Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Stoat

Already been posted.

But while everyones is running around, foaming at the mouth, you should note that it is not the "content" of the sign that is in violation [of a freely signed covenant]. It is the sign itself. That is not a minor distinction.

Get a grip. The homeowner is trying to changes the agreement after the fact, not the HOA.


9 posted on 03/10/2006 6:26:59 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ChildOfThe60s
Already been posted.

Gee, that's nice.  It must have been posted with a different title because it sure didn't come up when I searched prior to posting, which, by the way, I always do.  If the moderators object to a 'double posting' they will usually pull the thread, particularly if they get enough shrill complaints about it.

And since you seem terribly concerned about duplications, be advised that someone else in this thread has already mentioned it.

Get a grip.

Consider courtesy as an interactive option.

13 posted on 03/10/2006 6:42:24 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ChildOfThe60s
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.

27 posted on 03/10/2006 8:48:23 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson