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

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

What gives these HOA's the rights to spit on the Constitution, the flag and nation? This is yet again another attempt to dismantle everything that this nation holds true and holds dear.

The HOA has a right to enforce a contract that the soldier in the OP signed in good faith and by doing so did agree to abide by its provisions in the entirety. The rule of law is very near and dear to this nation and adherence to a contract is very much central in the rule of law.

I care not for the rules of any HOA as no one has the authourity to tell you that you cannot display the Flag if you wanted to.

There has not been an issue at any point in the thread with the soldier in the OP not being able to display the flag. The issue is his desire to negate a contract he signed in good faith by erecting a 20 foot flag pole which is indeed not allowed under the contract he voluntarily signed and voluntarily pledged to abide by. Also just because you do not care about HOAs doesn't mean others do not nor does your disagreement give you the right to restrict anyone from living in an HOA controlled community if they desire.

Size of the flag and the pole is irrelevant, to undo, just take the pole out and repack the hole with dirt and place some grass seeds over it and within a few months it will look like nothing was ever there.

The size of the flag pole is very relevant to the discussion and I cannot see how you would say it isn't. The solder in the OP can display his flag but only in the prescribed method within the HOA guidelines; the same guidelines he read before he signed his contract for sale and purchase and was fully aware of. The soldier knew he wasn't allowed to do this as evidenced by appealing to the HOA board to put up the 20 foot pole and their subsequent denial of his request.

Ecologically speaking I am most positive that it does not interfere with any known bird migratory routes, most definitely does not interfere with the routes of any commercial or military aircraft so with that in mind even that is shot down and deemed baseless.

The above is completely irrelevant.

Rights guaranteed to us in The Constitution are granted to us by the doc and not by God. The only God given rights we have is the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Beyond that the doc gives us these rights.

The constitution restricts the federal government and defines the powers of the federal government. If you can show me within the constitution a specific section you feel gives the soldier in the OP the right to sully his good name and reputation by willfully violating a contract he signed in good faith then please point it out.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Thank you for posting the entirety of the law that the op is consistently misquoting and misrepresenting in this thread. Your posting shows the law in its entirety; as it was was meant to be enforced and interpreted. Your post shows that this entire law does indeed have a section which places limitations on the enforcement of the rest of the law. This section clearly grants HOAs and other residential management organizations the power to limit the method of display of the flag.

It is my hope that a posting like this will show the OP how a law is meant to be considered. A person cannot simply cherry pick a part of a law and then claim the rest of the law must be excluded. That is not how law works. The entirety of the document/law must be considered in each instance which merits the review of that same document/law.

Let us not forget that without the limitations passed and made into amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. that slavery would still be legal and women would not be able to vote. I hardly think anyone would "cherry pick" the constitution in order to claim that slavery could still be practiced or to deny women the right to vote so why would you do so with any other U.S. law?

The vet is brain dead if he doesnt see the implications of posting a flag. -He obvouisly doesnt even know his countries history lately and what he is honoring, Another hero worshioing of the soldier thread, Does he not think that if he was allowed to put up his worshipping flag, that others could put up their flags. Maybe a satan worshipping flag, a foreign country, a-CULT?, The man is ignorant? shallow thinking, who has no respect this communitys laws on posting on private property within the community. THE soldier knew the restrictians before he moved there, HE IS TOTALLY IGNORANT. If i lived there i would be first to screem bloody murder also.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by sbctinfantry

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.

Some rights are granted by god, not homeowner's assosciations. So sayeth our founders.

States rights my friend. If the state agrees that HOA's are okay, the fed cant do anything about it. There is no constitutional guideline against it.

Federal law in this item is the only avenue authourized to either modify or amend laws pertaining to the Flag so this is a Federal item, the 10th can't do jack squat for you in this case as the flag is Federal. Hence why at every tier of Government the US Flag is always flown highest and proudest.

edit on 15-1-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

However, it is the states right to allow HOA's-and therefore the limitations of said act.

States Right.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Just love how these elite corporations infringe on the American, much less the pride that some have! I'm glad to see this guy stand up for what he believes in.

Also good to see that the Flag Act of 2005, supersedes the HOA bylaws. Hope it goes to court, so the HOA in question will be seen as the asses they are!

www.chron.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 7-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

Anyone who owns or willingly buy's a home/property that is subject to a HOA is a fool. You get double taxed and just end up dealing with double "elected" idiots. So far the courts have bended over backwards for the HOA's. But it is good they still have to answer to some law's. I still feel that HOA's are nothing more than over glorified busy-body cults.

reply to post by korathin


Given your feelings regarding HOAs I seriously doubt that you would purchase property that was within an HOA community; I am terribly sorry for presuming this and hope that it does not offend you that I did so. Your choice to not buy property in the HOA is based upon your criteria for where you want to call home and you have every right to do so.

