Posted on 08/19/2004 8:57:41 AM PDT by MikeJ75
File this story under: "Somehow forced to consent to the voluntary rules"
Boo hoo. They knew what they were getting into when they voluntary signed the papers. They could have chosen to live somewhere else.
Why people voluntarily choose to cede even more control over their daily lives to other people is completely beyond me.
If homeowner associations are going to have the powers of governments, their powers must be restricted the same as governments are.
"If homeowner associations are going to have the powers of governments, their powers must be restricted the same as governments are."
Not really. Every homeowner in a place that has an association signs a contract with the association as a condition of living there. It's one of those things that is revealed when you decide whether or not to buy the property or rent it.
Not like government at all. Don't like the rules? Don't buy the property.
Personally, I hate homeowner's associations. That's why I would never, ever, purchase any property that was tied to one.
If you do, however, then you voluntarily agreed to the terms. Tough nuts.
I will eat my own size 11s before I live in a condo again.
Yes we knew the basics of the condo association and such, and were aware of needing permisison to plant anything, hang anything, or otherwise make changes.
But the inconsistency of the Assoc enforcement of the rules is what made life so infuriating sometimes.
Best to avoid it altogether in the future. Lesson learned.
You would be absolutely right, except...
"municipalities from Las Vegas to Hilton Head, S.C., are virtually requiring that any new multi-unit housing be governed by associations."
The great First Amendment champion Justice Hugo Black wrote that it was irrelevant that Chickasaw, Ala., the town involved in the case, was owned by a shipbuilding company. Private ownership of the streets and sidewalks, he said, "is not sufficient to justify the state's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties."
Just in case you missed that part
Not to mention hefty monthly maintenance fees.
If this was really a problem then the market would rectify it. If the ability to have signs in the yard becomes important enough that people will pay for it, then land developers will devote more of their activities to building additions which don't have such restrictive covenants. If there is a need or desire for something in the market, the market will move to fill that need. Ain't capitalism great!
No, it wasn't missed.
But you may have missed where the restrictions in Chickasaw applied to the entire town. It's obviously a different situation when an entire town is privately owned.
Unless you can find any federal court decisions that strike down the ability of homeowners associations to restrict speech using Chickasaw as precedent.
No, they're ruled by their state constitutions.
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ARTICLE I Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances.
So SC can't directly ban signs on lawns. Far from satisfied with that restriction on their power, they mandate HOA's be established to do their bidding for them.
A de-facto infringement on free speech is the result. What a neat little loophole. Then again, slimy underhanded tactics are SOP to freedom hating control freaks.
"municipalities from Las Vegas to Hilton Head, S.C., are virtually requiring that any new multi-unit housing be governed by associations."
That's not capitalism. That's fascism.
For clarification, the article used the municipality of Hilton Head as an example, not the entire state of South Carolina.
And where is the evidence (i.e. legislative history) that suggests the reason for the Hilton Head law is to restrict free speech rights?
Their intention is irrelevent. The result is what matters.
Supposedly an extremist would claim yelling "Fire!" in a crowded non-burning theater of psychics is a free speech right, too.
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre =! a political sign on a lawn.
Got any other strawmen to whip?
The intention is absolutely relevant.
You don't think a federal judge would see a difference in a city passing such a law for the sole purpose of restricting speech versus passing a law that has, as a side effect, restricting speech?
"Honest guys, we didn't mean to infringe on free speech. Snicker snicker he he"
You don't think a federal judge would see a difference in a city passing such a law for the sole purpose of restricting speech versus passing a law that has, as a side effect, restricting speech?
After CFR was upheld, its safe to say federal judges are poor choices to consult on issues of free speech.
But I see your point in a way. It's unlikely they're mandating HOA's for the sole purpose of prohibiting lawn signs. Their motivations are likely as numerous as the number of restrictions on HOA covenents. They want dumbed down, bland and tightly controlled McNeighborhoods, the wishes of the market be damned. And if they don't have to bother with passing and defending a host of laws because HOA's will do it for them, all the better.
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.