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.

[jamaly]

If she doesn't have a brick house, maybe she could paint her house like an American flag and have her message on that. In a neighborhood where I used to live there was a "notorious" neighbor who got mad at the neighborhood association and painted his house pink with purple polka dots. That happened several years before I moved there. Even though his house had been repainted normal colors for a long time, no one EVER forgot. I'm don't think they bothered him after that.

[jamaly]

If she doesn't have a brick house, maybe she could paint her house like an American flag and have her message on that. In a neighborhood where I used to live there was a "notorious" neighbor who got mad at the neighborhood association and painted his house pink with purple polka dots. That happened several years before I moved there. Even though his house had been repainted normal colors for a long time, no one EVER forgot. I'm don't think they bothered him after that.

[Brimack34]

Stop illegal immigration from NY.

[Stoat]

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.

No need to worry about that....I do my best to treat all ladies, and particularly married ladies, with the absolute greatest respect.  I wouldn't ever put them into any sort of compromising position, you can rest assured of that.

Now, Miss Kitty, on the other hand.....

[Stoat]

If she doesn't have a brick house, maybe she could paint her house like an American flag and have her message on that. In a neighborhood where I used to live there was a "notorious" neighbor who got mad at the neighborhood association and painted his house pink with purple polka dots. That happened several years before I moved there. Even though his house had been repainted normal colors for a long time, no one EVER forgot. I'm don't think they bothered him after that.

ROTFLMAO!  I have no doubt that this Neighborhood Association also has all sorts of restrictive covenants on how houses are painted and modified, but it would certainly make national news if she painted it as an American flag or with portraits of the Founding Fathers on it   :-)

I recall hearing back in the 1970's about an anarchist in France who painted his house black as a political statement ( or, being an anarchist, perhaps it was an apolitical statement?) .  I don't think that anyone really got upset over it though, the French being what they are....

[Stoat]

Stop illegal immigration from NY.

[Brimack34]

It was my poor attempt at a joke. I was referring to the influx of liberals to Florida from New York.

[Stoat]

 I was referring to the influx of liberals to Florida from New York.

Well "duh" @ me  :-)  Makes perfect sense now, thanks   :-)

[383rr]

Amen.

[Guenevere]

We agree on this.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Well, I will admit that there must be plenty of newer developments that have covenants, but I just sold my house, in a good neighborhood, that had none. And a lot of places in the city did not have them. The house I am buying now is the first place I have lived that has them.

I do agree that some aspects of covenants are restrictive in ridiculous ways, but I have to stick with my position that we do have the choice of choosing where we live. It's not like some countries (I believe Sweden may be one) where one must apply to the government years in advance to get permission to change one's residence.

I think restricting or permitting only certain "types" of signs would not work. Probably sow more discord than the way it is now.

[Atlas Sneezed]

This is the third thread on this little topic, and some morons think she should be able to break the rules she promised to uphold.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593828/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593759/posts

[tsomer]

Well, maybe I spoke too soon. It was remarked that the community authorities tried to reason with her and that they were concerned that counter-signers might proliferate, the controversy escalate, and their community be transformed into a Vegas Strip of competing political statements, blinking lights and all-- or worse. So it was not her statement but the feelings of the other members who might object that compelled their suppression of her rights. It came from good intentions.(Sarc)

Who can fault such forward-thinking caution? As we have seen with the muslim cartoon episode, it is best to keep these things under control lest we invite more serious problems. (Sarc)

Can a community organization institute any policy they want? Do these policies negate Federal and State policies? Could a community decide for example, that all of its members should have straight hair and compel people with curly hair to straighten it? People with curly hair could keep their hair if they wanted, they'd just have to pack up, sell their home and buy another. We all know how easy that is.(Sarc)

Which brings us to the final point: are all members of such communities there voluntarily? I can imagine many instances in which someone might agree to such a covenant in order to get a roof over their head.

[tsomer]

You have never been so wrong in your life.

Obviously you don't know me very well ;-)

Being wrong is sometimes a virtue. For example the lady put up a sign to express her love of country and hope for her husband's return, which was wrong. It was wrong because it violated an ordinance that abridged free speech rights.

I say the ordinance was more wrong. Wronger still would be to allow infringements of this sort--well intentioned, piecemeal, circumscribed as they are-- on these rights.

[Balding_Eagle]

Which brings us to the final point: are all members of such communities there voluntarily?

Yes.

[billbears]

Which brings us to the final point: are all members of such communities there voluntarily?

Yes.

I can imagine many instances in which someone might agree to such a covenant in order to get a roof over their head.

Considering that these communities are usually in premium areas (hence the HOA to keep the area premium), no I can not imagine one instance, let alone many, that someone would enter into a HOA to 'get a roof over their head'. The type people that are in dire need to 'get a roof over their head' are usually not the sort a HOA is going to want in their association.

[tsomer]

Considering that these communities are usually in premium areas...

You say "usually," which means "sometimes not." There are areas with tight housing markets where the choice is not so free, though I'll admit it's probably a minor point.

[freedumb2003]

It was wrong because it violated an ordinance that abridged free speech rights.

You can definitely contract away your speech and other rights. Ever hear of a Confidentiality Agreement? A Rental Agreement allows entry into the home by the landlord whether the tenant likes it or not. Businesses establish exceptions to search and seizure as part their employment agreements. Some companies don't allow political signs in cubicles. The difference is these are all private incursions.

It is clear you don't know much about the Constitution. I can't explain all about it here, but I'll try to clear up a few misunderstandings you have:

Your earlier statement about free speech being an "inalienable right" is not true. The only "inalienable rights" laid out in The Constitution are "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The Constitution is a contract between the Government and The People. It has NOTHING to do with dealings between individuals or corprate entities and individuals.

A CID (Common INterest Development) is a private organization that a person may elect to join or not. It can establish any restrictions on any activity it wants.

I say the ordinance was more wrong. Wronger still would be to allow infringements of this sort--well intentioned, piecemeal, circumscribed as they are-- on these rights.

You are 100% wrong. Not morally wrong, legally wrong. CID limitations on things such as signage, flags, displays, etc. have been found to be legal over and over again. Or would it be OK for someone to have a 35 foot lit sign of the pedophile muhammed and the islam crescent? If you don't want to accept the contract restrictions, don't sign the contract.

Please, learn about the American government system and the Constitution before expressing opinions steeped in ignorance. You can start here to learn more.

[tsomer]

Confidentiality Agreement

Or yelling "fire"... Another restriction, but a reasonable one that preserves the safety of others. Confidentiality agreements preserve what is construed as a kind of property: trade secrets and the like.

Rental Agreements... signs in cubicles... Property rights as well. It's the landlords who pays the taxes, and the company that owns the cubicle. And I'm perfectly happy for them to keep it.

limitations on things such as sign-age, flags, displays, etc.

Codes that limit size and placement of sign-age are actually protections the property rights of adjacent business, as well as public safety.

In my colossal ignorance of the constitution I don't see how a patriotic sign outside a private residence can be construed in the same terms as the examples you give.

[freedumb2003]

In my colossal ignorance of the constitution I don't see how a patriotic sign outside a private residence can be construed in the same terms as the examples you give.

Your statements were that free speech rights were inalienable and they cannot be contracted away. Now you backpeddle frantically. Well, looky, I gess they can be.

A CID is a private organization you contract with willingly. A sign of any kind outside a private residence where the owner has agreed in advance not to put one up is a contract violation and can be dealt with as such (in a CID it means a fine or physically removed).

So it appeasr you don't understand the Constitution AND you don't understand basic contract law.