Centerfield

I think this is really, really sweet. If folks in Newnan (not to mention Atlanta) have no greater concerns, how wonderful their lives must be.

I get that he likes the flag. Apparently, he doesn't like the rule of law it stands for. He bought the house. He knew the rules when he did it, (it's called disclosure, it happens when you buy property) and he chose to break those rules. The fact that it's a US flag is irrelevant here. He broke the rules according to the contract he signed when he bought the house in that subdivision. If he was flying the flag of France, would people rally behind him? No, they would quote the rule according to the contract, case closed.

I gotta say that I concur with Scott on this one. This case is no more about the American flag than Clinton was Impeached for having sex outside of marriage. The larger context doesn't change the relevant facts of either case.

Having previously served for several years on my homeowners association board I have more sympathy with the Board. They're simply trying to enforce the rules. I'm sure this guy knew the rules when he bought the place. Having said that, all HOA's (at least in AZ) know the difficulty they'll have when it comes to a "flag raising" CCR violation. In fact our state legislature passed a law reigning in HOA power over flag raising.

PS I bet he's been a pain the a** for the HOA in other areas also.

This sort of stuff amuses me to no end. We spend hundreds of years fighting to establish and protect a government that guarantees us basic liberties, but when it comes right down to it, most people really don't give a crap about them.

Our tribal instincts override concern for such freedoms, and many of us (semi-)voluntarily choose to join what are basically little communist countries. Instead of having reasonable latitude to do as you wish on the property that you have purchased, you have to go before the politburo to get permission for all sorts of things.

What many people who buy in such developments don't realize is that they really haven't quite purchased property that is really theirs, they've bought a sort of a club membership. It is indeed like a condo, and there are rules, and if you sign the contract, you're signing away some rights.

Now people sure have a right to create these self-organized areas of restricted liberty. And make no mistake, that's what they are. Personally, I think it's better for everyone if we just learn to treat each other decently and learn to sometimes accept things we don't like that much. So if your neighbor parks his boat in his driveway for the winter, you don't have to like it, but you accept it and say, "hey, it's a free country and it's HIS property, not mine."

And then you leave it to a larger and more temperate organizing group (like a town or state)to establish rules restriced to objective things related to say noise, safety, sanitation, and so on. Subjective evaluations about appearance? Tread as lightly as possible, IMO.

The smaller the organizing group, the greater the risk of petty and foolish tyrannies. The greater the risk of being at the mercy of a local busybody with nothing better to do than obsess about the "character of the neighborhood."

As these associations spread, it'll be harder and harder to find a nice new house in a good neighborhood without submitting to tyrannical little organizations like this. It'll be a giant victory for beige.

The thing that bothers me most is that it's quite possible that these organizations cause as much as or even more conflict and resentment as they try to prevent, because they let people think very little of dictating other people's behavior. Subdivisions with their own specific little set of rules are quite obviously divisive by their very nature. And they're a lawyer's dream, that's for sure.

They are haphazardly and often capriciously enforced, which makes it a goldmine for lawyers. Just say no.

And I already know the other side of the coin, nighmare neighbors with noisy dogs and junk cars, yadayadayada, so spare me the chapter and verse ofthat rebuttal. I'm happy to conced the point that it's a problem. I'm asking whether the solution is to form tons of tiny little governments. These tiny little governments free people from the civic duty of making their town and state governments work, because they've joined a little republic of unobjectionable conformity. Such neighborhoods tend to be enclave of fairly well-to-do "opters out." It's bad for liberty and for the health of civic democracy.

HOAs are basically designed for one thing: protect property values. I belong to one, a rather restrictive one and while I chafe at the fact that if I want to put in a shed, it has to have the same roofing material as my house, I signed the papers when I bought the house saying I understand what belonging to the HOA means.

Brian, if you concede that noisy dogs, junk cars, et al are a problem, what do you propose as a solution to protect property values?

Overall, regardless of the feel-goodedness of this story, Mr. Johnson invariably signed an agreement when he moved in saying he understood what he was signing up for. Whether he took the time to actually do that or not is irrelevant. He had a choice to live there and now has to abide by the rules. This just sounds like avoidance of personal responsibility masquerading as a restriction of liberty.

Yep. He's trying to renege on his word.

