Flag flap: Indiana veteran, wife battle homeowners association over Old Glory

Fox News.com ^ | October 28, 2014 | Joshua Rhett Miller

[Kaslin]

An elderly veteran and his wife say there’s “absolutely no way” the flagpole outside their Indiana home is coming down, despite threats from a homeowners association — and a local prosecutor intends to back them in court if necessary.

Bob and Judy Willits insist they intend to fight multiple letters from the Fieldstone Homeowners Association regarding the American and POW/MIA flags outside their Greenfield home. The couple was first told in early September that the freestanding patriotic display wasn’t welcome since it wasn’t mounted to the home.

“We have absolutely no plans to take it down,” Judy Willits told FoxNews.com on Tuesday. “It would be kind of a bloody situation if we had to take the flag down at this point.”

[jwalsh07]

Ah I see, you think America has Kings, Queens and other assorted royalty that hold the title to land in perpetuity. Try reading your link.

What is the “substantial interest” that an HOA has in mowing around flower beds surrounding a flag pole versus mowing all the other flower beds in the HOA?

Hint: There is no substantial interest and they will lose in court with damages awrded to the Korean War Vet.

[Kaslin]

Yeah it is. The more the better

[colorado tanker]

It is not unconstitutional to burn a flag.

It is unconstitutional to ban burning a flag, which is considered a form of political expression. So, by the same logic shouldn't displaying the flag be protected expression?

[WayneS]

Yes he is. He is the home owner. That means he owns the home. The Home Owner's Association, though, does NOT own his home.

For someone who purports to be a supporter of property rights, you sure seem more than willing to strip this man of his.

[WayneS]

Thanks.

That’s a good letter.

[morphing libertarian]

Duh, I posted the case law.

If you think you can change your title unilaterally go ahead. I certainly won’t stand in your way. I am always open to smart people like you who re-interpret my meaning and claim special powers.

[Gamecock]

Del Boca Vista Phase III?

[WayneS]

PS - The homeowner, in this case, is also the landowner, in that this particular development is not condominium-style.

So, the man owns the house and the lot it sits on.

Your continued support of the HOA will demonstrate your LACK of commitment to private property rights.

[Theoria]

The landowner joined a membership and agreed to their bylaws and regulations. My support for private property also includes private contracts. We shall see if what the court decides. Nor should a Federal Law decide how a membership or association chooses to run their organization.

[Socon-Econ]

If it is against the Constitution to burn a flag, isn’t it unconstitutional to ban its display?
*******************
A few clarifications. It’s not unconstitutional to ban others from displaying flags on property that you own. With this in mind, HOA’s should not be confused with condominiums, where the condo association owns common property that may include the area where the unit owner wants to put his flag. Moreover, even with HOA’s having no commonly owned property, the unit owners have to agree, before they move in, to the restrictions that may be imposed by the HOA. This is NOT communism.

[WayneS]

I’ll remember you said that.

[jwalsh07]

Duh, I posted the case law.

Duh is right on the money. Case law requires a case or cases. What you posted was a synopsis laced with opinion and what's more you didn't even read it or you would know that the HOA will lose in court because they have no "substntial interest" inbanning a well kept flagpole within a flower bed becasue they say it is a burden to mow around flower beds yet they mow around all sorts of flower beds in the development. Some flower beds are more equal than others morph?

[familyop]

"Anyone who baccedes to or buys property subject to a HOA deserves what he gets"

Much of CO on the Rockies is a patchwork of developments with HOAs. Apparently, most of the original subdividers or their buyers were talked into establishing HOAs. Some of the developments with HOAs remain nearly empty after having been established about 40 years ago.

Imagine nearly all of the smaller private land lots of a whole country being subject to HOAs with no choice at all for buyers. It could happen. We might already be close to seeing that.

Avoidance is not the answer. The matter must and will be confronted. HOAs are de facto governments.

[morphing libertarian]

You’re oh for two making up my positions. Never said the HOA would win anything in court. If you don’t understand something about my positions read my posts and I will explain anything you don’t understand.

You’re spinning from the king and queen comment which was clearly wrong about title and legal rights. Now you’re saying I said the HOA would win in court on the flag issue. A strange statement when I posted information showing just the opposite.

Why not argue with yourself since you’;re already making up both positions?

If you’re just looking to spar, find someone who wants to play.

[jwalsh07]

:-} Back to reality. You said “The person who originally built the properties has that right to make that determination”. I called bs. You cited natural law from 17th century England to back your claim. I laughed out loud and made light of that. The person who originally built the property has no say in whether or not a future homeowner votes yea or nay to an HOA. None, nada, zippo.

[morphing libertarian]

Never said they can’t change by vote. In fact I said that.

The reference to english law was a response to someone else who posted something different.

You’re wrong about my posts again and it’s strike three.

Have fun.

[jwalsh07]

I’m having fun. Sorry you’re not but I understand. Libertarianism can be very confusing at all stages of the morph.

[familyop]

"The builder does not get to decide how future owners use and live in it."

That's true. The original landowner has no real right to the property after selling it. He doesn't own it. The neighbors don't own it.

Folks who don't like what neighbors do on their own properties should move to properties large enough, that they can't see neighbors. HOAs are communistic.

[morphing libertarian]

You are incorrect. The titles to the property are handled down to the subsequent owners. In an HOA community you cannot change anything unilaterally.

The CC@Rs can be changed by vote and must be posted with the state.

Title changes are more difficult.

[morphing libertarian]

79 for you also.