<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Censorship by Homeowners Association</title> <atom:link href="http://www.ipatrix.com/1745/censorship-by-homeowners-association/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/1745/censorship-by-homeowners-association/</link> <description>Crossing Borders Crossing Cultures</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:20:00 -0500</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Chetan</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/1745/censorship-by-homeowners-association/#comment-8503</link> <dc:creator>Chetan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:51:11 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/2006/11/29/censorship-by-homeowners-association/#comment-8503</guid> <description>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&#039; 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&#039;t know what happened after that as I didn&#039;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 &#039;divisive.&#039; The houseowners sign a contract giving certain powers to the Homeowners&#039; 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&#039; 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&#039;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.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217; 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&#8217;t know what happened after that as I didn&#8217;t follow up on the case.</p><p>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 &#8216;divisive.&#8217; The houseowners sign a contract giving certain powers to the Homeowners&#8217; 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&#8217; 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.</p><p>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?</p><p>I don&#8217;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.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: DesiPundit &#187; Archives &#187; The Tyranny Of The Home Owners Association</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/1745/censorship-by-homeowners-association/#comment-8493</link> <dc:creator>DesiPundit &#187; Archives &#187; The Tyranny Of The Home Owners Association</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:39:11 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/2006/11/29/censorship-by-homeowners-association/#comment-8493</guid> <description>[...] Patrix reports on the power wielded by Home Owner&#8217;s Associations in America over people who own homes. [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Patrix reports on the power wielded by Home Owner&#8217;s Associations in America over people who own homes. [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
