90-yr-old CMH recipient ordered to remove flagpole

[diana]

Full story here. (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/POLEGAT02_20091202-091201/309031/)

Col. Van T. Barfoot, a local Medal of Honor winner, is under the gun from his Henrico County community's homeowner association.

In a five-paragraph letter to Barfoot that he received yesterday, Barfoot is being ordered to remove a flagpole from his yard. The decorated veteran of three wars, now 90 years old, raises the American flag every morning on the pole, then lowers and folds the flag at dusk each day in a three-corner military fashion.

What think you?

d

[David B]

If the association has the right - in law - to say what additions to buildings are acceptable on aesthetic grounds, and if they are equally applied to, say, a flagpole on which the American flag is displayed, to a hammer and sickle flag on a similar pole, to an obtrusive crucifix, to a billboard with a 'There is probably no God' on the one hand, or to a billboard displaying the 10 commandments on the other, then I don't have a problem with it.

David

[Worldtraveller]

They have the 'right', I suppose. But I think HA's are a bad thing, overall. I would never buy a home in a neighborhood with an HA.

I bet there's some fed code somewhere about displaying the flag that could be spun to 'overrule' something as trivial and non-binding as a HA's stupid rules.

Not to mention, it does nothing but make the tin-pot dictator busy bodies in the HA look like complete douchenozzles.

[Daynna]

I agree with Worldtraveller. Clashes between homeowners and HOAs happen quite frequently. The fact is, they agreed to these rules and regulations when they purchased a home there. I would never ever buy a home governed by a HOA.

[David B]

One thing. By applying the rule to the American flag they do tend to pass on the message that they aren't being partial.

If they were to allow this, and then ban a flag with a hammer and sickle on it, then that would not only (I suppose) expose them to law suits, but be wrong.

David

[Daynna]

I think all of these HOA are opposed to any sort of house "accessory." :) I'll be honest. I didn't have time to read the whole article. I just assumed it was like all of the other incidents that have been in the news involving HOAs.

[BioBeing]

It looks to me as if he applied to put it up, was turned down, and put it up anyway. So he pissed some people off and they have the rules on their side.

HOAs are I think a good example of why libertarianism would never work in practice. There is always going to be a tin-pot dictator.

[Pendaric]

The fact that he's old and he's won a medal shouldn't really make any difference to the rights and wrongs of the case.

If his building code doesn't permit it, and he signed up to it by living there, then I don't really have a great deal of sympathy.

[diana]

I get the impression that his HOA didn't say anything--nor have any rules against it--until after he'd erected the flag pole, though.

d

[David B]

I get the impression that his HOA didn't say anything--nor have any rules against it--until after he'd erected the flag pole, though.

d

Maybe so. But there was no rule in my school that I couldn't bring a giraffe along.

Did they have rules about putting things on the property that offended their aesthetics?

If so, then fine.

As it would also be fine if they stopped someone putting up a flag with a hammer and sickle.

It would be bad if they allowed the one, but not the other.

IMV.

I don't have a problem with their decision.

David

[BioBeing]

I get the impression that his HOA didn't say anything--nor have any rules against it--until after he'd erected the flag pole, though.

d

In the video, the camera pans over the letter the HOA sent him. It says something like (paraphrasing) "you did this knowing full well we had said no". I think right now we are only hearing is side of the story. I bet we get the HOA side in a day or two...

[Jobar]

Whatever their legal standing here, I'd say the people in charge of the HOA are damnfools if they choose to pursue this. Even if they win, they lose.

[diana]

That's kinda what I'm thinking, Jobar. There's more here than simple legal rights.

d

[Octavia]

Yeah, there's look before you leap.

I don't disagree that HOA are (or can be) petty tyrants obsessed with stupid rules. That being said, they're entered into voluntarily.

[Valheru]

The article states that his agreement says nothing about flagpoles, and that it was "voted" as unacceptable by the HOA board.

I think they're in for a tough time.

And they're fucking idiots.

[sohy]

There is no provision in the community's rules expressly forbidding flagpoles, Barfoot's daughter said. But she said the board ruled against her father's fixture and ordered it removed in July, deciding that free-standing flag poles are not aesthetically appropriate. Short flag stands attached to porches dot the community.

Why can't Barfoot hang a flag on his porch like the rest of his neighbors? I don't currently live in a neighborhood that has restricted covenants but this is not at all unusual for that type of neighborhood and the restriction seems reasonable to me. If he wants to hang a flag, he has another option. The big ass flagpole is the problem. If you don't like being limited in what you can do outside your home, don't live in this type of community.

I am probably biased because my own nutty father has a huge flag pole next to his house. I think it looks awful and out of place, but he doesn't live in a neighborhood that has that type of restrictions so it's not a problem for him.

[RED DAVE]

Mispost

RED DAVE

[Christina]

If you don't like being limited in what you can do outside your home, don't live in this type of community.