The issue at hand is that just as you have every right not to buy property within an HOA community others do indeed have every right to purchase property within an HOA community. The HOA guidelines are spelled out for a buyer before they purchase the property and that buyer has every right to choose to purchase or not to purchase based upon those guidelines; there are just as many reasons people would purchase as there are reasons they would not.

The soldier in the OP is no different than any of us. He had his choice and after reading the HOA guidelines decided to purchase the property and thusly abide by the HOA contract. He then appealed to the governing board (which by the way was a recognition of their authority in the matter) and was denied his application for a flagpole which exceeded HOA guidelines by over 14 feet. The soldier in the OP then willfully disregarded his word and violated the contract he had signed in good faith by putting up his flagpole. This was a breach of contract pure and simple.

You state a desire to see law exert further control over HOAs. Contract law is a key and core component of the system of law we have here in the U.S. and for a former Marine to so willfully violate a contract is indeed indicative a systemic problem regarding adherence to law in the U.S. Do you feel that it further advances our legal system for people to so willfully disrespect contract law?

I am curious why you feel that the federal government has any business or place to legislate at a residential neighborhood level?

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Because if you file suit in court against someone, they are entitled to get copies of the so-called evidence against them? And before that, the board would have to notify this Marine that there were complaints filed?

The "evidence againts them" would be the rules this man agreed to. They do not need to prove their desire to enforce rules in any court. That makes no sense. The board would not have to notify the Marine of anything other than the fact that he is breaking the rules. Please explain to me why they would also have to tell him which neigbors complained? Against the rules is againnts the rules.

Because the defense in all cases has the right to see the prosecutions evidence? You ever been in court? Obviously not. The HOA board has to prove that there is a problem with his neighbors, and not just these tin-plated hitlers on that board. They can't - no complaints, all support.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


It's all about property values. They, the HOA have to show how this man's flagpole lowers the values in that neighborhood. It wasn't agreed to when this Marine bought the house; this is crap the morons on that HOA board came up with.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


The terms of the HOA were spelled out in a separate addendum to the Contract for Sale and Purchase as spelled out per Florida law. A real estate contract is considered void if this addendum is applicable and not inserted into the contract.

The gentleman signed that addendum and then went so far as to use the prescribed method of appeal within that document to try to erect his flag pole. He was turned down by a board whose authority he voluntarily put himself under and then tried to circumvent that board.

The issue is not property value. The issue is the Soldier from the OP signing a contract in good faith and the attempting to willfully disregard his word as given on that contract.

Don't you expect more for a former marine than for him to back out of a contract that he signed in good faith?

You have to be a fool to buy a house that is any part of a stupid HOA. Seriously, on top of asking the town permissions to do anything with property you supposedly own, you have to ask some moron neighbors as well. The hell with that.....

reply to post by TKDRL


That is exactly why you are free to buy whichever property you can afford regardless of its location. Your opinion about HOAs means that you would not purchase a property within an HOA community and that is your right to do so! It is also someone's right to purchase property within an HOA. Bear in mind they have just as strong an opinion as to why they do buy as you do as to why you do not buy. The great thing about freedom is both of your opinions are correct and both of you can exercise your right to choose which property to buy.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by korathin

 

Given your feelings regarding HOAs I seriously doubt that you would purchase property that was within an HOA community; I am terribly sorry for presuming this and hope that it does not offend you that I did so. Your choice to not buy property in the HOA is based upon your criteria for where you want to call home and you have every right to do so.

The issue at hand is that just as you have every right not to buy property within an HOA community others do indeed have every right to purchase property within an HOA community. The HOA guidelines are spelled out for a buyer before they purchase the property and that buyer has every right to choose to purchase or not to purchase based upon those guidelines; there are just as many reasons people would purchase as there are reasons they would not.

The soldier in the OP is no different than any of us. He had his choice and after reading the HOA guidelines decided to purchase the property and thusly abide by the HOA contract. He then appealed to the governing board (which by the way was a recognition of their authority in the matter) and was denied his application for a flagpole which exceeded HOA guidelines by over 14 feet. The soldier in the OP then willfully disregarded his word and violated the contract he had signed in good faith by putting up his flagpole. This was a breach of contract pure and simple.

