We read:
"Shortly after L Cpl Burr was deployed to Afghanistan last winter, his parents posted the above sign in their front yard of their home in The Gardens subdivision of South Bossier, LA.
Almost immediately the neighborhood association delivered a letter telling the Burr’s that they were in violation of a local rule stating “no signs of any kind shall be displayed to the public view.”
Instead of removing the banner, Timothy and Jodi requested an exception be made to the rule. They wanted to keep the sign on display until their son comes home. (Corey is slated to return in March of 2012)
In February, the Burr’s started sending formal requests to the head of the association, but those letters went unanswered until the media got involved. Jodi and her husband even sent requests for a meeting with the homeowners association via certified mail, but those letters went “unclaimed.”
In an interview with The Blaze, Jodi Burr wondered if this is a case of “selective enforcement” of the rules. As she states, “There are all kinds of signs in other yards; School booster signs, signs for pro teams, fence company signs and security company signs.”
Source
Sounds like the usual military-hating Leftists at work.
13 comments:
I am constantly amazed to see what is happening in the South, the one part of the country which has always been well-known for it's patriotism.
The only logical explanation i can think of is that northern liberals, running away from the big cities their policies, ideology, and social experiments have destroyed, are quietly moving south, spreading their political-motivated virus as they go. Even more amazing to me is that true Southerners would allow them to get away with it.
"Even more amazing to me is that true Southerners would allow them to get away with it."
True Southerners = Racists (just a clarification)
Seems to me that the Burrs tried to do things the right way, but the powers that be can be shown to be ignoring their attempts.
Arrogance!
oh, and Anonymous 3:39,
Thanks for your oh-so-accurate appraisal based on your exhaustive research and appropriately sized polling sample...
Oh, I'm sorry, it was based on your own intolerance.
Carry on.
Seems to me that the Burrs tried to do things the right way, but the powers that be can be shown to be ignoring their attempts.
Sorry, but they didn't.
They put something up in their yard that was against the covenant they freely signed when they purchased the house. The defense that there are other signs in the area fails when the Burrs themselves have said that their sign is larger and more of a banner than a sign.
The HOA sent a representative to the Burrs to discuss the situation and the Burrs basically told him to go away.
Yes, the Burr's son is fighting for the rights and freedoms of people. Those rights include the right to sign a contract between parties and have the terms of that contract held to by both parties.
Their son's service does not get them out of their obligation to the legal covenant they signed.
This seems to be more of a case of "you're not the boss of me," and "we will do what we want and the heck with the rules we agreed to."
There are legitimate cases where HOA overstep their legal and moral duties.
This is not one of them.
Homeowner associations need to be abolished, they tend to turn into little fascist cells.
GOD bless the Burrs and their son. Fuck the anti military hoa. People have won court cases agaisnt hoas all over this country.
Anon 4:52,.... so are you saying that the rules made by these (private) HOA's over-ride the First Amendment? Be advised that you can not sign away your Constitutional rights.
Anonymous 3:39 said...
"True Southerners = Racists (just a clarification)"
Ahh, if only you were right. We would have about 90% less violent crime in this country, not to mention saving hundreds-of-Billions every year in handouts.
IANAL, but if the enforcement has been selective, then it appears that the covenant is no longer valid, as the covenant has already been breached by the Homeowners' Association.
As for their motivation, it's pretty clear it's just the usual closed-minded claptrap.
Regardless, when they failed to enforce the covenant evenhandedly - i.e. by its terms - they effectively ended it.
Esq,
The HOA is not the government, which is what covered by the First Amendment.
Congress 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You are not signing away a right because the right to unrestricted speech on private property does not exist.
stinky,
Regardless, when they failed to enforce the covenant evenhandedly - i.e. by its terms - they effectively ended it.
That would be correct if they were allowing signs and not allowing the Burr's sign. The Burrs have said that theirs is not a sign, but a banner, which is typically larger than the 18" X 24" lawn sign. (and if you look at the image, it is noticeably larger than !8" X 24") If the Burrs had that size sign up, they might have a case for saying that the previous non-enforcement ended the regulation.
The Burrs also had an issue with the HOA that told them to stop using the Marine Corps flag as a drapery. The HOA welcomed them to fly the flag properly, but the Burrs declined.
The Burrs signed a document recognizing benefits and compensation for living in the community. The Burrs seem to think that that document only applies to things that they like.
There are lots of horror stories with HOA's where the HOA is in the wrong. This may not be one of them.
Oh, and by the way, before you start talking about the HOA being leftist, you should be aware that the representative they sent to talk to the Burrs is a retired Air Force officer. While it is not inconceivable that the officer has leftist leanings, officers - even retired ones - are more likely to be conservative than not as well as understanding the pressures that military families are under.
The Burrs rebuffed him.
Anon 10:16,.... you had better read that again. Free speech protections come from the Constitution, (upheld by the SCOTUS) not the government. The First Amendment applies whether you are on private property or government property. (prison inmate, member of military excluded) Constitutional protections are not limited by location.
Anon 3:39,
Constitutional protections are not limited by location.
Try this for an experiment. Go up to your boss and call him every name in the book, insult his wife, tell him he is stupid and that he is fat as well.
After he fires you, try claiming that your speech was protected under the First Amendment.
Secondly, try going into a restaurant and while not making a scene, start verbally abusing the waitstaff and management. After you are escorted out, try claiming that you were exercising your First Amendment rights.
I am sure that you would allow someone to come into your house, start making passes at your spouse, start saying suggestive things about your children while performing a Aztec mating ritual in your living room.
(Okay, you probably wouldn't. But under your theory that the First Amendment applies everywhere you would have to.)
The fact of the matter is that the First Amendment does not apply to private property. (There is one exception which is private property which acts or is taken to be a public gathering area. Some state courts have concluded that "center courts" of malls are "public gathering places" and act like the "town square" of old. Those areas have been granted First Amendment protection.
Generally speaking, the First Amendment does not apply to private property. I am sorry, but you cannot find a citation that will support your claim.
Anon 2:22, you are a typical lib. The HOA rule says "“no signs of any kind shall be displayed to the public view.". There is no mention of size in that, it says "OF ANY KIND" which means no signs at all. So trying to cloud the issue by saying their sign was much larger than others is irrelivant.
I also love the way HOAs, in your view, can stomp on the the first amendment because it says nothing about freedom of speech on private property but yet you are all for enforcing the non existant seperation of church and state and the non existant right to abortion and non existant right to equal outcome and many many other non existant leftist rights.
Post a Comment