Exactly. My mom lives in one of them and the HOA is pages long and details exactly what types of things that she can put outside the house, where she's allowed to put them and how big they can be. The rules go on and on and the place is so uniform that it looks like an architects model. A large flagpole (or totem pole or whatever) would never be allowed there. There isn't any rule against religious or political displays, just height restrictions. I'd go crazy(er) living in a place like that but it's her choice to live there.

[Ray Moscow]

Full story here. (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/POLEGAT02_20091202-091201/309031/)

Col. Van T. Barfoot, a local Medal of Honor winner, is under the gun from his Henrico County community's homeowner association.

In a five-paragraph letter to Barfoot that he received yesterday, Barfoot is being ordered to remove a flagpole from his yard. The decorated veteran of three wars, now 90 years old, raises the American flag every morning on the pole, then lowers and folds the flag at dusk each day in a three-corner military fashion.

What think you?

d

I'm with the Colonel on this one. It's his right to display the flag. Others need to get used to it.

[Preno]

If they have the right to do that, then they have the right to do that. I suppose they do. That doesn't mean they're not assholes for enforcing it in this case.

[Christina]

My mom's best friend is on the Board of their community and according to her they ignore as much as they can but neighbors always complain as soon as someone else shows the least bit of creativity. Maybe it's because that one is a gated senior community and they're crotchety and grumpy and have nothing else to do.

And before you say it, shutup Preno, I'm not that old yet.

[Preno]

And before you say it, shutup Preno, I'm not that old yet.Damn, I was gonna say that.

That reminds me, I'll probably be away for a bit around New Year's ... if I give you my password, could I hire you to post a couple of predictable "lol Secular Cafe more liek SENIOR Cafe" kind of burns for me where appropriate? Kthx.

[Christina]

:D

I will certainly take good care of your password while you're gone. I might even try to spell things right and use correct grammar so that what I post is believable.

[Puck]

When you move into a community that is restricted, you agree to the rules. If you don't like it, don't live there. His age, his status, his rituals, don't play into it. He made an agreement, he broke the agreement. He's in the wrong. He needs to take down his flag pole and live by his agreement, or move.

If this guy had raised a Totem pole, would this be a discussion? If it was a cross?

[TySixtus]

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Carano, Italy, 23 May 1944. Entered service at: Carthage, Miss. Birth: Edinburg, Miss. G.O. No.: 79, 4 October 1944. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.

I'd let that crazy son of a bitch hang up what ever he wanted.

[Sidhe747]

I'd flag that up if I was you.

So what I burn a Union Flag every day!

And I fought and died in 3 World wars.

[Notta]

Full story here. (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/POLEGAT02_20091202-091201/309031/)

Col. Van T. Barfoot, a local Medal of Honor winner, is under the gun from his Henrico County community's homeowner association.

In a five-paragraph letter to Barfoot that he received yesterday, Barfoot is being ordered to remove a flagpole from his yard. The decorated veteran of three wars, now 90 years old, raises the American flag every morning on the pole, then lowers and folds the flag at dusk each day in a three-corner military fashion.

What think you?

d

I'm with the Colonel on this one. It's his right to display the flag. Others need to get used to it.It's not about the FLAG, it's about the FLAG POLE. He can display a flag on a pole attached to his house, but this guy wasn't happy with that, and wanted to build a separate flag pole in his yard.

Anyone in the HOA can fly a flag, any flag, as long as it's on a pole attached to the house. Apparently, the HOA told him that. But it was not what Mr. "I'm a PATRIOT" wanted, and insisted on his right to erect a flag pole in his yard.

Saying it's about his right to fly the American flag is a red herring. He's always had that right. He doesn't have the right to erect a separate pole in his yard because of HOA restrictions. And he knew that.

[Daynna]

I'd flag that up if I was you.

So what I burn a Union Flag every day!

And I fought and died in 3 World wars.

You're pretty lively for a dead fella. Zombie?

[TySixtus]

Homeowner's associations are the inventions of small minded and petty tyrants. I'll pat anyone on the back who tells them shove it up their ass. They should be illegal.

[Notta]

Homeowner's associations are the inventions of small minded and petty tyrants. I'll pat anyone on the back who tells them shove it up their ass. They should be illegal.I completely agree. But for now, they ARE legal and this Medal of Honor winner should put up his flag on a flagpole attached to his house. How does that make it any less honorable, patriotic, or effective??

[Sidhe747]

I'd flag that up if I was you.

So what I burn a Union Flag every day!

And I fought and died in 3 World wars.

You're pretty lively for a dead fella. Zombie?

Zombie Jesus.

http://disgustabunk.com/uploads/zombie-jesus-day.gif

[Octavia]

Homeowner's associations are the inventions of small minded and petty tyrants. I'll pat anyone on the back who tells them shove it up their ass. They should be illegal.

I completely agree. But if someone is silly enough to join one, then it's their own fault if they don't like what they signed up for.

