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.

[tsomer]

When I see a legal, laudable, modest gesture like hers repressed on the basis of some legal construct I tend to suspect the law might be wrong.

Here's a summation of objections raised to CIDs:
http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/rptnews/action/ShowMedia/id/1224

I say these legalistic contrivances degrade basic property rights, and were designed for exclusivity and insulate directors from liability.

Further, the claim that these are voluntarily contracted is hollow as these schemes proliferate and more townships require them. And I predict, as I hope, that the courts will put a stop to them.

I concede you are probably right about the inalienability of rights. I spoke too soon. Of course you can give away your rights; we do it all the time. For example, see above.

[freedumb2003]

When I see a legal, laudable, modest gesture like hers repressed on the basis of some legal construct I tend to suspect the law might be wrong.

What if it was a pic of Satan or the mooslim crescent? Certainly any would be OK in a non-CID area, but I prefer to have my surroundings predictable (if, admittedly, a bit bland). It is what I signed up for.

Here's a summation of objections raised to CIDs: (link)

No axe to grind there, eh? Some of the objections raised are valid, but that is a very slanted article. I encounter none of the problems outlined therein. And a CID is a must for Condos.

I say these legalistic contrivances degrade basic property rights, and were designed for exclusivity and insulate directors from liability.

I don't agree -- CIDs are a requirement for true shared living, but this brings us to your next point...

Further, the claim that these are voluntarily contracted is hollow as these schemes proliferate and more townships require them. And I predict, as I hope, that the courts will put a stop to them.

I'll go 50/50 with you on this. Yes, they are voluntary. HOWEVER, I agree with your suggestion that they are getting out of hand. Your link did cite some very contrived examples of creating a CID where no practical reason (1 shared cistern) exists. People need to have a choice. In this I would be along side you fighting against creating CIDs or having towns where EVERYTHING is a CID.

I concede you are probably right about the inalienability of rights. I spoke too soon. Of course you can give away your rights; we do it all the time. For example, see above.

Well stated. I have overstated quickly a few times (hehe -- I only admit to a few). I figured you really did know what was what after your second post. I apologize for challenging your knowledge of the Constitution (most FReepers know it well) based on my limited exposure to your posts.

[tsomer]

I'll go 50/50

I'm cool with that.

What if it was a pic of Satan or the mooslim crescent

I've always thought we were obliged to grit our teeth and put up with it. I just want reciprocity.

I prefer to have my surroundings predictable (if, admittedly, a bit bland). It is what I signed up for.

I can understand that; had you mentioned rap music I'd have had to agree.

I thought I had this sewn up in my own mind, but I see it needs more thought. Thanks for your comments.

[freedumb2003]

I thought I had this sewn up in my own mind, but I see it needs more thought. Thanks for your comments.

Thank you also, FRiend. I really will keep the larger picture of towns forcing CIDs in mind when considering this issue.

[pageonetoo]

It's hard to imagine anyone being so rude as to put up a "I do not support the troops" sign ...

It's harder to believe that a bunch of idiots protest at a dead soldiers funeral, but sadly it is true. They should all be shipped out...

[newnhdad]

My parents had some weaseley community leader bozo tell them that they couldn't hang an American flag inside their own porch because it was visible to the outside.
My dad (Army MP during the early 60's and a retired NYPD detective) told him to "yeah, right. Try to come and take it down yourself". Right after that, the family across the street (Islamic), the grounds keeper and complex handyman put US flags in their porches too.
Needless to say, the weasel never showed up to take it down.

[pageonetoo]

I am from Wilmington, NC. Quite a few years ago, some gay guys wanted to put siding on their home, which was in the "historic district". They were prohibited because the "commission" didn't want siding (although there were LOTS of houses in the area with siding).

The results were interesting to say the least. The owners did some research, on the period in which the home was built, and painted it with seven or eight different VIVID colors. It was deliberately patterned after a Victorian BAWDYHOUSE...

The commission tried to defeat their scheme, but the house was painted pink, purple, teal, etc...

[Stoat]

My parents had some weaseley community leader bozo tell them that they couldn't hang an American flag inside their own porch because it was visible to the outside.
My dad (Army MP during the early 60's and a retired NYPD detective) told him to "yeah, right. Try to come and take it down yourself". Right after that, the family across the street (Islamic), the grounds keeper and complex handyman put US flags in their porches too.
Needless to say, the weasel never showed up to take it down.

Although I'm usually very much a person who expects people to abide by established rules, contracts and laws in a given community, there are at least a couple of factors which make me want to at least consider the circumstances of the particular case mentioned in this article and question their appropriateness.

