Community Bans Woman's 'Support Our Troops' Sign (Tampa, Florida)

Local 6 (Florida) ^ | March 10, 2006

[Stoat]

Community Bans Woman's 'Support Our Troops' Sign

 

POSTED: 12:52 pm EST March 10, 2006

UPDATED: 4:39 pm EST March 10, 2006

 

A community association board in Tampa, Fla., voted Thursday night to ban a 'Support Our Troops' sign posted by a solider's wife, according to a report.

• "I feel that your home is where your heart is and right now my husband is in Iraq and that's where my heart is so I want to show everyone that I support what he is doing," Stacy Kelley said.

 

  Stacy Kelly, whose husband David is in Iraq with the U.S. Army, recently posted a sign in her yard to support him.

"I feel that your home is where your heart is and right now my husband is in Iraq and that's where my heart is, so I want to show everyone that I support what he is doing," Kelley said. The Westchase Homeowner's Association asked Kelley to remove the sign because it violated association policy. Association President Daryl Manning said the rules about signs are in place to keep the community clean and keep the peace.

"The concern that we have is what if the neighbor across the street does not support the troops or is against the administration and starts putting up those types of signs," Manning said. "So, here we have a war of the signs and we definitely do not want to get into that." Thursday night, the seven association board members voted that the sign would have to come down.

Board members proposed placing the sign to the front of the swim and tennis center but Kelley reportedly refused the compromise, according to a St. Petersburg Times report. Stacy faces fines of $100 a day for up to 10 days for the association rules violation.

There was no word on what Kelley planned to do.

[Stoat]

How does this dirty the community and disturb the peace?

To normal, sane and healthy people it doesn't of course, but to the Left it serves as a convenient sledgehammer to use against those who dare to express their patriotism.  I am guessing that this Homeowners Association would have absolutely no problem with people putting up big rainbow "celebrate diversity" flags or large pink triangles.

[Stoat]

One of the problems is that builders use "standard" homeowners association rules, which must be agreed to by buyers in the development. You either agree to the rules, or buy elsewhere. But "elsewhere" probably has the same set of "standard" rules. Unfortunately, these "standard" sets of rules are very restrictive. Ham radio operators have run into the problem in many developments. Antenna towers are prohibited, which keeps the hams off the air.

Excellent points all, and I hadn't considered the Ham radio aspect.  I work in emergency services and have interacted with Hams extensively, although I regret that I haven't become one yet.  They form an absolutely essential communications link in times of disaster and Hams should be encouraged to pursue their hobby in every community.  Restricting them in this way can cost lives.

The rules in force in the lady's development probably restrict signs. The committee has no option but to enforce them.

The article states that the matter was voted upon, which suggests that there was indeed a choice.  If the vote went against any laws or codes that were in place, then the Association's vote could be amended, I would think.  I'm wondering why it was voted on if it was indeed a 'slam dunk' matter that allowed no other option?
 

One of the problems is that builders use "standard" homeowners association rules, which must be agreed to by buyers in the development. You either agree to the rules, or buy elsewhere. But "elsewhere" probably has the same set of "standard" rules. Unfortunately, these "standard" sets of rules are very restrictive. Ham radio operators have run into the problem in many developments. Antenna towers are prohibited, which keeps the hams off the air.

Excellent points all, and I hadn't considered the Ham radio aspect.  I work in emergency services and have interacted with Hams extensively, although I regret that I haven't become one yet.  They form an absolutely essential communications link in times of disaster and Hams should be encouraged to pursue their hobby in every community.  Restricting them in this way can cost lives.

The rules in force in the lady's development probably restrict signs. The committee has no option but to enforce them.

The article states that the matter was voted upon, which suggests that there was indeed a choice.  If the vote went against any laws or codes that were in place, then the Association's vote could be amended, I would think.  I'm wondering why it was voted on if it was indeed a 'slam dunk' matter that allowed no other option?
 

[ChildOfThe60s]

Look up the meaning of the term "ad hominem attack". Then read your posts to me and please point out where you have actually debated my point of view.

So far, all you've done is criticise me, not my point of view.

Anyway, this is pointless. Feel free to get in the last word. I'm outta here.

[freedumb2003]

Certain rights, like the right to free speech, are inalienable. I understand that to mean that we can't forfeit them, surrender them or sell them.

This lady's got a case, if you ask me.

You have never been so wrong in your life.

[freedumb2003]

Home owners associations are inherently evil ;) and havens for busybodies and and liberals who have way to much time on their hands to mess with folks over ridiculous things like this

Don't join one.

[El Gato]

There was no word on what Kelley planned to do.

I'd be leaving the sign up, and saying "see me in court, mo-fo's". Then we get a retired Marine, who became a lawyer either after retirement, or after several tours as a tactical Marine to argue her case. Or maybe Congressman Billy Bob. Homeowners associations than can control what you do with your property are quasi governmental organizations, and in many cases must have a government charter. As such, they should be subject to the first amendment.

[El Gato]

of a freely signed covenant].

How "freely signed" is it when everyplace has such covenants? All they have to do is change their policy to prohibit negative signs and partisan political signs, and this one would fall into the OK category, while most any sign in opposition would be negative. If the neighbors want to put up a "We Support Osama" sign, well good luck to 'em.

[El Gato]

The rules in force in the lady's development probably restrict signs. The committee has no option but to enforce them.

Bovine Scat, they can have the association vote to change them, surely they've got enough brain cells to rub together to come up with a rule that would ban offensive, garish,or obscene signs, but not positive uplifting and discreet, like this one.

For small minds, "NO" is always the easy answer.

[Stoat]

There was no word on what Kelley planned to do.

I'd be leaving the sign up, and saying "see me in court, mo-fo's". Then we get a retired Marine, who became a lawyer either after retirement, or after several tours as a tactical Marine to argue her case. Or maybe Congressman Billy Bob. Homeowners associations than can control what you do with your property are quasi governmental organizations, and in many cases must have a government charter. As such, they should be subject to the first amendment.

Excellent plan re the Marine lawyer  :-)  But aside from First Amendment grounds, I'm wondering if there are other options as well.  I'm perplexed by the statement in the article indicating that there was a VOTE on the matter by the Homeowner's Association, which suggests to me that there was indeed an option in this matter.  Why have a vote if there was no choice?  If it's a matter of the vote being taken to determine whether or not there was a violation of the Association's charter or rules, then wouldn't there be an option of amending the charter or rules of the Association ?  Couldn't the Association vote to amend their community's rules, if they felt strongly about it?  Last time I checked, it was still legal to display signs in the City of Tampa, given proper permits, and so it seems that this is just a matter of the Association not wanting to amend their own rules.

There was no word on what Kelley planned to do.

I'd be leaving the sign up, and saying "see me in court, mo-fo's". Then we get a retired Marine, who became a lawyer either after retirement, or after several tours as a tactical Marine to argue her case. Or maybe Congressman Billy Bob. Homeowners associations than can control what you do with your property are quasi governmental organizations, and in many cases must have a government charter. As such, they should be subject to the first amendment.

[El Gato]

Send an email to Governor Bush. It's up to him and the Florida legislature to make the exception.

The association doesn't set, and change, their own rules?

In most cases I'm aware of, the rules themselves are not in the covent, well a few might be (NO BLACKS, in the old days, for example) , but rather the requirement to abide by the association's rules is what is contained in the covenant. Rules can be changed.

[festus]

There was no word on what Kelley planned to do.

Run em up the flagpole by their Birkenstocks would be my suggestion.

[festus]

There's right and wrong, legal and illegal. Occasionally they coincide.

Decent folks would be able to figure out a simple way out of this. Ignore the damn law. And the decent judges would not let such cases quibbling about them ignoring the law into their courts until the legislature got its thumb out its butt and fixed the darn law.

[Stoat]

There was no word on what Kelley planned to do.

Run em up the flagpole by their Birkenstocks would be my suggestion.

Another excellent plan  :-)  There seem to be a lot of excellent plans in this thread   :-)

 

[billbears]

Really? What case does she have? The family moved into the community under their own free will didn't they? Did they not understand the policies in place beforehand? Did they not understand that policies could, and probably would, change? What portion of the document, that was originally designed to apply to the federal government only, would you suggest she use against a private organization?

[festus]

Say. That pic's from back when I was young and good looking. How'd you manage to get a hold of it ? ;-)

[Stoat]

Say. That pic's from back when I was young and good looking. How'd you manage to get a hold of it ? ;-)

Awww...  you're being too hard on yourself!  Actually, the Magic StoatCam allows me to take live pics right through another FReeper's puter!  I took that one only a few minutes ago!

Here's another from earlier today:

So it's always important to remember to comb your hair (or at least wear a stylish hat like yours) before you sit down at the puter   :-)

[flada]

The obvious solution is to mount the sign on the roof of her car when it's parked in the driveway and take it down to store in the garage when she goes for a drive. Once it's on the roof of her car, it's no longer a sign on her property but a sign on her conveyance which doesn't fall under the association charter (unless her car is a boat or motorhome).

[festus]

Ok just so long as you aint usin that there newfangled camera thing when the missus is using the computer. Otherwise I'd have to get Sheriff Dillon after you. Maybe we'd raise us a possee or something.

[festus]

I'd wager places like this prohibit parking in your driveway or leaving your garage open or farting without a formal waiver from the association.

Them folks is nuts.

[Stoat]

The obvious solution is to mount the sign on the roof of her car when it's parked in the driveway and take it down to store in the garage when she goes for a drive. Once it's on the roof of her car, it's no longer a sign on her property but a sign on her conveyance which doesn't fall under the association charter (unless her car is a boat or motorhome).

I wonder how they would react to a vehicle with vinyl or painted signage on it, such as a vehicle that advertises your business.  Would they insist that you can't drive your business vehicle home and park it in your driveway or on the street in front of your home, because it constitutes a 'sign'?  What if your business is a nonprofit Support Our Troops organization?