Posted on 12/05/2009 5:32:50 AM PST by Silly
No doubt you have heard of the flagpole complaint* against Col. Van T. Barfoot, a 90-year-old Medal of Honor winner and Choctaw Indian. His homeowner’s association is trying to force him to remove the flagpole on his property, for purportedly “aesthetic” reasons, even though the association’s bylaws do not expressly forbid free-standing flagpoles or vertical masts.
Hoping to catch a pedestrian’s eye view of Barfoot’s house using Google’s Street View, I looked up his Richmond, Virginia address in an Internet phone directory, and then plugged it into Google Maps. His house was not pictured; Google’s cameras have not reached his street.
What the map does reveal, however, was a surprise: Barfoot’s property is situated in a cul-de-sac at the end of a winding lane. The only way to get there is to turn off the main street (Gayton Road), enter the cloistered neighborhood, turn off Sussex Square Drive onto Coat Bridge Lane, and follow that street around a final curve to a dead end. In other words, only a few close neighbors in his association can actually see his house. Unless you live next door to him, you would have to go out of your way to see the flagpole (or the flag, which is what I believe this is really about).
Furthermore, his property lies at the outer perimeter of the development, which borders a large tract of open land. Visible by satellite, again using Google, you can see an adjacent area covered with brush, then a large open space, past which is a shopping or business development. So the opportunity to see his property is extremely minimal.
Not that any of this matters; the flagpole is only 21 feet high. Photos of his modest home shot from the street reveal that the pole barely reaches the top of the house and is in no way conspicuous. What cannot be seen cannot pose an aesthetic issue.
I am guessing, therefore, that it is one or two immediate neighbors who are making this an issue – either that, or some idle busybodies on the HOA board.
A CONVERSATION WITH THE FAMILY
While on hold with Mark Levin’s radio show yesterday to speak about this, I telephoned the Barfoot residence to confirm that I had the right address.
I was right. Barfoot’s son-in-law, Roger Nicholls, confirmed by phone that you’d have to go out of your way to see the pole. Their phone has been so bombarded, they have had to schedule people to answer calls in shifts, he said. Because of the lawsuit, he is not providing a lot of other information to the press. But it is not a happy time for this family; the lawsuit has caused Barfoot and the Nicholls – who live on the same street – an enormous amount of stress.
Mark’s show ended before I could speak to him on-air; I’ll try again Monday.
DISTINGUISHED AMERICAN HERO
Barfoot’s life and exploits during WW II are notable enough that he actually has his own Wikipedia article. The article was not created in response to the lawsuit controversy; it was first published over two years ago.
* At present there is no lawsuit against Barfoot – only the threat of one. The HOA, in a statement on their lawyer’s Web site, states that it is a “request.” Other sources indicate there is a $10 fine for each day he does not comply with the HOA’s request. On Thursday night (December 3), the HOA extended its deadline to December 11 – the anniversary of the U.S. declaration of war on Italy and Germany.
And I’m only 30 miles from Ann Arbor.
I think that's the nail in the coffin.
The HOA is saying they are not preventing him from flying a flag. He can do that (as many do) on a diagonal pole attached to his house.
However, he wishes to fly his flag from a vertical mast, which he has always done, based on military practice worldwide. They are, in fact, trying to "restrict" this method.
That is why I think they will lose.
And when that happens, I hope other residents plant more flagpoles.
I agree. I think that particular code is far more appropriate in the Colonel’s defense than any argument based on the subjective nature of the HOA bylaw or covenant. It is clear that the HOA, any HOA, may not restrict or prevent the Colonel or any other citizen from flying a flag in a manner described in the Flag Code, and he is, of course, doing precisely that.
Hoping that he hasn’t forked out any $ on defending himself, or that he will be reimbursed since these complaints appear baseless on multiple levels. Do you know? And is there a fund or collection or a place we can donate to help him with the legal fees?
He is getting pro bono representation from a law firm.
Uh...yes there is. Just not one about flag poles.
Got it. you spouted off ignorantly, first thing. (nodding head) Thanks for letting me know
Like them or not, HOAs and their governing documents are there for a reason. If I were living next door to the guy I would probably have the same concerns. Not that I have anything against someone flying an American flag, but because if the HOA doesn't enforce this rule now they may forever preclude themselves from enforcing it when some @sshole wants to fly a Nazi flag on Hitler's birthday, an Islamic flag during Ramadan, etc.
Read the story: There is no such rule.
The bylaws do NOT prohibit flagpoles; they are silent on the matter.
Actually, it seems that there is no covenant or bylaw addressing flagpoles, and the charges are based on an obscure and subjective ‘aesthetic violation’ charge. In addition, there is a section of the Flag Code which specifically prohibits HOA’s from preventing citizens from flying the flag, so long as it is done in accordance with the proper etiquette found in the Code.
Ordinarily, I’m with you in the ‘HOA’s are stupid, but you joined it’ camp. However, in this case, it seems to be that the HOA is in violation of US code and the homeowner is in the right.
Have you ever considered chamomile tea? :)
Not to mention that US code prohibits HOA’s from preventing individuals from flying the flag on their property (so long as they are following protocol outlined in the Flag Code).
Wow. You gotta pull that flagpole outta your butt. I think it’s the source of the extreme pain you’re in.
Sure makes me glad my home is in a Plain Ole Neighborhood, without all the protections of an HOA.
Better to post POS advice that to be a POS.Grammatical error or Freudian slip, since it does point back at you, Lee, oh yes, if you read it carefully you see that your grammar error makes you the object of your own quip. Kind of like hoisting yourself with by your own petard.
If the HOA board can demonstrate that their refusal to permit this flag pole is consistent with their response to other similar requests (and maybe even if it's not), then he's got no legal leg to stand on.
“with by” — LOL!
Now everyone shut up about this and stop stinking up my thread!
kthxbai
Except the prohibition outlined in the US flag code.
good to hear it worked out for you and your family
There are very specific legal implications of the term "titled property" and "limited common area," so the Federal statute may not apply in this case.
FWIW, I suspect the Federal statute is exactly what this HOA had in mind when they drafted the rule that permits residents in the association to fly flags that are mounted on their porches or on the outside of their actual houses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.