Brian, if you concede that noisy dogs, junk cars, et al are a problem, what do you propose as a solution to protect property values?

Townwide or citywide ordinances ought to be sufficient for most of the truly objectionable things like noisy dogs or unregistered vehicles. (Which are only potential problems, by the way, and ones which tend not exist in pricey expensive new subdivisions....)The rest ought to be dealt with by living and let live. If a guy parks his boat in his driveway for the winter, that wouldn't be something that really effected property values AT ALL unless 1)some busybody bitched about it 2)HOAs slowly made the practice disappear, actually creating the environment of expectation that doing this was somehow wrong, instead of sensible.

I've got serious doubts about whether sheds with roofing materials identical to the house add to property values in any substantial way. IMO, these homeowner's associations represent the biggest philosophical disconnect for those who may be republicans and continually preach about the virtues of small and limited government, but then when it came time to make one of their bioggest investments, they voluntarily signed on to submit to an additional layer of government. Golly, government is a solution instead of the problem, when it came time to protect YOUR stuff. Imagine that!!

And as I said before, HOAs open a whole can of legal worms when enforcement is lax and capricously and unevenly enforced. I cheerfully concede that folks join HOAs at least semi-voluntarily, even as I wonder how truly voluntary is it if the house is the only one you can find at a price you can afford in a good location with the space you need, and you just got transferred and need to find a place. Legally voluntary? I suppose. But freely and without reservation? Often not.

Renege on your word? People do it on the time, and as many businessmen as crooks understand that every deal can be renegotiated if you have some sort of leverage.

I know I'd hate to be the HOA President who knocks on the door of the guy who just lost his job and tell him he MUST pay 3 grand to have his house painted because the trim is starting to peel. I'll tell you this, if that HOA Prez got punched out and sued the guy who hit him, he better hope I'm not on the jury.

Please, there are thousands of homes in any city that aren't part of an HOA. Trying to say that someone really doesn't have a choice even though they have a choice in buying a house is again completely disregarding personal responsibility. You sign up for the game, you play by the rules.

I don't know if the roofing material on my shed improves property value or not either but again, I signed on the dotted line. So did the guy with the flag pole. To plead otherwise is a ridiculous position, IMHO.

Concerning your citywide ordinances, my wife's father passed away last December. In January, the city of Richardson started threatening his wife with fines and court action if she didn't get the house in shape, showing a complete disregard for the fact the primary breadwinner had died a month earlier. I fail to see how citywide ordinances are going to be any different at a personal level than HOA ordinances and because they are larger entities, I'd guess it would actually be worse. They are still ordinances and you still have to abide by them.

Actually, a big difference is that with an HOA, at least you get to read the covenants up front and sign that you agree. I bet you don't get that with city ordinances, you just get a little note on your door saying pay up or see us in court.

Trying to say that someone really doesn't have a choice even though they have a choice in buying a house is again completely disregarding personal responsibility.

Absolutely. Brian, in what world do the cheaper houses only lie in HOA's? It's the other way around. If you're buying over your head, that's not society's bad, nor that of the HOA. You're the one doing the buying. It's not up to the rest of us to hand you everything you want. Did it occur to you that the neighborhood you so desparately want to buy into is a nice place because of that HOA and the covenants? Sounds like a major case of wanting all the bennies without wanting to pay the tab for them. Heh.

Also sounds to me like you got gigged for parking your boat in the drive or something. :-)

Concerning your citywide ordinances, my wife's father passed away last December. In January, the city of Richardson started threatening his wife with fines and court action if she didn't get the house in shape, showing a complete disregard for the fact the primary breadwinner had died a month earlier. I fail to see how citywide ordinances are going to be any different at a personal level than HOA ordinances and because they are larger entities, I'd guess it would actually be worse. They are still ordinances and you still have to abide by them.

We're going through that right now here in Wichita, SD. We're re-writing code and enforcement so we can address blight, but the big struggle is how to do so legally while NOT penalizing people in those kinds of situations. That particular situation is both common enough and specific enough that we're making some progress. We have some people caught between two courts--municipal and probate--with the courts ordering them to do opposite things and penalizing them if they don't. Damned (and criminally liable) either way they move. Catch 22. So we're tring to work out a probate scheme that will allow for required repairs to be made and chargd against the property itself, rather than stacking fines on executors whose hadns are tied. And yeah, that'll leave a tax lien against the property, but it beats the alternatives. Especially for the helpless heir/executor caught between different courts, trying to pick which charge they want to get convicted of.