Our nation is at war with what is essentially an idea, and there's plenty of precedent for making changes to established rules and laws during extreme circumstances, such as wartime.  The fact that this matter was afforded a vote by the Association leaders at least suggests to me that there may have been an option for an alternate decision, and if not, how about at least considering an amendment to the Association bylaws, considering that our nation is at war and the war effort deserves support from all communities?   The fact that these points were apparently not even considered by the Association naturally begs the question of 'why not'?   This question may have a simple answer right in the article:

"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."

Simply put,  they took the easy and gutless way out.

[Stoat]

I am from Wilmington, NC. Quite a few years ago, some gay guys wanted to put siding on their home, which was in the "historic district". They were prohibited because the "commission" didn't want siding (although there were LOTS of houses in the area with siding).

The results were interesting to say the least. The owners did some research, on the period in which the home was built, and painted it with seven or eight different VIVID colors. It was deliberately patterned after a Victorian BAWDYHOUSE...

The commission tried to defeat their scheme, but the house was painted pink, purple, teal, etc...

ROTFLMAO!  Pretty funny, but I don't find the 'offenders' in this case to be quite as sympathetic as the lady in the article here....it sounds as though they were intentionally trying to 'stick it' to their neighbors out of malice....I wouldn't want to be living in an area where everyone hated me, but that is apparently what they wanted and is most likely what they got out of the deal, as well as an ugly house.

I am from Wilmington, NC. Quite a few years ago, some gay guys wanted to put siding on their home, which was in the "historic district". They were prohibited because the "commission" didn't want siding (although there were LOTS of houses in the area with siding).

The results were interesting to say the least. The owners did some research, on the period in which the home was built, and painted it with seven or eight different VIVID colors. It was deliberately patterned after a Victorian BAWDYHOUSE...

The commission tried to defeat their scheme, but the house was painted pink, purple, teal, etc...

[pageonetoo]

...s well as an ugly house.

The house was actually quite attractive, but not my style. I built a house nearby, for some of their friends, but ended up with lap WOOD siding, instead of vinyl. We had quite a time getting the commissions approval, because they wanted the lot left empty (the house next door belonged to one of the "commissioners").

You had to be there...

My post was as much about the "hysterical "commissions assinity, as it was about the HOA's and her neighbor's in the article. There are always people who think they know more (than you) about what is good for you. In the old days, they were just called busy-bodies...

It's sorta like all the the goody-goodys, here on FR, telling the pot smokers they should all burn in hell! They probably sit at the computer with a beer in one hand...

[robertpaulsen]

During both WWI and WWII, families displayed the "Sons in Service" flag discreetly in their front window (you see one in Saving Private Ryan). (It applies to any family member in active service.)

Why does this woman feel a need to make such a big deal about it?

[Stoat]

Why does this woman feel a need to make such a big deal about it?

Excellent points and excellent research.  I'll try to answer as best as can be expected when one person attempts to answer for the motivations of another.

At the outset let me say that if I were in her position, I don't think that I would be doing what she is doing.  Although I'm not a mother (I'm merely a guy) and I'm not a parent and so it's hard for me to categorically anticipate my response to such a situation, in general I'm not a 'showy' person.  I don't do bumper stickers, I don't march with signs, I don't wear "statement" t-shirts and I don't do yard signs during elections ( I live in the People's Republic of Seattle and my concern would be that my house would be burned to the ground in this "enlightened, progressive" city).  I do, however, make an effort to be as educated on politics and issues of the day as I can, time permitting, and I vote at every opportunity and I support select organizations financially. My guess is that if I were in the same position as the lady in this article, I would most likely want to do something in a bit more reserved manner than the method that she chose, perhaps something similar to the example shown by your photo..

That, being said,   there are a few noteworthy differences between the WW1 and WW2 eras and today.  Among the relevant contrasts are our society, which encourages a public exuberance far more than the more modest (and in my view, far more dignified) times of the past.  Many people consider it to be perfectly acceptable to take their most intimate and personal troubles to Oprah or Jerry Springer and broadcast their pain and dysfunctions to billions of people whom they don't know.  I don't mean to imply that this woman is in any way related to a Jerry Springer guest, but the vocal media culture that we all live in creates an environment where different modes of expression become more commonplace, for good or for bad.

Another difference is in architecture.  Homes of the WW1 and WW2 eras were far smaller (particularly in Great Britain) than they have been in the USA.  In past times only the wealthy would have giant homes set hundreds of feet back from the street, but that's fairly commonplace in the US. The smaller homes were oftentimes closer to the street where a smaller flag in the window could be more easily seen by guests and passersby.

Ultimately it comes down to a person's personality and what's important to them.  Although this woman's choice of expression would probably not mirror my own,  I found it unfortunate that the Neighborhood Association gave the rationale that they did, which would also preclude even a smaller sign such as what you and I would tend to favor.