ABC News radio reporting this morning that the HOA has backed off. No link yet.
Apparently the publicity made the Board of Directors very gun-shy about their stormtrooper tactics. The President of the Board has changed his number to an unlisted one after the shitstorm hit and they got flooded with calls of support for the home-owner.
Justice triumphs over Law.
That is good news. I wonder if the President of the Board will find a dozen little nuisance complaints against her now? I would guess that he will be voted out in the next HOA elections.
I’ll join in the minority opinion here. If this person had written the word “Peace” with pine boughs, I doubt anyone would have objected.
Unless most of the residents agree with him.
or more to the point, most of the voting residents.
It doesn’t matter what’s reasonable speculation. The thread is about, primarily, the shitty things the HOAs get away with, the thread had progressed a long way since that news article and to throw something in about Bush was a huge derailing of what we were talking about at the time. It served absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than to further rjung’s quest to pollute every single thread on this forum with something about the Iraq war or Bush; despite it being quite obvious most people do, in fact, want to talk about other things than that from time to time.
I think you would almost certainly not get that dog to hunt. Shelley v. Kraemer was about the right of a person to take possession of a home in an area with a restrictive covenant. Both that court case and the later Fair Housing act made restrictive covenants for the purposes of excluding certain people on the basis of race from buying property illegal. In many court cases across the country courts have routinely and regularly upheld the rights of HOA’s to regulate signage.
Furthermore in the Shelley decision, the primary issue was equal rights under the law as it pertains to the fourteenth amendment. Strictly speaking the court found that restrictive covenants for the purposes of prohibiting persons of a specific race from taking deed to the property was not unconstitutional, as the fourteenth amendment only protects against discrimination by government, not private discrimination (which is affirmed in the decision as being perfectly constitutional no matter how heinous.)
However, to enforce the restrictive covenant and bar blacks from taking possession of the property they purchased, the communities in question had to make use of State courts. What the SCOTUS ultimately found is this was the key issue, that these restrictive covenants cannot be enforced by state courts because the fourteenth amendment clearly prohibits state governments from not giving persons equitable treatment under the law. In this case, the Missouri Supreme Court (and the Michigan one, as the Shelley case was a combination of two similar state supreme court decisions) ruled in a manner which clearly was an example of a State government using its power to deny equal privileges to citizens on the basis of their race.
Whoever was the lawyer for the HOA in this theoretical case against you, would argue, and I think very successfully, that in this case to rule against the HOA would deny the rights of citizens to enter into contracts with one another freely. That was never at issue in the Shelley case, the black homeowners were not original signatories of the restrictive covenant nor in fact were they made aware of it in any way until after the fact. Furthermore, state judicial enforcement of that covenant would represent the state denying equal privileges of property ownership to persons on the basis of race, which the court clearly recognize as unconstitutional in light of the fourteenth amendment.
If the court were to rule against the HOAs ability to fine its residents for hanging signage, then the court would in essence be ruling that persons cannot enter in to contracts with one another in which fines and fees can be levied against parties to the contract for failure to meet agreed upon terms in the contract.
That’s one of the most basic aspects of contracts in the United States. That’s how a land lord has the right to make you pay late fees on rent, or a cell phone company can make you pay a fee for early cancellation of your phone contract.
If you sign a contract agreeing that you will not post political signage on your property, that is most definitely a valid contract and I do not see how it couldn’t be, sure it restricts your freedom of speech but it is a willing restriction of that freedom. Courts routinely enforce non-discolsure contracts, and you can certainly be successfully litigated against for violating one, even though it is obvious beyond doubt that being bound by a non-disclosure agreement represents a self-imposed restriction on your freedom of speech.
In the Shelley case, state courts were clearly denying equal privilege to take and own property on the basis of race. In this case, if it ever had made it to the Supreme Court, I cannot see how the SCOTUS could do anything other than affirm that if persons sign a contract which agrees to self-restrict their actions that such a contract would be unenforceable.
Now, a successful argument could be made on the basis of what the HOA agreement actually says. I doubt it is a strict prohibition on political signage and suspect it is a prohibition on signage that is “disruptive” as deemed by the HOA governing bodies. In that case, the HOA contract itself would be looked at closely and a genuine case could come about because of disagreement over what constitutes disruptive. The HOA contract could conceivably state that disruptive is synonymous with “having official complaints lodged against it.” In which case the HOA President would only have to produce evidence that residents had made complaints about the wreath, the motivation for their complaints would, I think, be wholly immaterial to the matter at hand.
I’m not entirely sure that a case could be won simply on the basis of a HOA restricting political signage. If a HOA however allowed public displays of Christmas decorations but not displays for other religious holidays, I think that a state court would be acting unconstitutionally if it enforced the HOA’s decision in that case because it would clearly be a case of the state court taking an action which clearly was denying persons equal privileges under the law.