Let's not forget that this person is apparently willing to enforce other restrictions on the rest of the community - signing up to a HOA in the first place indicates that. Now that the boot's on the other foot, he doesn't like it. Tough. Should have thought about that before signing on.

[diana]

It occurs to me that I'd probably be a lot more passionate about this if I'd ever been in an HOA....

d

[Sidhe747]

It occurs to me that I'd probably be a lot more passionate about this if I'd ever been in an HOA....

d

I don't even know what it is?

[Puck]

I'd let that crazy son of a bitch hang up what ever he wanted.

Eh, he's old. I could take him now. :p

[Sidhe747]

I'd let that crazy son of a bitch hang up what ever he wanted.

Eh, he's old. I could take him now. :p

Beating up old men FTW! ;)

[Christina]

It occurs to me that I'd probably be a lot more passionate about this if I'd ever been in an HOA....

d

I don't even know what it is?

Here you go:


Homeowner Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association)

[Sidhe747]

It occurs to me that I'd probably be a lot more passionate about this if I'd ever been in an HOA....

d

I don't even know what it is?

Here you go:


Homeowner Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association)

Then I must kill old people. Thanks for the info. I will get on it...

[Alethias]

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Carano, Italy, 23 May 1944. Entered service at: Carthage, Miss. Birth: Edinburg, Miss. G.O. No.: 79, 4 October 1944. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.I'd let that crazy son of a bitch hang up what ever he wanted.Pretty much. He sure as hell isn't going to respect or listen to the homeowners association that tells him he can't fly his flag the way he wants, on a proper flagpole, and treating it with military respect.

What happens if the homeowners association decides to push it? If they call the police, it all depends. Most police forces are populated by Vets. What Vet would go tell a Medal-of-Honor recipient to take down his flag? very few. If they sue, they'd probably win the lawsuit, and how would they make him pay up? Go to the police again? lol.

Trying to prevent someone who has done what he's done from showing his patriotism with a simple act of Flying his flag will win them no friends.

He probably moved into the community at his daughters bequest. Not all that uncommon for daughters to want to be close to their elderly parents, and he probably just took her word for it it'd be a good place to live. The agreement he signed was probably in too small print for him to read anyway.

Whomever wins a legal battle, the HOA loses. On this one, they picked the wrong fight, in my view.

He's a crazy son of a bitch that loves his country. Good for you, Mr. Barfoot.

[Sidhe747]

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Carano, Italy, 23 May 1944. Entered service at: Carthage, Miss. Birth: Edinburg, Miss. G.O. No.: 79, 4 October 1944. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.I'd let that crazy son of a bitch hang up what ever he wanted.Pretty much. He sure as hell isn't going to respect or listen to the homeowners association that tells him he can't fly his flag the way he wants, on a proper flagpole, and treating it with military respect.

What happens if the homeowners association decides to push it? If they call the police, it all depends. Most police forces are populated by Vets. What Vet would go tell a Medal-of-Honor recipient to take down his flag? very few. If they sue, they'd probably win the lawsuit, and how would they make him pay up? Go to the police again? lol.

Trying to prevent someone who has done what he's done from showing his patriotism with a simple act of Flying his flag will win them no friends.

He probably moved into the community at his daughters bequest. Not all that uncommon for daughters to want to be close to their elderly parents, and he probably just took her word for it it'd be a good place to live. The agreement he signed was probably in too small print for him to read anyway.

Whomever wins a legal battle, the HOA loses. On this one, they picked the wrong fight, in my view.

He's a crazy son of a bitch that loves his country. Good for you, Mr. Barfoot.

I love my country but I don't spend all my time erecting flags to burn.

Nothing wrong with that but man?!

[Christina]

I think that he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on but if the HOA had any sense they would pass a motion to make an exception for this one and get themselves out of this PR nightmare and leave the guy alone. I bet that a majority of the residents would vote to let it be rather than get all of this attention for being so petty. FFS there's one at least that big in my mom's complex that the place itself owns and they all survive.

[Octavia]

He probably moved into the community at his daughters bequest. Not all that uncommon for daughters to want to be close to their elderly parents, and he probably just took her word for it it'd be a good place to live. The agreement he signed was probably in too small print for him to read anyway.

He's old, not stupid. He could have gotten someone to read it to him if the print was too small for him.

I have difficulty having any sympathy for people too daft to read contracts before they sign them. Those are the people for whom "do not drink" on the bleach bottle was invented.

[Alethias]

He probably moved into the community at his daughters bequest. Not all that uncommon for daughters to want to be close to their elderly parents, and he probably just took her word for it it'd be a good place to live. The agreement he signed was probably in too small print for him to read anyway.

He's old, not stupid. He could have gotten someone to read it to him if the print was too small for him.

I have difficulty having any sympathy for people too daft to read contracts before they sign them. Those are the people for whom "do not drink" on the bleach bottle was invented.I didn't say he was stupid, but I've known lots of elderly people not to read legal paperwork for whatever reason. I assume it's because it's normally in tiny print and they find it irritating, but i could be wrong.

