[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
FWIW the “best” HOAs I’m aware of are the ones that are so informal as to barely even be noticed by its residents. My mother lives in a rural subdivision with such an HOA. There’s no rules about uniformity in house appearance, all of the homes weren’t built by the same developer, but the HOA was rather formed voluntarily long after the homes had been built. About the most notice anyone ever pays to the HOA is when this little old lady who has been its treasurer for years comes by once every year to collect money for the road fund, which periodically has the roads repaved and pays to have them salted in the winter.
Aside from that there are only the barest of regulations, and most of them I agree with. This particular subdivision is in a county that has very little property regulations, for example its a county famed for having mansions next to mobile homes. Within the subdivision a few very basic rules (no livestock, no abandoned automobiles and etc.) help to set the subdivision apart from the surrounding county and keep property values high and the neighborhood looking nice.
[/QUOTE]
This is a different situation in which it makes perfect sense to have a HOA! If I lived in a place that is unincorporated or rural and doesn’t have a lot of zoning restrictions or property regulations, and where the homeowners need to provide basic maintenance or care, I would probably want one, too! I actually live in a place where there are restrictions on changing the facade of your house, due to it being a historic district. They aren’t too strict, though…several 100-year-old houses within the district have been completely gutted, added onto, and turned into 8- or 10-unit townhomes…but the outside of the house looks the same. This is happening to a house across the street from us, and truth be told, we kind of like the idea of having progress and maintaining the “look” of the street at the same time. (Although the extra congestion we don’t need…but that’s another story!) The point being that I’m not TOTALLY opposed to a little regulation of what people can do with their property, but some of these HOAs are just silly. Such as in my brother’s subdivision, which is a nice, upper-middle-class set of homes, which all look alike, and all have perfectly manciured lawns, and are all basically the same color, and have very little in the way of any kind of personality. Yuck.
[QUOTE=rjung]
Why do I get the feeling that the pissed-off president of the HOA is really distraught over the Republicans’ “thumpin’” a few weeks ago, and decided to emulate his hero in consolidating his executive powers?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Firebringer]
The symbol is that of CND an anti nuclear protest group although it would appear to have expanded in meaning over time. symbol
[/QUOTE]
The peace symbol, today, is entirely generic. It now has about as much to do with nukes as “OK” has to do with Martin Van Buren. Under normal circumstances, you have to be a prick to interpret it as a political symbol - and you would have to be a moron to think it’s Satanic. But Kearns is probably a prick, and in any 200 occupied homes, you’ll be able to find plenty of idiots. Especially if they’re in a subdivision like this.
[QUOTE=wring]
good grief. Is nothing safe from this? I would believe that this same scenario would have happened last year w/no election, two years ago w/Repubs winning.
[/QUOTE]
As the article linked in the OP says, one of the primary argument against the peace wreath is because “some say [it] is an anti-Iraq war protest” and “residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq”. Throw in the fact that HOA president Bob Kearns “fired all five committee members” after they didn’t share his view that the wreath was a problem, and it’s not difficult to speculate the real problem is Mr. Kearns being particularly prickly about the Iraq war this year.
Thanks rjung there weren’t enough threads about George Bush, the GOP, and the Iraq War on this forum already. If it wasn’t for your brave efforts here I think the SDMB may actually have completely forgot any of those things even existed.
and this connects to the fucking election, how? that, of course, was your contention. Not that the prick had a pro Bush agenda, but that his actions were because of the ‘thumpin’ of the most recent election, presuming, of course, that he’d have acted differently had the election not turned out the way it had.
Of which, your proof is zip, de nada.
Yet it was somehow in your fucking brain that yet another fucking thread should follow your own anti anything remotely tangental to Bush refrain.
I beg of you - give it a mother fucking rest already. If other liberals are fed up to their fucking eyeballs with your never ending tirade, can you imagine how the fence sitters are? CHrist.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Thanks rjung there weren’t enough threads about George Bush, the GOP, and the Iraq War on this forum already. If it wasn’t for your brave efforts here I think the SDMB may actually have completely forgot any of those things even existed.
[/QUOTE]
No kidding. It’s like there’s a contest to see who can find the most creative way to bring up these subjects in threads that have nothing to do with politics whatsoever. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
No kidding. It’s like there’s a contest to see who can find the most creative way to bring up these subjects in threads that have nothing to do with politics whatsoever.
[/QUOTE]
In that case, rjung loses, as his hammer-looking-for-nails methodology is many things, but creative is not one of them.
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
In that case, rjung loses, as his hammer-looking-for-nails methodology is many things, but creative is not one of them.
[/QUOTE]
I think you are right…I used the wrong word. What’s a term for trying to make a subject into something it’s not, just to further your own efforts in getting your message across? Can’t think of one right now!
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
What’s a term for trying to make a subject into something it’s not, just to further your own efforts in getting your message across?
[/QUOTE]
The term you want is “transmutational asshattery”.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
The term you want is “transmutational asshattery”.
[/QUOTE]
I like it, and never would have come up with it in a million years. Thank you!
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Thanks rjung there weren’t enough threads about George Bush, the GOP, and the Iraq War on this forum already. If it wasn’t for your brave efforts here I think the SDMB may actually have completely forgot any of those things even existed.
[/QUOTE]
This is too weird, I agree with your position on the condo associations and what you said about **rjung ** in this thread. I think this is a first.
Bullshit on this pile-on. The whole bit about the peace symbol being interpreted as “antii Iraq war” was right there in the fucking news story. It’s quite reasonable, under the circumstances, to speculate that the Kearns guy is being driven in his asshatery by some sore loser stuff. rjung didn’t have do a lot of reaching to get that.
One point I want to make, with relation to the comment dozens of posts back that the HOA would probably win a court case if it comes down to that, is that there’s a SCOTUS decision, dating from something like 1948, that states that “restrictive covenants” (which is what agreeing to abide by HOA rules technicallyare) will not be enforced if they are against “public policy.” (The case in point was restrictive covenants running with the property, in Kansas City or St. Louis IIRC, that said the property would not be sold to black persons.)
The banning of a peace wreath at Christmas season on the basis that the HOA President thinks that it is “satanic” is absolutely grounds for finding it against public policy. As an antiwar symbol, as the story notes, debatable how a court would read that. But if I were her Colorado lawyer any further left than Dr. Dobson, I think I’d argue her case on the public statements of Kearns – and win it.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Thanks rjung there weren’t enough threads about George Bush, the GOP, and the Iraq War on this forum already. If it wasn’t for your brave efforts here I think the SDMB may actually have completely forgot any of those things even existed.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but you’re only complaining about rjung’s comment because you’re sore about the 'Pubbies losing the election.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Bullshit on this pile-on. The whole bit about the peace symbol being interpreted as “antii Iraq war” was right there in the fucking news story. It’s quite reasonable, under the circumstances, to speculate that the Kearns guy is being driven in his asshatery by some sore loser stuff. rjung didn’t have do a lot of reaching to get that.
[/QUOTE]
It would be interesting to hear any HOA arguments that a peace symbol is a political sign. I wouldn’t think that most supporters of the war in Iraq would really want to go there.