What I know is effective at restraining HOA from regulating political speech is state legislation. Texas recently passed a law saying that HOAs cannot prohibit political signage (the law specifically says such signage cannot be restricted 90 days before an election or 10 days after, and for virtually any of the allowed restrictions the restrictions must be part of the actual covenant and cannot simply be a bylaw passed by the HOA) that’s firm, and effective. State law can easily supersede these types of covenants because the legislature has the power to regulate precisely this kind of thing. However, in absence of legislation I’ve seen no compelling evidence that the courts have the power to deny specific powers of HOAs or restrictive covenants as long as they don’t represent denial of equal privileges under the law. Equality has to be the major factor and rights actually cannot be, because for various reasons states have to accept contracts which can assess fees on persons from taking an action which they have a right to take. For example it makes perfect sense that the New York Yankees can fine their players for not obeying a code of conduct spelled out in their employment contract. That’s a willing restriction on their rights that they have agreed to; it does not however truly restrict their rights. Say a team regulation prohibits drinking alcohol 24 hours prior to a game, you can be fined because of the contract but they cannot actually stop you from drinking alcohol, as a free person you have the right to go and purchase what goods and services you want under the law, and even if it does put you in breach of contract they cannot physically restrain you from doing it–but for many good reasons you can be assessed fees for breach of contract, or as part of a fee regime set up in the contract itself.
From the article:
Looks like it was about politics, in this case HOA politics. I’m guessing the complaintants had an ax to grind against this previous president.
I pretty much agree with Martin Hyde’s analysis. I also agree with those who have said that the First Amendment generally doesn’t apply to private (non-governmental) bodies.
So assuming that there is a valid covenant in the original condominium declaration that is being violated here, it’s likely that the association would prevail in court. (absent any applicable state law that prohibits such a covenant)
There are some longshot arguments that could be made, though. The powers of
condo associations aren’t absolute. The enforcement of the rule cannot be wholly arbitrary, or abrogate some fundamental constitutional or other public-policy right.
Note: Despite appearances, I’m not contradicting myself here. Generally speaking, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to prohibit such rules. However, if the rule was shockingly extreme and had no plausible connection to advancing the health, safety, happiness, and property values of the association members, it might be struck down. If there was a rule that obligated all condo owners to vote Democratic, and put political bumber stickers on their cars supporting gun control, that might be held invalid.
You made my day with that obscure Trek reference, thanks! 
Ah, good. Although I had an idea for what she could hang if she had to take it down:
Have the wreath remade in the shape of a gigantic middle finger.
While I understand and embrace the rationale for your suggestion, it’s a tad less defensible. 
It’s refeshing to learn in my absence that the HOA has backed off.
Wow. According to the reports, the entire 3-member Executive Board was overthrown. Another former President has taken over on an interim basis – a retired military man who is quoted as saying these are the sorts of things he’d fight for. Plus there is this from the New York Times:
OK, so it’s kinda juvenile to do the “in yo’ face” thing, but it’s enjoyable, isn’t it. Although the HOA does have the law on its side nominally, I’d say the recently deposed HOA president lost legitimacy when after he took the complaint to the proper committee, and the committee found no fault in the display, he just dismissed them all in order to get the decision he wanted. This defeats the whole purpose of having rules that require committee approval and suggests a personal interest in socking it to her. The expected thing would be to go tell tell the “upset persons”: “sorry, the committee does not think this is an infringement” and let it go, IMO.
Ack! Coding muckup in post #94! that should be "
[/quote]
" after “easily seen.” :o
Heehee. Reminds me of what happened to the last President who ordered a Saturday Night Massacre. 
I’m pretty sure “Godwined” should have two n’s.
A dirty little secret about Homeowner’s Associations: a lot of these associations have zero power to enforce any of their rules. I was on our Homeowner’s Association board for 4 years and heard many complaints; some were legitimate complaints and some were not. It didn’t matter. Our power was limited to sending out a letter from the board president citing the rule that was being broken and requesting compliance. However, we neither had the money nor the authority to force a homeowner to comply.
For instance, we have rules in our association against having free standing structures aka storage sheds. And we’d routinely hear complaints from neighbors of folks who had built a shed. However our county has no ordinances against sheds and will freely issue building permits for folks to construct a shed. The HA has no legal authority to force the homeowner to take down their shed, and the county has no standing in the matter as they don’t concern themselves with individual community’s HA rules, so they certainly won’t force the homeowner to take down the shed, so we’re stuck. That means the HA’s only recourse is via a lawsuit in civil court. Which requires $$$. And we don’t have funds in our budget earmarked for legal fees.
As you can imagine, every 3rd house in our neighborhood has a storage shed. Or a boat in their driveway. Both of which are no-no’s according to our HA.
Granted some associations collect far more money than we do and have no problem hiring attorneys. But a lot of them have no money earmarked for legal battles and thus remain powerless to enforce their own rules.
This depends on the homeowner’s association. Depending on how the thing is organized and set up and what else they come up with when they set the thing up, they can make your life hell. From what I’ve heard, the newer the neighborhood, the more likely they are to be able to do things. Some of them are set up so that if you lose, you have to pay their legal expenses.
I can’t wait for Bill O’Reilly to use this in his next update on the “War on Christmas.”
Oh, wait…
Okay, here’s my suggestion for replacing that “symbol of Satan”, if she’d had to do it.
Put up wreaths with pictures in the middle, honoring:
[ul]
[li]Santa[/li][li]Carlos Santana[/li][li]Santana Moss [/li][li]and perhaps most appropriately, George Santayana, the man who said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – about American involvement in Vietnam.[/li][/ul]
Sailboat