a recipient of the Medal of Honor?

Quote:

Frankly, I'm not sure the Florida statute would withstand a constitutional challenge under Article I, Section 10, which provides that "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. But that's just a quick thought off the top of my head, which I admit to not having researched.

I believe that argument was used pre-civil war to enforce the pursuit of slaves. I'm not sure I'd want to make an argument that called on that as precedence.

#77 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.

#78 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.

#79 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 · #80 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 · #81 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 · #82 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 · #83 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.

#84 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.

#85 7 December 2009, 23:53

Good letter, Psi Brr. Well said.

#86 9 December 2009, 00:04

Good news abounds!:

http://www.*******.com/story/0,2933,579773,00.html

#87 9 December 2009, 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi Brr

Good news abounds!:

http://www.*******.com/story/0,2933,579773,00.html

Outstanding.

RGR.Montcalm · #88 10 December 2009, 11:34

Good news indeed...

Washington Post
December 10, 2009
Pg. B1

War Hero Wins Battle Over Flagpole

By Christian Davenport

The Great Flagpole Dispute of 2009 started last summer when Van T. Barfoot, a retired Army colonel who single-handedly took on three Nazi tanks in World War II, moved to the Sussex Square neighborhood near Richmond to be closer to his daughter. Barfoot believes in flying the colors of the nation he loves, so he erected a flagpole in his front yard.

Like thousands of developments across the country, Sussex Square is governed by a homeowners association, which controls the neighborhood's aesthetics. The association ordered Barfoot, a 90-year-old Medal of Honor recipient, to remove his flagpole.

By the time the flagpole battle ended this week, after threats of litigation, accusations of anti-Americanism and indignation that spilled far beyond the development's boundaries to become fodder for a nation of talking heads and blogging pundits, even Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and the Obama administration had chimed in.

In the end, it took the combined forces of the American Legion, members of Congress, untold numbers of sympathetic veterans and the spokesman for the leader of the free world to persuade the homeowners association to back off its threat to sue a war hero. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) finally brokered a deal that will allowBarfoot to keep his flagpole.

"All my life, from childhood to now, I have been able to fly the flag," Barfoot told supporters standing outside his house Wednesday. "In the time I have left, I plan to continue to fly the American flag without interference."

The rules at Sussex Square are simple: "no building, fence, flagpole, wall, improvement or other structure" may be put up without the association's approval. Like the nearly 60 million Americans who live in communities governed by homeowners associations, Barfoot and his neighbors must seek approval before even painting their house a different color.

Still, when Barfoot erected his 21-foot-tall flagpole, said his attorney, John Honey, "he believed he was within his legal rights."

The legalities quickly became secondary to the explosion of outrage about what appeared to many to be a suppression of patriotism. After the association ordered removal of the flagpole, Richmond area news outlets reported on the controversy. Soon, there was a "We Support Col Van T. Barfoot's (Ret) Effort To Fly The U.S. Flag" page on ******** (as of Wednesday: 48,000 members and counting). Outraged bloggers posted and tweeted the name and phone number of the association's president, urging people to give him an earful.

The American Legion issued a statement saying that the homeowners association "underestimated the fight left in this elderly veteran, and now they have to contend with the determination and persistence of Col. Barfoot's 2.5 million friends in The American Legion."

Barfoot is known in Virginia for his wartime heroism and his service in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. His Medal of Honor citation credits his "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity" while fighting in Italy in 1944. Barfoot took out two enemy machine gun perches, which led to the surrender of a third. Later, he "took up an exposed position directly in front of three advancing Mark VI tanks" and fired on one with a bazooka, scaring the other two away. Earlier this year, Virginia's legislature named a stretch of Route 16 the "Col. Van T. Barfoot Medal of Honor Highway."

So when news of the flagpole battle flared, officials rallied around the war hero. Kaine said it was "ridiculous" that the association was requiring Barfoot to take the flagpole down. On Monday, during a briefing that dealt mainly with the environment, the economy, health care and Afghanistan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he thought it was "silly" that Barfoot "can't have a flagpole and show the proper respect and appreciation that any flag deserves by flying that in their neighborhood." And on Tuesday, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) introduced a resolution seeking to allow Medal of Honor recipients "to properly display the flag" on their property.

But the homeowners association said it never had a problem with the flag -- residents may fly flags that are mounted to the sides of their homes, and many do. The problem was with the pole. By requesting its removal, the association said in a statement, it was "discharging its duty to all the owners in the neighborhood." The request was "never intended . . . as an affront to [Barfoot's] patriotism." Calls to the association president were not returned.

The association's rules might seem overly burdensome, even petty, to those who think property owners should be able to do as they wish on their land. But such restrictions are common and are designed to "protect property values, maintain the look and curb appeal of a community and to meet the established expectations of the neighborhood," said Frank Rathbun, spokesman for the Community Associations Institute.

Barfoot's fight was not the first time a homeowner has clashed with an association over flags. In 2005, Congress passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Md.) guaranteeing the right to fly a flag in communities governed by homeowners associations, as long as residents do so in accordance with association rules.

Sally Hedleston, who lives two doors down from Barfoot, called him a "lovely gentleman" and said she has no objection to the flagpole. She said residents warned the association board that if it didn't approve Barfoot's request, "this is going to get national attention and we're going to be considered jerks and very unpatriotic. And that's what happened."

SOTB · #89 10 December 2009, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sally Hedleston

...."this is going to get national attention and we're going to be considered jerks and very unpatriotic...."

Yup. All of those people (some who may very well be vets themselves) who fly flags from mounts on their houses get to be thrown in the "unpatriotic" category. Yippee....

RGR.Montcalm · #90 10 December 2009, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOTB

Yup. All of those people (some who may very well be vets themselves) who fly flags from mounts on their houses get to be thrown in the "unpatriotic" category. Yippee....

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the vets that fly their flag from posts on their houses didn't vote against this guy.

just sayin'

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode