Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by fromtheright, Jul 31, 2006.
Looks like an infringement on the right of contract, to me.
Don't worry. If they haven't already, the ACLU will jump right in. Now we'll see every flag on earth hanging from windows and balconies, vehicle antennae....
I agree. More big government interference with the rights of property owners.
Did you read the article? This isn't government interference with property owners. It is the release of property owners from association restrictions. This restores some of hte rights of property owners.
I think in your haste to say something bad about Bush, you failed to think about what the issue was, and ended up saying exactly the opposite of what is actually true.
I doubt it will affect existing agreements, but will forbid them in the future. If it stands up in court. I can think of no reason why it wouldn't.
Well, I did misread it, thinking for some reason it had to do with apartment owners vs. residents. HOAs have way too much power in most places, but I can see reasonable restrictions. All too often, however, there is no reasonableness to them.
Thanks for pointing out my error, Larry.:thumbsup: BTW, I wasn't trying to say anything bad about Bush. Actually, he didn't cross my mind on this one, as I was focused on the issue (or at least the issue I somehow misread).
Does that mean that disrepectful people can hang theirs upside down?
Are not such agreements freely entered into? So if someone wants to display a North Korean flag next door to a Korean War veteran should he be able to do so, though the homeowners covenant restricts such? In such a restrictive covenant, why should the racist not be able to display the Confederate or Nazi flag in front of his house next to his black or Jewish neighbor?
Absent such covenants I gladly support the right to display the flag(s) of one's choice on one's property but homeowners who sign on to such covenants agree to those restrictions and such associations should be able to make such restrictions on themselves as they choose.
I believe that any legal contract is binding. That means that existing restrictions are enforceable, but not any made after a law was passed forbidding it.
I see no reason why government can't make such a law. I intend to never involve myself in such an association; the horror stories abound. Housewives who never had any power or influence, suddenly and joyfully dictating to neighbors what color their mailbox can be.