So he apparently violated the homeowners prohibition against flagpoles. That the flagpole flies the US Flag is irrelevant.
Or is it?
Does flying the US Flag incur an exception to the rule? Does being a veteran incur an exception to the rule?
Is the homeowners association going too far?
Personally, the association is going about it all wrong. When you read the story, “15 [neighbors have] filed suit against the homeowner’s association for using their money against a futile suit.”
Should a tastefully flown US Flag have an eception to the rule?
This shows you that some people just do stuff for no real reason. Let the veteran fly his flag, it is not hurting anyone. Trying to evict is just low, really really low.
On the one hand, I hate the idea of homeowner associations having the power to dictate what is or is not an “acceptable” appearance of a person’s ostensibly private proterty.
On the other hand, the former Marine knew that a homeowner association with such powers existed when he made the decision to buy his particular home. He evidently did not have a problem with that fact when he bought.
Also: while I have a tendency to be skeptical of ostentatious displays of patriotic symbols, I am willing to posit that this gentleman’s patriotism is 100% sincere. However, the fact that he wants his patriotism to exempt him from adherence to a rule that he would presumably not object to applying to a non-patriotic violator (his interviewer in the linked item does not pursue this question) is something I find pernicious, and does nothing to make me feel any more comfortable about public displays of patriotism in general.
I’m going to need a lot better cites before weighing in on this one. I can’t seem to find any consistency to this story whatsoever.
He has a 20 foot pole, and the association allows up to 21 feet.
He has a 12 foot pole, and the association doesn’t allow any poles at all, but flags may be flown from brackets attached to exterior walls.
He lives in a condo, but it’s his yard?
Until I see what the homeowner’s association agreement says, and until a legal type steps in to share with us how much weight a covenant of this type carries with it, I don’t think we have enough info to go on.
As for the implied questioning of whether it’s because it’s a US flag, I’m going to need a hell of a lot of convincing (i.e. evidence) before I accept that as anything other than partisan conspiracy-theory BS.
Something can stink on ice and still be legal. The association seems to be acting within the limits of contract law, which the fellow flying the flag presumably signed when he bought the house.
Is there a legitimate legal precedent for granting contractual exceptions on the basis of patriotism?
I support the homeowners association on this. When you buy a property in a deed-restricted community I think (I’m no lawyer!) that you are in effect giving up the right to do anything you like with that property.
I heard this guy on local talk radio and he said there was no rule against doing what he did – so I’m skeptical of his honesty since a reporter in his community said that there was.
There was a news story on yesterday about a girl who goes to a “traditional” school (whatever that is). They had a strict rule against jewelry aside from a few well-defined exceptions (earrings, I think).
On 9/11, this girl wore a flag pin to school. She was called to the office and told that she could either remove the pin or go home; she chose to go home.
The girl, her parents, and everyone in the story (reporter included) were going on about how they just couldn’t believe this, how cold and heartless, blah blah blah. I just kept thinking that the rules didn’t say, “No jewelry except for a small flag pin on the anniversary of major terrorist attacks,” it said “No jewelry.”
It may be a silly rule–hell, it sounds like it to me–but if that’s the case, get the rule changed, don’t act all indignant and surprised when they call you out for breaking it.
No and no. I’m not saying the association is necessarily right (I don’t know why people are so anal about things like this), but I think it’s unfair to give this guy an exception simply because of how he breaks the rules or who he is.
Why on earth would an American flag be exempt from the rule?
I doubt the average person would even want to fly a flag other than the American flag or the state flag, and if the American flag is exempt then the state flag should be too.
How did you come to this conclusion about the Marine’s opinions? This quote seems to indicate he’d take anyone’s expression of anything at face value:
anything that you do on your private property with flags and signs are an expression of your feelings
That quote is also his undoing, IMHO, because it implies that there is nothing unique about patriotism: it is just one among many feelings one can express through flags, signs, etc.
