Censorship by Homeowners Association
Is this picture offensive? You would probably say no. But a homeowners association in Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes the Christmas wreath. The wreath signifies a peace sign that was in vogue during the 70s activists movement but have come to represent a general imagery of peace removed from its anti-war association. Some residents claim that this wreath is anti-Iraq war and say that it offends them as they have children serving in Iraq. You might say, but this is America and you have freedom of speech, right?
As with any organization, the homeowners association soon assumes selective segregation and a closed network of closed minds dictate the look and appeal of your home. Even the slightest hint of difference or a touch of personal opinion like the wreath above is stuck down with a vengeance that would remind you of authoritarian regimes. If such behavior was done by the federal government, US would be a communist country surpassing even its erstwhile feared rival, USSR.
In today’s times when Bush and co.’s rhetoric of protesting against the war being deemed unpatriotic is succeeding, such ‘normal’ acts of pacifism are now being threatened with censorship. When did peace become a dirty word? Those who think that a little restraint or a little censorship is always good should look at this case as a fine example of how things end up when a little bit is allowed at first.
Let us hope that Lisa Jensen has a peaceful Christmas, far better than her paranoid and stupid neighbors.
Update: The threat for a fine has been withdrawn following objections from all around the nation including offers of help to pay the fine if the Homeowners Association persisted. I say, it has been withdrawn due to media attention and the underlying attitude still persists.
“Censorship by Homeowners Association” [Short URL: http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=1745] was published Wednesday, November 29th, 2006 at 4:10 pm by Patrix, filed under Law, United States, and tagged as censorship, homeowners association, Iraq war, Law, subdivision, suburbia, United States. Both comments and linkbacks are closed.
Related Posts
A bharatnatyam teacher in DC once fenced her front porch and put a big wooden namaste sign on the gate. She was a Christian living in a Christian dominated housing society. In DC almost 99% homes do not fence the front of their houses. The Homeowners’ Association demanded that she pull down the fence since according to a clause in the contract one cannot allow activities that bring down property values of other homeowners. They found the fence to be ugly and thought that the namaste sign would put off other potential Christian buyers. This clause was inserted so as to prevent people from not piling trash or ensuring that snow gets shovelled and leaves are raked. I don’t know what happened after that as I didn’t follow up on the case.
The reason why I mention this here is because I find this situation intriguing. I am sure the clause about not putting up divisive signs or flags was inserted to prevent people from flying the conservative flag or the Nazi flag, which Lisa Jensen then thought reasonable. But a legal clause is shackled by the wordings, so the peace sign has became ‘divisive.’ The houseowners sign a contract giving certain powers to the Homeowners’ Association. As a libertarian might say, if they had problems they should find a house which does not require them to sign a contract with other homeowners or join an association which has less restrictive clauses. They joined the Homeowners’ Association by their own volition. No one forced them to. So they have to adhere to the contract. And if that is the case, how can one differentiate between the case of private clubs and business establishments in India not allowing certain dresses or certain kinds of people into their establishments. By the same standard even that is censorship. There, I assume, you would defend their right to discriminate, as the matter concerns their property rights.
One argument can be that a club owner is a single person and it is his property alone. But then consider the case that happened at Crossroads in Mumbai. The mall decided that they will only allow people with credit cards inside their establishment. If I had owned a small snack shop there and know that even people without credit cards are my customers, what am I to do. Since the majority of shops in the mall want to restrict entry, I am forced to oblige. Will that be considered censorship? Or would my asking them not to restrict entry to anyone else be considered censorship? The matter gets even more complicated if I as an owner of a shop inside Crossroads protest against the credit card restriction by saying that it is morally reprehensible as you are only catering to the elite and being exclusionary. What now? Is their freedom to discriminate in the private premises not being violated if I am allowed to have my way?
I don’t know the answers. But find problems associated with freedom much more complex than what Libertarians make it out to be. Hopefully you as an urban planner might be able to shed some light.
3 years ago reply