Marine vet's 20-foot flagpole has homeowners association filing suit over a display of patriotism t

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Only problem, is most residential communities now have these HOA's extortionists.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Only problem, is most residential communities now have these HOA's extortionists.

Very true, but if people would quit buying into them, they would cease to exist. Pretty simple.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Telling him he can only display the flag under certain conditions - ie a 6' flagpole mounted on his house - IS restricting his right to display it.

What part of "shall not restrict" in the flag act don't you understand?

OP, starred and FLAGGED!

Edit: By the way, Semper Fi to all my jarhead friends from a squid!

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Telling him he can only display the flag under certain conditions - ie a 6' flagpole mounted on his house - IS restricting his right to display it.

What part of "shall not restrict" in the flag act don't you understand?

OP, starred and FLAGGED!

What part of section 4 of the act dont you understand?

Seriously, does everyone here only selectively read material?

There is an entire section of the act which gives HOA's the right to do this reasonably.

Nice try though.

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Hope the trolls are full

What exactly makes us trolls? The fact that we disagree and can site credible sources to back up our position?

Originally posted by zombiesC4

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I am not a fan of homeowners associations, but he chose to live in one, and therefore to follow the rules of it.

This is bull He is vet for god's sake

So, it sounds like you're saying that because he's a vet, he shouldn't have to follow the rules... That sounds pretty typical. But if ANYONE would know how important it is for everyone to follow the rules, seems to be it would be a marine. What did they teach him in there? That's he's 'special' and entitled? I doubt it.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots



Very true, but if people would quit buying into them, they would cease to exist. Pretty simple.

The problem lies in that some people simply dont have a choice.

Take Las Vegas for example. The overwhelming majority of new developments have HOA's by the builders choices. The lack of non-hoa areas represents a problem for those who dont want others telling them what they can or cant do with their own property.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by captaintyinknots



Very true, but if people would quit buying into them, they would cease to exist. Pretty simple.

The problem lies in that some people simply dont have a choice.

Take Las Vegas for example. The overwhelming majority of new developments have HOA's by the builders choices. The lack of non-hoa areas represents a problem for those who dont want others telling them what they can or cant do with their own property.

Again, you'll get no argument from me. HOA's are bad, and they are everywhere.

Sometimes though, to maintain freedom, people must give up luxuries, such as living in the exact place they desire.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
The problem lies in that some people simply dont have a choice.

There's ALWAYS a choice. What I will agree to is that sometimes people don't get what they want. We are not entitled to have everything we want.

I hate HOA, too!

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I think everyone could agree that the eradication of HOA's is a better idea than reducing the options of where people live if they want to do what they wish to their own property.

Everyone needs to get together and exterminate HOA's like the cockroaches they are.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think everyone could agree that the eradication of HOA's is a better idea than reducing the options of where people live if they want to do what they wish to their own property.

Everyone needs to get together and exterminate HOA's like the cockroaches they are.

The only way they will ever go away is if people stop giving them their money.

No profit=no point.

Just to give you an idea how nasty HOA's are, check out what I found:

Here are just a few homeowner horror stories that have been reported to Bankrate:
A man from Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., lost his home because he planted too many roses on his four-acre site. The board fined him and watched monthly as the fines mounted. When they slapped a lien on his home, he went to court and lost because he'd transgressed the board's architectural design rules. He was stuck with the board's $70,000 legal fees and lost his home to the bank.

A woman from Pomona, Calif., who was involved in a divorce fell behind with her monthly dues. The board said she owed $1,000; she said it was less than $800, and they went to court when the board threatened foreclosure. The woman was right -- the volunteer board's amateur accountants goofed, but the judge ruled she should have made back payments during the dispute, anyway, and the therapist was handed a $22,000 legal bill.

A couple from Lawrenceville, Ga., found they had a $3,500 lien on their house when they tried to sell it. The homeowners association had been fining them every day they left pink flamingos on their lawn but didn't tell them. The association got the money, but the couple have filed suit to get it back.