But that's a side issue, because i think things would be going down the way they are regardless. The HOA would still tell him to get rid of the flagpole and he'd still say no.

ETA: From that article There is no provision in the community's rules expressly forbidding flagpoles, Barfoot's daughter said. But she said the board ruled against her father's fixture and ordered it removed in July, deciding that free-standing flag poles are not aesthetically appropriate. Short flag stands attached to porches dot the community. He's not violating the written terms of the agreement he made, he's just going against their ruling.

[Octavia]

And I'd have some sympathy for him were it not for the fact that, by voluntarily being part of a HOA, he is implicitly preventing others from having absolute freedom to do what they would like to do with their properties. He's happy for rules to be enforced on others at his behest - just not on himself.

I can also understand that some people - and it's not just old people, I can recollect when my younger sister did it some years back - don't want to be bothered with reading contracts before signing them. They're, let's face it, boring and tiresome. It's still your own responsibility to read them, and no-one else's fault if you don't. I'm betting that part of the contract he signed was acknowledgement of a community board and their right to make decisions. If not, this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

Please note that I'm not on the side of HOAs either. I think they're completely idiotic, and I'd almost rather gouge my own eyes out than live in one. But if, for some ungodly reason, I did sign up, voluntarily submitted myself to their rulings, I'd have no-one to blame but myself if I didn't like living there because of it. The solution is to move out of the HOA, not pitch a fit and insist that the rules should be changed because one person has decided that they don't like what they agreed to and that their contract is thus null and void. (If only one could do this with banks!)

[Octavia]

Besides, you think there'd be some kind of compromise available. The old guy's technically in the wrong, but might he accept an acceptable flagpole attached to the house if his neighbours organised one and put it up for him?

[Bane]

HOAs don't sound very nice, to be honest. Even though this guy's in the wrong, HOAs sound like a bunch of nosy old harridans with sticks up their arses.

A flag in the yard, window or attached to the house is a warning to some of us--it means the same as a gigantic "stay the fuck away" sign to me at least.......but then I am a godless liberal!

[Christina]

I think that part of what makes them so attractive to seniors is that it gets more difficult to maintain a single family home as you age and all the routine maintenance is taken care of for you in an HMO. They're usually affordable for the area and often gated which makes many elderly people feel secure. My mom feels that it's worth it to live in her little unreal bubble of perfect middle class suburbia even though the nosy neighbors and rules get on her nerves.

[David B]

I've mentioned this before in the thread, but if there is one good thing abut this HOA it is that they demonstrate impartiality.

Because they take on something popular, even praiseworthy.

If they had banned a flagpole flying a a hammer and sickle, if they had banned a flagpole flying a Darwin fish, I'd wonder if they might be displaying partiality.

But it happened to be a vet honouring his, and his comrades in arms, service.

They don't want flagpoles - so if they ban all of them, then fair enough.

If they were to allow the vet, but not the commie or the atheist, then that would be bad.

David

[TySixtus]

Homeowner's associations are the inventions of small minded and petty tyrants. I'll pat anyone on the back who tells them shove it up their ass. They should be illegal.

I completely agree. But if someone is silly enough to join one, then it's their own fault if they don't like what they signed up for.


Did he have a choice in joining the Homeowners Association?

[Blueskyboris]

That's right, Ty, post here at Secular Cafe, that is my goal..

[Octavia]

Did he have a choice in joining the Homeowners Association?

How they can possibly inflict their petty requirements on him without his choosing to join them is beyond me. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association):

A homeowners association is incorporated by the developer prior to the initial sale of homes, and the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are recorded when the property is subdivided. The CC&Rs run with the land; when a homeowner purchases a home governed by an HOA, he signs his agreement to the CC&Rs.[citation needed] If he sells the land/ home, he ceases to be a member of the association and the new owner becomes a member. All members must pay assessments and abide by the restrictions of the association.

It seems as if HOAs are created before any house is sold. If that's true, anyone who joins, joins a pre-existing organisation. It doesn't look like they can annex unwilling parties. If that's true, the old guy must have chosen at some point to join them.

[diana]

Whomever wins a legal battle, the HOA loses. On this one, they picked the wrong fight, in my view.Exactly. ;)

Particularly now.

d

[Sidhe747]

this would never of happened under Hitler!

[TySixtus]

Did he have a choice in joining the Homeowners Association?

How they can possibly inflict their petty requirements on him without his choosing to join them is beyond me. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association):

A homeowners association is incorporated by the developer prior to the initial sale of homes, and the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are recorded when the property is subdivided. The CC&Rs run with the land; when a homeowner purchases a home governed by an HOA, he signs his agreement to the CC&Rs.[citation needed] If he sells the land/ home, he ceases to be a member of the association and the new owner becomes a member. All members must pay assessments and abide by the restrictions of the association.