We can't build "discretionary authority" into the law very easily, and still be able to deal with the boarded-up falling-down crackhouse deathtraps. One of our big problems here is the absentee out-of-state owner of a problem property. We can threaten, fine, have served, etc., but you can't extradite 'em back into the state for code enforcement violations. As long as they pay the property taxes you're screwed in dealing with them. And if they don't pay their taxes, it's still five years or so before you can "free" the property through tax auction. Condemnation isn't easy--isn't supposed to be--but it's often needed.

One set of outright slum rentals we've been trying to get torn down for almost fifteen years. Everytime we near the end of that lengthy legal process, the owner "sells" the property to another pocket corporation of his, and we have to start all over again from square one with the "new" owner.

Another big problem is low-income (usually elderly) homeowners who simply don't have the money to fix the property. Fining them is worth than useless. If they had the money, they'd fix the property, and fining money away from them won't help them pay for repairs. That one we're doing better on, utilizing community volunteers for sweat equity and grant funding for materials to do the repairs.

Fining them is worth than useless.

Dang. I'm lithping! Need more caffiene....

OK, calm down you two, and stop putting words in my mouth, I never said there was no choice, I made it clear that there was choice, but while the choice was voluntary, it wasn't necessarily made without reservations.

I live in a very nice neighborhood of recent construction that doesn't have an HOA, and I have never owned a boat. (so, yup, cheerfully granted, it's possible to do)

te only reason the boat just springs to mind is because when I've talked to my out-of-state buddy about his HOA, there's a lot of resentment about the rules, the interpretations, the bending, and how they really want a shed but can't put one up because the rules say no shed, but the guy down the street parks his boat in the driveway even though he's not supposed to, yada, yada, yada.

Surely you guys can appreciate the irony in wealthy independent folks voluntarily opting in for an additional layer of government, no?

Scotch. I didn't mention city ordinances because they are perfect. My City's sure are not. I dunno if I can make a case that a city or town government is either better or worse than an HOA. Each is prone to abuse by bad actors and bad faith. But I do think busybodies and tyrants can potentially wreak more havoc in an HOA because of the smaller numbers. The more voters, the more one political actor's agenda may be tempered.

And incontrovertibly, the more HOA joiners, the more government.

Sounds like a major case of wanting all the bennies without wanting to pay the tab for them. Heh.

Nope. Much simpler, it's a case of questioning the bennies, and whether they are as real as HOA joiners have talked themselves into believing.

My HOA friends get irritated when the topic comes up, which is really what makes me question their virtues. I wonder whether they are in fact happier.

Currently, I enjoy all the benefits without any costs. My neighbors are nice, they cut their grass and paint their houses, and the city collects my trash and plows my street. The only "benny" I don't have is the alleged protection of my property values from the imagined incursion of illbred hillbilly and motorhead hordes filling yards with junk cars, drinking beer, breeding hounds under the porch, neglecting house maintenance and hardwork, and generally carrying on as though America really were a free country.

Much simpler, it's a case of questioning the bennies, and whether they are as real as HOA joiners have talked themselves into believing.

Isn't what those bennies are worth up to you? You want 'em, you sign the contract. You sign the contract, you keep your contract. This guy's whinin' that he doesn't want to live up to his contract, so he's waving a flag to obscure the issue, which is his FU to the HOA and his own word.

The only "benny" I don't have is the alleged protection of my property values from the imagined incursion of illbred hillbilly and motorhead hordes filling yards with junk cars, drinking beer, breeding hounds under the porch, neglecting house maintenance and hardwork, and generally carrying on as though America really were a free country.

Actually you pay for that benny via your taxes. Whether you in truth have it or not depends on your municipal and county governments, and they're often fighting a very uphill battle.

(Motorheads and hillbillies will be picketing you at dawn...)

Much simpler, it's a case of questioning the bennies, and whether they are as real as HOA joiners have talked themselves into believing.