A Maryland man asked for a six-foot fence as protection from a neighbor who'd attacked him with a log. The board denied the request, so the homeowner sued -- and lost. It cost him $23,000 in legal fees and interest. Chastened, he built a shorter fence, but in places it was several inches taller than the four feet allowed. Board members came with a tape measure, fined him, slapped a lien on the home and seized the man's paycheck. "They took all my savings and treated me like a common criminal," he says. Sometimes, the long-gone developer causes problems.

A Hillsborough, Calif., builder put houses wherever he could, then donated unusable areas as 'parkland' to the private community. The donated areas turned out to be unstable hillside that required the homeowners to pay loads of money for some expensive maintenance.

Near snowy Donner Pass, Calif., a development has rules that you can't drive over the snow or clear it from around your house to preserve the rural appearance and to provide zones for snowmobiles. A woman resident with a back injury wasn't able to walk the half mile to her house, so she drove over the snow. The association fined her up to $500 a day. She faces more than $50,000 in fines and has been fighting her HOA in court for three years. The case is unresolved.

A Tampa, Fla., woman thought her attorney had paid all her delinquent HOA fees of more than $4,000, but she was wrong by $497. It cost her the house. The busy physical therapist ignored legal papers mailed to her, the association foreclosed and held a courthouse auction. A property company snapped up the house for $4,651, the price of the HOA's legal fees, then sold it for $88,000

. A family that cares for five foster children in Port Richey, Fla., was threatened with eviction from their residential development. The association considered having foster kids a business because the state paid $2,028 a month to care for the children. The 56-cents-an-hour 'business' owners are still fighting the case.

Sometimes a poor homeowner feels the wrath of the HOA even when he tries to succumb to the obscure rules and regulations. The nightmare for one Florida resident started only after he admitted he made a mistake and informed the HOA he was going to rectify it immediately. It seemed this hapless soul painted his house a bright blue -- after believing an HOA's secretary who said prior approval by the HOA was merely a formality. When he learned of his misdeed, he quickly agreed he would switch to a sanctioned shade. That's what made the subsequent assault by the HOA so bizarre. First it held a meeting to discuss the crime with neighbors -- but didn't invite the culprit. Then they stuffed fliers in each neighbor's mailbox -- carefully skipping the scene of the crime -- in which they went on at length about their outrage over the unauthorized paint job. When he got a copy of the flier from a sympathetic neighbor, the stunned homeowner wrote to the HOA president, reiterating his willingness to repaint the house and politely objecting to what he felt was needlessly abusive treatment and a dismal lack of neighborliness. He got no response from the grand poobah but did receive a threatening letter from the HOA lawyer. The final straw came at the end of the month when the HOA's monthly newsletter came out -- while the repaint work already in progress. The top story on the front page was a copy of the lawyer's nasty threatening letter to the harried homeowner, along with a note warning that all such miscreants would face a similar fate.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Telling him he can only display the flag under certain conditions - ie a 6' flagpole mounted on his house - IS restricting his right to display it.

What part of "shall not restrict" in the flag act don't you understand?

OP, starred and FLAGGED!

What part of section 4 of the act dont you understand?

Seriously, does everyone here only selectively read material?

There is an entire section of the act which gives HOA's the right to do this reasonably.

Nice try though.

Section 4: "any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association."

Apparently you need to read further. What "substantial interest" is this Marine violating? How is his flagpole being verboten a "reasonable restriction" when flagpoles are the most common form of displaying the US flag?

I'll tell you how:

You have a pack of tin-plated Hitlers, most of whom have never wore the uniform probably, all juiced up in their HOA board powertrip against a Marine who wishes to honor and remember his comrades and his country, which he has served, by displaying the US flag in the most common and accepted form - a flag pole.

Now lets come again at how their (the HOA board) action is justified as "a reasonable restriction", and is protecting a "substantial interest" ?

