Fair point, but if one states “all lives are important” that’s supposedly a big no no.
“Black Lives Matter during this Holiday Season.”
Seriously, though, I think a BLM banner is political and is a violation of the Condo Rules, despite my support for BLM and opposition to condo rules.
It’s definitely political. However, that could easily make it protected speech. What state do you live in? There is a decent chance that you have a right to political speech in the private area of your condo.
Sorry for the tangent, but I just don’t think this is a bad policy. This person’s misfortune notwithstanding, precedent matters. If they grant an exception for this circumstance (and we’ll ignore the fact that the homeowner could be lying and that “terminal” can have pretty broad interpretations) the next time another owner may say “my child just got evicted and has no place to live, so just until they get back on their feet.” The next owner might say “my wife and I are getting a divorce, so we’re sleeping apart until we can finalize it.” You don’t want to be weighing one person’s hardship against another’s. And equally important…why should a hardship be the only grounds for an exception?
I get the hate for HOA…they only exist to dish out bad news in most cases, but living without one comes with it’s own collection of miseries. You can find no shortage of horror stories about bad neighbors in residential subdivisions and your recourse there is really limited. The HOA is asshole insurance and sadly that means standing on principle sometimes.
This was in a semi-rural area. Everyone knew the woman in question and her situation. Some of us were in favor of amending the bylaws to allow specifically for adult family members with a terminal illness as verified by docs, but the strong-willed HOA president successfully argued against it. Nobody felt good about it.
I do understand the troubles HOA’s can prevent. In my case, the HOA boundaries ended on my side of the road. Someone who owned property on the other side (but didn’t live there) put up the ugliest trailer in history as a rental unit, and there was nothing I could do about it. However, I’ve heard a lot more complaints than I’ve heard compliments about HOA’s.
But enough of the highjack. Thanks for your views…
Our HOA doesn’t allow any flags or signage of any kind.
Ditto. Of course, if Trump said the sun comes up in the West, saying the sun comes up in the East would become a political statement. I voted No to try to keep truisms apolitical.
The Peace or (peace sign) sign comparison is apt. At some times it is a political statement, others it probably wouldn’t cause a fuss.
People turn all kinds of shit into political statements now, like chicken sandwiches.
I really can’t think of any situation where it wouldn’t be political, even without the existing movement. It still implies that society doesn’t think black lives matter. (It does not, however, imply that any individual who happens to read it thinks that, despite claims to the contrary.)
What it should not be is partisan–but it is.
And the mask thing would be an interesting test.
Because wearing a mask during a pandemic is hardly a political statement.
But NOT wearing a mask certainly has been turned into one.
So if you put a sign in your window that says “DON’T WEAR A MASK” that should be disallowed.
But if you put up a sign that said “WEAR A MASK” I’d like to hear the pretzel they’d have to twist.
Within my county, wearing a mask in the public areas of a condo is explicitly required by executive order. We (the Board) have posted signs to that effect throughout the complex. Compliance with the law is not viewed as political.
Nor, as noted above, do we distinguish between political and non-political signs posted by our residents. They are equal-opportunity prohibited, period. The OP’s association wasn’t smart in their rule drafting.
Don’t know if this matters two weeks after the OP, but I’ll toss it out there anyway.
Federal goverment employees are barred from all political activities in the workplace, and even some political activities outside the workplace (see 1939 Hatch Act). So the OP’s question and its answer have legal bearing for them.
Turns out that on 7/10 the US Office Of Special Counsel ruled on the matter, saying that:
BLM is a “hot-button” issue and both politically and culturally salient. But BLM terminology is issue-based, not a campaign slogan. Therefore, using BLM terminology, without more, is not political activity. BLMGN does not meet any of the criteria for classification as a partisan political group. Therefore, BLMGN is not a partisan political group, and employees are not prohibited from wearing or displaying BLMGN paraphernalia in the workplace.
Probably not of any legal weight for the OP’s situation, but pretty strong support nonetheless.
A statement in support of civil rights is absolutely a political statement. How could it not be?
This turns on the definition of “political”.
If one restricts “political” to mean “about the Republican party and/or the Democratic party”, which is pretty much what the Hatch Act is about, then the OSC ruling on BLMGN makes complete sense within that narrow legalistic frame.
If one takes “political” at large as in “about how groups of people organize their governance and resolve their differences” then clearly BLM is political within that much more expansive definition.
Which definition is the OP’s condo board operating under? That’s for them to decide, but I bet it’ll lean more towards the expansive flavor of “political”.
Just to close the loop. Actual declarations were better written as no signs without board approval. Board unanimously declined to give approval. Discussion regarding its being not advertising a political activity made moot.
Would have been fine if that was as far as it went but some of the other comments made were sad. Worried about the building being vandalized due this sign on a 5th floor balcony. (Many homes and businesses have such signs locally). Might diminish the salability of a unit on the market. Oy.