Isn't what those bennies are worth up to you? You want 'em, you sign the contract. You sign the contract, you keep your contract. This guy's whinin' that he doesn't want to live up to his contract, so he's waving a flag to obscure the issue, which is his FU to the HOA and his own word.

Right. And I'm cheering him on! FU to HOAs. We don't need more layers of government. You say breach of contract, I say civil disobedience.

The only "benny" I don't have is the alleged protection of my property values from the imagined incursion of illbred hillbilly and motorhead hordes filling yards with junk cars, drinking beer, breeding hounds under the porch, neglecting house maintenance and hardwork, and generally carrying on as though America really were a free country.

Actually you pay for that benny via your taxes. Whether you in truth have it or not depends on your municipal and county governments, and they're often fighting a very uphill battle.

Well, now you're just stealing my argument, that this stuff should be up to municipal and county governments. Unless you are claiming that HOAs don't have additional and generally more onerous restrictions on things like cars in driveways, and house and lawn maintenance. Maybe it's differentin Kansas. Here in MA, such regulations may exist as part of a town's or city's ordinances, but the bar is then set even higher by HOAs.

Motorheads and hillbillies will be picketing you at dawn...)

:-) yeah, I thought of that. Only I'm not the one imagining such incursions and living in fear of them. If they come over on friday night though, we can have a hillbilly motorhead hoedown, and there will be no HOA to hassle me about it.

Why are you maligning hillbillies and motorheads, and dishonestly alleging that anyone here other than yourself even mentioned them before you did, much less lives in fear of them?

He knew the rules before he signed the papers. He signed the papers. Nobody held a gun to his head and he wasn't born into the HOA agreement. He's not dealing with a government of any kind there, but with his own contract agreement. He knowingly and willingly and with intent broke that contract. That's not civil disobediance. It's a combination of asininity and dishonesty. His word is worthless, and I don't have any sympathy for him at all. He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy.

Unless you figure out the difference between a voluntary contractual agreement and a government edict, you don't seem to have anything intelligent to say here.

I like both motorheads and hillbillies, AND I was just using comic stereotypes for humorous neffect. Sorry if that fell flat. Calm down, amigo, you know that I think you are a national treasure.

Here's what I said:

...the alleged protection of my property values from the imagined incursion of illbred hillbilly and motorhead hordes filling yards with junk cars, drinking beer, breeding hounds under the porch, neglecting house maintenance and hardwork, and generally carrying on as though America really were a free country.

In rhe context in which I was speaking, it's not me imagining this, it's the folks who elect to join HOAs. When I said this, I was alluding to the fact that people who join HOAs do so because they believe that their property values will be protected from things like poorly maintained yards and houses, junk cars, and so on. I was having some fun with what I view as comically inaccurate sterotypes: hillbillies and motorheads. Sorry that I relied on you to get that, you usually have a pretty keen sense of humor for such stuff. I used both hillbilly and motorhead intentionally for comic effect, and I (apparently mistakenly) figured that was obvious. See the way I was brought up was that you DON'T rely on stereotypes for understanding becuase they breed unrasonable fear...you DON'T fear that you need a new layer of government to guarantee that if a guy who moves in next door likes cars, he'll turn his yard into a junkyard. You wait for 'em to move in, and find out what folks are like, be they gearheads, hillbillies, nerds, libruls, or whatever. And you do your best to get along.

Maybe I don't have MUCH to say that's intelligent about HOAs, but I am certain I've said some things which are intelligent. I notice that you haven't addressed this at all:

Surely you guys can appreciate the irony in wealthy independent folks voluntarily opting in for an additional layer of government.

I don't think it's rationally deniable that if you think HOAs are a good idea for protecting property values, then you think that a good way to protect property values is to add an additional layer of government. That's what HOAs are: an additional layer of government.

I don't happen to believe that more government is always bad, so my point is more of a problem if your philosophy is that more government is always bad. So let's agree to notice when a spade is a spade-HOAs are added layers of government. I happen to find this richly ironic. Your irony mileage apparently varies. That's cool.

Perhaps after all, these new small layers of government ARE necessary, because we MUST protect our property values, and only legal agreements can shelter us from the chance of finding that one's neighbor is a half a goose-step off from the mainstream marching tune. If they are necessary, I find that thought sad.