Horse pucky: give little men a little power, and it goes to their heads every time.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
What "substantial interest" is this Marine violating?

Perhaps one of the interests listed in this post

Some displays can be noisy or unattractive. Having to listen to a "talking" flag or the thump, thump, thump of a metal chain or rope against a flagpole can be an irritant for neighbors. Also, some people consider tattered flags or lights highlighting flags disrespectful. Finally, holes are often drilled to hold flag displays, and that can create water damage issues. All of those potential problems are sound reasons for associations to provide guidance to homeowners on flag displays.

Now lets come again at how their (the HOA board) action is justified as "a reasonable restriction", and is protecting a "substantial interest" ?

Of course they are justified. The homeowner asked if he could put up the flag. The HOA said no. He argued with them about it. They still said no. So he did it anyway. They are justified in suing him. He broke the rules.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
How is his flagpole being verboten a "reasonable restriction" when flagpoles are the most common form of displaying the US flag?

...his pole is TOO TALL and against the specs in the hmo agreement that he signed... he knew his pole was too tall when he signed the hmo agreement... later, he petitioned the hmo for an exception to the rules... his petition was denied, so he put his too tall pole up anyway...

...he has no defense... his rights are not being violated... his reasons for blowing this out of proportion has nothing to do with being patriotic and everything to do with being dishonest and an anal retentive ass that wants special treatment...

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Another stupid homeowner bites it. This sort of thing is very typical of homeowners associations. It happens everywere in the country. It is made to seem like an attack on patriotism but it is not. If he lives there he signed an agreement prohibiting lots of things and flags and poles are probably two of them.

C'mon this sounds like Limbaugh with all the innuendo. How about being honest.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

What exactly makes us trolls? The fact that we disagree and can site credible sources to back up our position?

No kidding. Could this get any more ridiculous?

Are we in some kind of alternate universe?

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think everyone could agree that the eradication of HOA's is a better idea than reducing the options of where people live if they want to do what they wish to their own property.

Why? Because you don't like it?

I know people who would not live any place - - if it didn't have an HOA.

You don't speak for them.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I am not a fan of homeowners associations, but he chose to live in one, and therefore to follow the rules of it.

In some areas, HOA have become so ubiquitous it's hard to fine a home that doesn't fall under the domain of one.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
What "substantial interest" is this Marine violating?

Perhaps one of the interests listed in this post

Some displays can be noisy or unattractive. Having to listen to a "talking" flag or the thump, thump, thump of a metal chain or rope against a flagpole can be an irritant for neighbors. Also, some people consider tattered flags or lights highlighting flags disrespectful. Finally, holes are often drilled to hold flag displays, and that can create water damage issues. All of those potential problems are sound reasons for associations to provide guidance to homeowners on flag displays.

Now lets come again at how their (the HOA board) action is justified as "a reasonable restriction", and is protecting a "substantial interest" ?

Of course they are justified. The homeowner asked if he could put up the flag. The HOA said no. He argued with them about it. They still said no. So he did it anyway. They are justified in suing him. He broke the rules.

And yet none of his neighbors have complained, and infact support him?

No, it is not justified in any way. This is a small cadre of small people, eager to flaunt what little power these little people have, just so they can get their jollies.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
How is his flagpole being verboten a "reasonable restriction" when flagpoles are the most common form of displaying the US flag?

...his pole is TOO TALL and against the specs in the hmo agreement that he signed... he knew his pole was too tall when he signed the hmo agreement... later, he petitioned the hmo for an exception to the rules... his petition was denied, so he put his too tall pole up anyway...

...he has no defense... his rights are not being violated... his reasons for blowing this out of proportion has nothing to do with being patriotic and everything to do with being dishonest and an anal retentive ass that wants special treatment...

Bullsh*t. The 2005 flag law null and voids HOA contracts on this specific issue. Read up!