He bought the condo, & signed the homeowners assoc. agreement. He has the right to sign away his rights. He also has the right to buy his own dang house in an area w/o a homeowners assoc., and then fly flags of his choice.
Flag idolatry is troubling. Y’all know this whole sacred flag thing has its roots in the standards of Roman legions, worshipped as symbols of the legions’ protective gods, yes? (I’m blurrin a distinction twixt the vexillum and the standards, but let it go).
America consists of:
a) 330 million Sovereign People
b) Their Shield, The Constitution
c) Their Pad, An Awesome Swath of The World’s Sexiest Continent.
Flags, eagles, etc. are not America, shouldn’t be sacred, and should never be viewed as anything like a)-c) in importance.
It may be legal for the homeowners association to do this, but just because they can do a thing, doesn’t mean they should. It seems that 15 of his neighbors are protesting this action. What if they all decide to fly flags? Will the association evict everyone in the entire neighborhood and be left with no tenants at all? It would be legal – but it would also be suicide.
Are you confused about what a Home Owner’s Association is, ricksummon? If so, allow me to explain. It is an Association made up of people who Own the Homes within a clearly defined area. The protesting neighbors are homeowners, not tenants (if they were tenants, renting the homes from absentee landlords, they would have no standing to join in a lawsuit against the association for spending the money on enforcing their rules in this case).
As to your first sentence, a few years reading postings from lawyers here has given me to understand that, yes, they should do a thing when they can. If they don’t move to assert their rights (in this case, to enforce their agreements) when the occasion arises, in a future instance, the violator can be in a position to claim that the association, by not acting in one case, has no right to act selectively in subsequent cases. However much I, personally, would like to see this happen to all HOA’s, I can still understand why a HOA would prefer to avoid going down the road that can lead to such an outcome.
Your post also seems to suggest that the HOA is an entity entirely removed from Mr. Andres. Not so. As a homeowner, he is a member of the HOA.
It’s a similar situation as the “10 Commandments Alabama Judge”.
Someone putting something out that shouldn’t be there in the first place, then when people rightfully object, claiming that multiple rights are being violated while beating the chest about how the country is falling into godless, disrepectful anarchy.
A cross between trolling and a self-fulfilling fantasy, catering directly to the right-wing talk-radio set.
People who are willing to buy a home and live in it in any place where a “homeowner’s association” is part of the deal get EXACTLY what they deserve. I am utterly without sympathy.
You are assuming that contractual law supercedes constitutional law. It does not. No contract can impinge on a codiciled law including the constitution. There are limitations to contracts in the fact that they can not go against the legal code of the state or community.
Contractual law CAN “supercede” Constitutional law. I have had to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of my work. That means I have voluntarily surrendered some portion of my freedom of speech under contract. This contract would be upheld and supported all the way to the Supreme Court. The Constitution does NOT impose limits upon private associations the same way it imposes limits upon the government. That’s why I can legally ask damnable proselytes to get off my property and stop practicing their “freedom of religion” on my land.
Apparently, being a “member” doesn’t give him or his neighbors any say in the policies or decisions of the HOA. Otherwise, why would his neighbors sue? They’re “members”, but they’re obviously not suing themselves; they’re suing the guy who makes the decisions. And my point still stands. If all the members decide to engage in a little Gandhi-style civil disobedience and fly flags, the HOA can “assert its rights” and have an empty neighborhood, or they can make a change.
Well, what kind of a housing area does he live in? Does he live in a town house. If so, then having a great big flag pole in that little four ft square front yard would be tacky. Why can’t he get one of those flag things that stick out next to your front door? It’s not a pole, and he gets to keep his flag.
It should be mentioned that certain clauses of homeowners’ association contracts have been ruled null-and-void by the courts in the past.
F’rinstance, even if you signed a homeowners’ association agreement saying you won’t ride a motorcycle or have a satellite dish on your property, the courts have thrown out provisions prohibiting motorcycle riding or the visible use of digital TV satellite dishes.