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?

But let me remind you, dear friend that you are dealing with a often underestimated monster called the Homeowners Association which can at times be akin to a Communist regime regarding things you choose to display on your property. You may think that a home is your castle and in a country that fiercely protects its property rights, anything you do on your land cannot be subject to scrutiny. whenever you buy a plot of land especially in a suburban sub-division, you sign off on several inches thick book of do’s and don’ts. Right from the height of the blade of the grass on your lawn to the color of your home, everything is regulated and specified in this handbook of laws. No wonder, all homes in a subdivision end up looking the same and lend America’s suburbs its look of mundaneness. In a country that fosters innovation and creativity, the majority of its housing unfortunately comes from a cookie cutter mold that developers keep handy. Regulation of signs on your property have always been debated in courts [see City of Ladue v. Gilleo, Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro] and more often than not, it has been found that irrational prejudice is at the root of such censorship attempts.

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.

Tweet This“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 , , , , , , . Both comments and linkbacks are closed.

«
»

Related Posts

  1. Bollywood Censorship
  2. Blogger Ban Back?
  3. Homebuyer Tax Credit Extended

  • Pingback: DesiPundit » Archives » The Tyranny Of The Home Owners Association

  • http://pehlu.blogspot.com Chetan

    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.


Copyright © 2012 Nerve Endings Firing Away. Designed by ckunte. Powered by WordPress.