It seems as if HOAs are created before any house is sold. If that's true, anyone who joins, joins a pre-existing organisation. It doesn't look like they can annex unwilling parties. If that's true, the old guy must have chosen at some point to join them.

Point being that if you want to buy a house you have to join the Home Owner's Association. Which is ridiculous. It's a restriction that a housing developer ought not to be able to make and enforce.

[Notta]

I thought a lot of those HOA contracts had been upheld in court, regardless of how asinine they were.

I (unwillingly) lived in an HOA for 2 years -- wasn't allowed to hang sheets from the balcony to dry, put lawn furniture in the front yard, or leave my empty trash cans out overnight.

[Christina]

My Mom's is unbelievable. She's allowed a 3 foot border around her house for landscaping, one tiny patio in back and she can't spread out at all onto the common lawns (supposedly to make it easier for the mowers). She is allowed to choose 1 tree from 3 allowed species and it must stay under 10 feet and be planted in the allowable spot. Garbage cans can only be set by the curb after 6 on the night before pickup and moved back inside by 8am the next day. Cars cannot be parked on the street. Absolutely no interior renovations can be done without permission even though she owns her house. It's crazed but she likes the security and uniformity enough to deal with it. I also think that she loves to pretend that the world is full of white middle class people but she'd never admit that.

[BioBeing]

Point being that if you want to buy a house you have to join the Home Owner's Association. Which is ridiculous. It's a restriction that a housing developer ought not to be able to make and enforce.

So, you want to be able to buy a house in a certain area then opt out of the HOA laws so you can (for example) park cars on your overgrown lawn, put a couch and two broken TV's on your porch and put up flagpole...

I'm not going to go out of my way to defend HOAs, but they do serve a purpose. They keep the area looking a certain way the developer wanted, in an effort in part to keep the area looking desirable (to people who find that sort of thing desirable) and to keep prices up.

If you move in there, they don't want you trashing the place, so no, you are not going to be able to opt out.

They are as legal as any other agreement willingly entered into by two consenting parties. The dude in the OP went to war to fight for the right of these agreements to be entered into. Or not: you are free to not buy there. I don't like them, and I don't live in area that has one (although I do live in a historic district).

I do agree though that it would a Pyrrhic victory for the HOA to win.

[Ray Moscow]

I never liked HOA's myself, but I (grudgingly) admit they serve a useful purpose: to prevent negligent homeowners from dragging down the property values of their neighbours.

[Notta]

I think the original purpose of an HOA has degenerated into petty despots, trying to run their own itsy-bitsy kingdoms.

Some of those communities look like "Valley of the Dolls" kinds of things. However, after living next door to someone who routinely parked dead cars hanging halfway out into the street, rarely mowed his yard, and dumped broken lawn furniture outside, I'm kind of sympathetic to people who want to keep their property values up by making everyone follow a type of code. That being said, I've never heard of an HOA contract that was reasonable in any sense of the word. I particularly hate those that ban hanging up laundry to dry in your own BACK YARD.

[Octavia]

Point being that if you want to buy a house you have to join the Home Owner's Association. Which is ridiculous. It's a restriction that a housing developer ought not to be able to make and enforce.

Ought isn't an issue. Apparently they can whether they ought to or not, so anyone who chooses to buy into it, instead of choosing to buy a house outside an HOA, has only themselves to blame. Caveat emptor.

Not every house is part of an HOA. Indeed the vast majority are not. Buy there instead.

[darjeeling]

Point being that if you want to buy a house you have to join the Home Owner's Association. Which is ridiculous. It's a restriction that a housing developer ought not to be able to make and enforce.

So, you want to be able to buy a house in a certain area then opt out of the HOA laws so you can (for example) park cars on your overgrown lawn, put a couch and two broken TV's on your porch and put up flagpole...

I'm not going to go out of my way to defend HOAs, but they do serve a purpose. They keep the area looking a certain way the developer wanted, in an effort in part to keep the area looking desirable (to people who find that sort of thing desirable) and to keep prices up.

If you move in there, they don't want you trashing the place, so no, you are not going to be able to opt out.

They are as legal as any other agreement willingly entered into by two consenting parties. The dude in the OP went to war to fight for the right of these agreements to be entered into. Or not: you are free to not buy there. I don't like them, and I don't live in area that has one (although I do live in a historic district).

I do agree though that it would a Pyrrhic victory for the HOA to win.

There's a big difference between "you must take your trash can in by 8am" and " you can't park cars on your overgrown lawn or put a couch and two broken TVs on your porch".

[BioBeing]

Point being that if you want to buy a house you have to join the Home Owner's Association. Which is ridiculous. It's a restriction that a housing developer ought not to be able to make and enforce.

So, you want to be able to buy a house in a certain area then opt out of the HOA laws so you can (for example) park cars on your overgrown lawn, put a couch and two broken TV's on your porch and put up flagpole...