You state a desire to see law exert further control over HOAs. Contract law is a key and core component of the system of law we have here in the U.S. and for a former Marine to so willfully violate a contract is indeed indicative a systemic problem regarding adherence to law in the U.S. Do you feel that it further advances our legal system for people to so willfully disrespect contract law?

I am curious why you feel that the federal government has any business or place to legislate at a residential neighborhood level?

The thing is the Contract has to be legal in the first place. Sure HOA can be great when you got great people in them, I can see how those types of communities can be desirable. A lot of the ones I seen personally seem nice, you almost want to move there.


But you just give up too much freedom for my taste and it is so easy for the HOA council to steal your property if you move into one with a control freak in charge that doesn't like you. I prefer to learn from others mistakes and there are hundreds upon hundreds of cases where people where wrongfully messed over by HOA's.
And knowing about those cases I can't recommend it to anyone, period. Or offer input that could be seen as supporting HOA's. I could understand if HOA actually owned the property and had a kind of rent/lease thing. That would make sense to me.

But the HOA negates the very spirit of property ownership. It is like saying: Sure you can "own" the property, but in order to own it you must surrender all say so about it.
I guess I am just one of those fiercely independent folk that wouldn't mind doing something if it was voluntary, but the moment it becomes involuntary will kick and scream lol.
The only law's I think they need applied to(in the form of new regulation)HOA's is over sight and transparency law's. Just to keep things honest and make sure everyone is acting in good faith.

I just view HOA's like I do BDSM. While morally and intellectually they are about the same thing, legally they are not. That disturbs me, because imagine if a dom/sub contract was legally binding.. /shivers

Yeah...

reply to post by korathin


The contract is legal as it is laid out for complete review by the purchaser in Florida's Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Real Property. The potential property owner has every right to decide not to purchase the selected property based on the stipulations within the HOA addendum should he find those stipulations undesirable.

There are indeed cases where an overzealous HOA has exceeded its contractual limitations; to deny that would be foolish and dishonest. However lets not forget that for all of those cases there are logically more people that are satisfied with HOAs than are not; otherwise we would see a great deal more litigation and such regarding HOAs.

I must disagree with your notion that an HOA impedes one's right to property ownership. If my desire for the property I want to own includes such things as long term stability of the neighborhood, a retention of resale value, conformity (which is a real estate term denoting similar styles of construction which surprisingly is desirable in the real estate market), etc. etc. etc. then the HOA is a perfect expression of what I desire in a property. If I desired free open space, no neighbors, and the ability to do "whatever i please" with my property I would purchase outside of an HOA. Neither position is right and neither position is wrong; they are a matter of personal preference and choice. Freedom's key ingredient is widely acknowledged to be the freedom to choose and the HOA offers a desirable choice of property for a good number of property owners.

Your personal viewpoint on HOAs is as valid as opposing viewpoints that have been expressed in this thread. Your desire to caution others about an HOA purchase is another fine example of a freedom we enjoy in America. I think we both agree that should either side (pro or con on HOA0 lead to either an HOA mandate for all new neighborhoods or, conversely, should HOA formation be banned that this is when freedom has been infringed upon. Not only is freedom being infringed upon should either of those situations occur; it would be a step towards Fascism regardless of whichever side instituted their policy by virtue of exercising that level of control over the opposite parties decision making processes.

I think your attempt to associate BDSM with an HOA really weakened the majority of your post. While it is valid as your opinion I would encourage you to remember that it is only your opinion. Other people that feel differently are just as valid in that opinion as you are in yours.


Ultimately the HOA issue comes down to choice. I won't infringe upon your right to not have an HOA and I will not move into your existing neighborhood and try to start one. I would hope that you would not infringe upon my right to purchase HOA controlled property nor try to dismantle an existing neighborhood's HOA that you have just moved into.

It's his property, he can do what he wants

reply to post by ThatSpaceGuy


As long as he did not willingly sign a document stating he would abide by the codes of the HOA; which in this case he did. The soldier in the OP signed the contract and agreed to abide by it. He then went so far as to use the method of appeal prescribed within the agreement. It was when the board rejected his request, based upon the HOA guidelines he willingly agreed to abide by, that he decided to break his word and go back on the contract that he signed.

Had he purchased property outside of an HOA your statement would be entirely correct; however he willingly and knowingly purchased HOA controlled property and therefore is honor bound to live up to the word he gave in good faith.