I'm not going to go out of my way to defend HOAs, but they do serve a purpose. They keep the area looking a certain way the developer wanted, in an effort in part to keep the area looking desirable (to people who find that sort of thing desirable) and to keep prices up.

If you move in there, they don't want you trashing the place, so no, you are not going to be able to opt out.

They are as legal as any other agreement willingly entered into by two consenting parties. The dude in the OP went to war to fight for the right of these agreements to be entered into. Or not: you are free to not buy there. I don't like them, and I don't live in area that has one (although I do live in a historic district).

I do agree though that it would a Pyrrhic victory for the HOA to win.

There's a big difference between "you must take your trash can in by 8am" and " you can't park cars on your overgrown lawn or put a couch and two broken TVs on your porch".

Oh, I agree. I am not saying the HOA is right, just that they have the right.



My in-laws live in an area with a HOA. They can get fined for offenses (like speeding within the gates; leaving grass clippings on the side of the road; making too much noise). Too many unpaid fines (or not paying their dues on time each year) and the HOA can take away their gate access... they wouldn't be able to get to the property they legally own. Not where I would chose to live!

[TySixtus]

Point being that if you want to buy a house you have to join the Home Owner's Association. Which is ridiculous. It's a restriction that a housing developer ought not to be able to make and enforce.

So, you want to be able to buy a house in a certain area then opt out of the HOA laws

Yes. Why should you be forced to sign into some stupid organization?

so you can (for example) park cars on your overgrown lawn, put a couch and two broken TV's on your porch and put up flagpole...


There are county ordnances designed to prevent those kinds things, so these examples are horrible. HOA laws aren't necessary to prevent these kinds of things from happening.

[TySixtus]

Point being that if you want to buy a house you have to join the Home Owner's Association. Which is ridiculous. It's a restriction that a housing developer ought not to be able to make and enforce.

Ought isn't an issue.

Sure it is. Unless of course nothing should ever change because it already exists the way it is. What is your point? That the guy is in a crappy situation? Fine. Have fun talking to yourself, because nobody is arguing that the HOA doesn't have the "right" to do what they're doing. I've already state my position -- that they ought not to have that right.

If you don't want to talk about that, go be mad at someone else.

[Octavia]

Why on earth do you think that I'm mad at you? I've got no reason to be. :dunno:

Edit: Why should the HOA not have the right? I understand that you think they ought not to, but it seems to me that by saying that they ought not, you're arguing that people's freedom to enter into voluntary contracts should be curtailed. I can understand that in some circumstances (for instance, if those contracts contain criminal activity), but just because you don't like said contract? Could you please explain why you think this freedom should be curtailed in regard to HOA? Isn't that somewhat banning freedom of association? After all, if people want to join these Stepford Associations, who are we to tell them they can't?

[TySixtus]

It's a not a voluntary contract if you have to join it in order to buy the house you want.

[Octavia]

But buying the house is voluntary, yes? And (as with, for example, bad plumbing or rodent infestation) the HOA contract is indivisible with the property when it's bought. It's a known package deal. The contract is included with the sale; it doesn't come afterwards.

A person might want to buy the house, but no-one's forcing them to if they don't want to deal with HOAs (or bad plumbing or rodent infestations). It's their choice. They're not forced into anything, therefore it is a voluntary contract.

[Christina]

There's a lot of good information in the Wiki article although it appears to be pretty biased. These are the kinds of things that I'm more concerned about than whether someone can put up a flag pole.

Advocates often maintain that people choose to live in HOAs, but some note that "choice" is misleading. HOAs have been mandated by municipalities for decades either directly or indirectly. This is often accomplished by conditioning plat or other approval on the creation of amenities such as roads, open areas, greenbelts, retention basins, etc. and an obligation to maintain them. In towns where such regulations exist, people who wish to purchase a home have no choice but to live in an HOA. Finding a non-HOA neighborhood of homes built in the last several decades is virtually impossible[citation needed]. The choice for most buyers seeking a newer home is not HOA or non-HOA but which HOA[neutrality disputed].

The imposition of an HOA accomplishes several benefits for the municipality. First, these amenities may be burdened with property taxes which would not be the case if the amenities were owned by the municipality. Thus the mandated private amenities are cash generators for the municipalities. Second, the municipalities bear no obligation to maintain the amenities given that they are owned by the HOA. On the other hand, HOA communities are exempt from taxes on certain services provided by the municipality, if the HOA is providing them instead.

In The Voluntary City, published by the libertarian Independent Institute, Donald J. Boudreaux and Randall G. Holcombe argue not in universal favor of homeowners associations, opining that they do not necessarily have advantages over traditional governments. These include the fact that the association's creator, e.g. a developer, has an incentive to set up a government structured in such a way as to maximize profits and thus increasing the selling price of the property. If a certain decision would increase the selling price of certain parcels and decrease the selling price of others, the developer will choose the option with the highest net income to itself. This will sometimes result in suboptimal outcomes for the homeowners.

There's a whole lot of incentive there for developers and municipalities to clean up by sticking it to the residents.

[Octavia]

And a whole lot of incentive for residents to stick it to developers and municipalities by choosing to live elsewhere. Life has enough unavoidable annoyances as it is. Why anyone would willingly invite the avoidable ones is beyond me. (Unless, of course, one actually likes that sort of thing.)

[Christina]

I have no real information to go by and I'm just thinking about the area of NJ where my mother is. I don't recall seeing anything other than gated communities and very expensive old colonial homes for miles in every direction. I don't know how reflective that is of other areas but it would be interesting to see what percentage of new home development is PUDs and and what kind of housing permits get submitted and issued.

[Octavia]

They do seem to be popular with some parts of the population, which suggests that they're filling some sort of market niche.

I fully agree that many seem to be ridiculous, but I see no reason for people not to enter into them if they choose to do so.

[Christina]

The vast majority of the ones that I saw were seniors communities filled with people who moved away from NYC after retiring. The rest looked like very large and expensive family homes but with the same uniformity and golf course look.

[Notta]

It seems to me, and I have no evidence to back this up, that HOAs are filled primarily with older, white people who want to live some place where they don't have to worry about the neighborhood being turned into a drug dealer's paradise, or where housing prices are kept inflated by the 'nice' appearance of the entire hood.

[Octavia]

The vast majority of the ones that I saw were seniors communities filled with people who moved away from NYC after retiring. The rest looked like very large and expensive family homes but with the same uniformity and golf course look.

That sounds like living in Hell to me! :D

[Christina]

When I used to go visit her I would go out to smoke a joint at night and invariably get lost. Everything looks exactly the same unless you count rights and lefts and memorize little cutesy porch flags.

[Octavia]

Lots of new subdivisions are like that though, even when they're not part of a HOA. I could never live in one myself - they all look the same, each house and street indistinguishable from the rest. Very boring and slightly creepy - like something horrible is just waiting to burst out of the drains and devour all the screaming, tender residents. I'm afraid I'll likely end my days in the slum at the other end of the city, with the students and the artists and the eco-greenies who still hang their washing outside (the horror!). You know, people who can still use a pitchfork when the monster waddles, satiated, out of the golf course and into civilisation.

[Christina]

I get the creeps more from walking around that place at night even though it's gated and security people are driving around than I do in the middle of a city. It's like something out of the Twilight Zone.

[TySixtus]

But buying the house is voluntary, yes? And (as with, for example, bad plumbing or rodent infestation) the HOA contract is indivisible with the property when it's bought. It's a known package deal. The contract is included with the sale; it doesn't come afterwards.

A person might want to buy the house, but no-one's forcing them to if they don't want to deal with HOAs (or bad plumbing or rodent infestations). It's their choice. They're not forced into anything, therefore it is a voluntary contract.

These kind of arguments remind me of "Well why do WalMart employees want to unionize? They voluntarily joined the company, didn't they? And they knew that WalMart is outright hostile to unions, didn't they?"

Buying a house is as "voluntary" as making any other kind of living arrangement. You have to live somewhere, everybody does. Just because there is attached bullshit to the property doesn't make it right or acceptable. Once again, your argument is "Well, HOA's exist!" No fucking kidding they exist. I know they came as a packaged deal with a house. They fucking shouldn't, is my point. Buying a house, like so many other things, has both "voluntary" and "involuntary" aspects. A guy is supposed to pass on an affordable, decent house because of the HOA? That's bullshit. You're talking about a piece of property. Some stupid neighborhood agreement about shutter coloring and grass length shouldn't get to override that.

[Octavia]

Once again, your argument is "Well, HOA's exist!" No fucking kidding they exist. I know they came as a packaged deal with a house. They fucking shouldn't, is my point.

I know that you think they shouldn't. Yet you've yet to give a good reason why you think this. So, again:

Why do you think that we should legally limit a house-buyer's right to enter into a voluntary contract with an HOA?

HOAs are, after all, built because there are some people who want to live in them - like Christina's Mum. They want that packaged contract. Why shouldn't they have it? Why shouldn't they be allowed to freely associate with other like-minded people, who also want to live in any particular HOA?

[Octavia]

These kind of arguments remind me of "Well why do WalMart employees want to unionize? They voluntarily joined the company, didn't they? And they knew that WalMart is outright hostile to unions, didn't they?"

A better example might be Jack and the peanuts, given that it's purely caveat emptor, as is buying a HOA house. :)

Jack is allergic to peanuts and knows it. One day he's at the local dairy and buys a chocolate bar - the one bar out of all the different types on display that has peanuts in it. Jack knows it has peanuts in it. He even reads the note on the wrapper: "Product contains peanuts; do not eat if allergic". He eats it anyway, and swells up into a grotesque allergic thing.

Is it his own fault for not buying one of the non-peanut chocolate bars? Or is it reasonable for Jack to wail, through his horribly swollen mouth, "But I wanted that one! It's not my fault it came with peanuts! Why should I be forced to eat them?"

Not really reasonable, is it?

[Monad]

Sounds utterly bizarre to me. "Land of the free"?? let him keep his flagpole - this sort of creeping fascism of the petty dictators just seems to lead to totalitarian sterility and uniformity - what happened to individuality? If someone told me I couldn't hang out my washing or for that matter plant a totem pole in my garden I'd tell them to fuck themselves.

[Notta]

Sounds utterly bizarre to me. "Land of the free"?? let him keep his flagpole - this sort of creeping fascism of the petty dictators just seems to lead to totalitarian sterility and uniformity - what happened to individuality? If someone told me I couldn't hang out my washing or for that matter plant a totem pole in my garden I'd tell them to fuck themselves.Don't you live in the country where people are fined if they don't use an extra-large special wheelie bin to dispose of their trash?

[Monad]

Sounds utterly bizarre to me. "Land of the free"?? let him keep his flagpole - this sort of creeping fascism of the petty dictators just seems to lead to totalitarian sterility and uniformity - what happened to individuality? If someone told me I couldn't hang out my washing or for that matter plant a totem pole in my garden I'd tell them to fuck themselves.Don't you live in the country where people are fined if they don't use an extra-large special wheelie bin to dispose of their trash?

That's not on aesthetic grounds though and not imposed just for the sake of petty dictatorship. The reason for wheelie bins being standardised is simply a practical one - the refuse trucks that come round have a mechanised loading system designed with certain types of bin in mind. A non standard bin or extra large one would not fit those vehicles and presumably would require manual handling which council workers are not keen on for various reasons that I think are largely reasonable.

There are of course all sorts of non reasonable and bizarre rules here too but that's probably not one of them.

[Sidhe747]

America the new Germany, does that make Obama the new Hitler? :eek:

[Notta]

He won. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579773,00.html)RICHMOND, Va. — A 90-year-old Medal of Honor recipient can keep his 21-foot flagpole in his front yard after a homeowner's association dropped its request to remove it, a spokesman for Democratic Virginia Sen. Mark Warner said Tuesday.

The Sussex Square homeowners' association likewise has agreed to drop threats to take legal action against retired Army Col. Van T. Barfoot, Warner spokesman Kevin Hall said.

[Christina]

Good for them for dropping it instead of fighting it out in court. They probably would have won but made themselves and their HOA look terrible and bad press doesn't sell houses.

[Octavia]

I don't think anyone comes out of that bunfight looking particularly good, but it's nice to know that at least one side has finally seen, in the dim light of dawn, a sense of perspective thundering over the distant hills.

The HOA would have won legally, but it would have been, as you say, a Pyrrhic victory. After all, the guy is 90. It's not as if they're going to have to put up with that nasty flagpole desecrating their environment for decades to come.

[David B]

He won. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579773,00.html)RICHMOND, Va. — A 90-year-old Medal of Honor recipient can keep his 21-foot flagpole in his front yard after a homeowner's association dropped its request to remove it, a spokesman for Democratic Virginia Sen. Mark Warner said Tuesday.

The Sussex Square homeowners' association likewise has agreed to drop threats to take legal action against retired Army Col. Van T. Barfoot, Warner spokesman Kevin Hall said.

Great!

Now let's see some grumpy old atheist get a 21 foot high flagpole, and fly a 'ban Xmas' flag:evil:

David

[Notta]

Great!

Now let's see some grumpy old atheist get a 21 foot high flagpole, and fly a 'ban Xmas' flag:evil:

DavidIf I lived there, I would so totally do that!

[Valheru]

I still wonder whether these idiots really expected THAT old geezer to give in without a fight?

Maybe when they managed to process it in their thick skulls, they realised it would be in everybody's best interests to let the matter drop.

[Ray Moscow]

Can you imagine the drop in their property values if they had won? "Yeah, we're the HOA that forced that elderly decorated veteran to stop flying the US flag because we were able to force him to. But we promise that we're no longer total dicks, so you can buy a house here no problem."

They'd be shunned by left, right, and center.

[sohy]

Can you imagine the drop in their property values if they had won? "Yeah, we're the HOA that forced that elderly decorated veteran to stop flying the US flag because we were able to force him to. But we promise that we're no longer total dicks, so you can buy a house here no problem."

They'd be shunned by left, right, and center.

I doubt it. In a few weeks or months, nobody will remember what happened. In fact, it's possible that the more anal retentive potential home owner will be put off by the flag pole.

A mile or so from me, there's some redneck that has a very messy yard, and hangs a big ass confederate flag from the carport. There is junk on the side of the house and all summer long, the kid's inflatable swimming pool sits in the middle of the front yard. There is still plenty of freedom in the US to be an annoying slob. :D Does that help you understand why some people are attracted to neighborhoods that have restrictive covenants? To each his own.