This section is for discussion of all things military, past or present, that are related to active duty. Armor, Infantry, Navy stuff all welcome here. In service images and stories welcome here.
Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:53 pm
Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:59 pm
I would hope the homeowners would have some leniency and judgement in this case, but if not I hope he just flies the flag from his front porch or whatever is legal.
Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:11 am
you don't WIN the Medal. You are a recipient. The old guy has a humongous flagpole in his front yard in a subdivision. It's not about the flag it's about the humongous flagpole in his front yard in a subdivision. I know I'll get flack for it, but I'm with the homeowners. He should offer to to the flag rasing at his local school or better VFW every day if he needs to feed his patriotism.
Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:41 am
what are the 1st 3 letters of the word ASSociation? what a bunch of snotty unappreciative neighbors.
Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:17 pm
Updated news story:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/ ... 02/309499/I think it's ridiculous. If he put in a fountain, it would be pretty cut and dried, but since it's a flag pole, its easy to get emotional about it.
Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:21 pm
How'd you like to be the law firm representing the homeowners? The vet has got lot's of pubic sympathy and can probably get even more. Who is head of the homeowners? is it some retired guy,maybe even a vet or is it a local businessman who depends on the public to visit his restaurant or shop at his store or buy his used cars. If so he may find people want to shop elsewhere, and capitalism or the lack of it can sure change someone's view of a situation.
I just got another idea, the old vet gets a giant statue of Santa, taller than the flagpole, and puts it out in his front yard with one hand holding the flag.
So now if the HOA wants to defeat him, they have to be not only anti Medal of Honor, but anti Christmas as well. That ought to go over great with the local merchants.
If that does not work,put Santa on the roof, way up high. And maybe a manger scene in the front yard, a big one, complete with not only the 3 wise men, but their camels, live ones, and big noisy smelly ones. Now he's got religion on his side. Sometimes a little guerilla theater can be very useful as well as fun.
Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:07 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:How'd you like to be the law firm representing the homeowners? The vet has got lot's of pubic sympathy and can probably get even more. Who is head of the homeowners? is it some retired guy,maybe even a vet or is it a local businessman who depends on the public to visit his restaurant or shop at his store or buy his used cars. If so he may find people want to shop elsewhere, and capitalism or the lack of it can sure change someone's view of a situation.
I just got another idea, the old vet gets a giant statue of Santa, taller than the flagpole, and puts it out in his front yard with one hand holding the flag.
So now if the HOA wants to defeat him, they have to be not only anti Medal of Honor, but anti Christmas as well. That ought to go over great with the local merchants.
If that does not work,put Santa on the roof, way up high. And maybe a manger scene in the front yard, a big one, complete with not only the 3 wise men, but their camels, live ones, and big noisy smelly ones. Now he's got religion on his side. Sometimes a little guerilla theater can be very useful as well as fun.
I find it sad that so many aren't taking this seriously. This man is 90 years old and put his life on the line for this country. He is not doing this as any kind of protest, he simply loves his country and the flag. Apparently the homeowners agreement had no SPECIFIC regulation against a flag-pole, so he put one up. Then after the fact the shippheads cited the "general aesthetics of the neighborhood" clause in demanding he remove it. If I'm wrong with this assessment, then I apologize, but I find it sickening that one simple flag that a 90-year old HERO raises and lowers on his own is "offensive" to anyone! If these busibodies can use the "general aesthetics" to get an American flag removed, just imagine the next step. "We don't like your garage door, you need to get a new one with a smaller window" or any other ticky-tack BS.
He's not putting up a 25,000 watt Holiday display to keep the neighbors from sleeping. And all of you high-and-mighty "that's the rules" people, why don't you go spend your free time looking into how many political appointees get "special rules" from local government, or how many with no police affiliation proudly display their "I support the police" get-out-of-tickets badges on their cars or in their wallets.
This is bull, plain and simple, and we as a society should be standing with Medal-of-honor recipients. That seems pretty reasonable.
Rich
PS - not directing this at you Bill Greenwood, just put the quotes there to make reference to the "cheezy holiday display" situation that is often present in neighborhoods.
Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:12 pm
Rich, my suggestions, while they were meant to be humorous, were also given as a real way to fight back, that is through public sympathy with perhaps economic pressure on the homeowner association members, and if that has no effect, try putting up a Christmas or a religious display, A BIG ONE, with the flag as part of it.
If he cannot do anything with a lawyer to fight the specifics of the contract, and he does not want to try anything else, which at 90 may be reasonable for him, then he may have to settle for moral outrage.
Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:04 am
I don't mind taking it seriously. What are we seriously discussing?
Maybe we are discussing whether a certain group of people should be immunized from certain laws or treated differently under them. I understand that there already is a carve-out for US flags in eyesore laws, but this may be a private contract situation. It is easy to justify this type of interference if you consider only the most sympathetic cases. Most would agree that the American landscape will not be greatly disfigured if 90-year old medalists of honor are allowed to put up big flagpoles. But what are the limits of the exception? Would it apply just to 90-year-old decorated heroes, or to all vets, or to all who've been in the military in peace or war; and what are the limits of what they may do under the exception? If the exception were broad enough, and everyone eligible took advantage of it, we could be living in a forest of giant flagpoles.
Or maybe we are saying that without making any legal exception, people should just informally look the other way under certain circumstances. I'm on board with that, and I bet it happens in many situations like this. But we can't enforce this practice, and we should expect (and accept) differing views by people actually living nearby as to what the person should be allowed to get away with, regardless of whether we personally would agree.
August
Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:34 pm
This man did not break any LAWS ("whether a certain group of people should be immunized from certain laws or treated differently under them"), so stop MISREPRESENTING THE SITUATION, thank you.
He challenged an agreement which SEEMED TO BE CONTRADICTORY to a Federal Law, the Flag Display Protection Law of 2006. (a bill barring condominium and homeowners associations from adopting or enforcing any policy that would restrict or prevent a resident member from displaying the U.S. flag on their personally owned property. The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 (H.R. 42), sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland, 6th), passed unanimously in both the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Bush.)
The HOA apparently is trying to order him to remove the FLAGPOLE (which is NOT specifically prohibited in the homeowners agreement) under the "general aesthetics" clause in the agreement. An agreement is not a law, okay? While it may be up to a court to find one way or another as a result of a suit, this seems to be more about the HOA trying to use a broad brush to "sweep away" his right to display the flag. If he can't have a pole to display it on, it would seem that his right to display the flag may be infringed upon in this case. This is where the case lies, not in giving him some kind of exception to a clearly-written legal agreement. It doesn't seem too difficult to understand (even some politicians seem to get it!).
<<There is no provision barring display of the flag at Sussex Square; but Barfoot erected the pole in direct contravention of a decision by the board that the vertical pole was not aesthetically appropriate.>>
This would seem to be the crux of the case, whether their "deeming a flagpole is not "aesthetically appropriate" contradicts with the 2006 FEDERAL LAW. I would say it does, and I think about 90% of those polled do too.
Rich
Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:34 pm
I was not misrepresenting the situation, I was trying to get you to state what you think is wrong rather than jump up and down yelling "OUTRAGE." I'm a lawyer and part of my job is to fix broken laws, rules, and agreements, just as some on this board fix broken planes. My notion of taking something seriously is to think about what is wrong and how to fix it. If you fix planes, I guess you could say that an owner who jumps up and down pointing to the problem and screaming "OUTRAGE" is taking it seriously, but not in a very helpful way. Your latest post is more helpful.
The law to which you are referring, the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, provides that an association "may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association." However, this does not mean that an association may not, in any way, restrict someone's ability to display the flag in any way he chooses. The next provision of the law provides:
Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with ... (2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association.
So associations may impose restrictions on the display of the flag that are reasonable. Which goes to Bill's point; surely you would agree that there are means of displaying the flag that are inappropriate under the local circumstances, and there can be no dispute that preserving the aesthetics of the neighborhood is a substantial interest of the association. The statute creates a balancing test, and what you call a contradiction is really a disagreement over the balance struck in a particular instance. Not allowing a flagpole certainly restricts someone's ability to display the flag, but it may be reasonable, because a flag can be displayed without one. In my neighborhood, for a period after Sept. 2001, every single home displayed one or several flags (including mine), some quite large, with nary a flagpole to be seen.
Not to put words in your mouth, but now you seem to me to be saying that the law is broken because it doesn't clarify that banning flagpoles is an unreasonable restriction. You don't say what size of flagpole, but I'm sure you would agree there is a limit. What should that limit be? I think it would be unwise to set a one-size-fits-all rule. When the average lot size is 0.1 acres like my neighborhood, it would be overwhelming to have flagpoles of a size that might be fine where most people own 5 or 10 acres. So how would you fix it to clarify the interpretation that you are arguing for? And what do we know about the facts of this particular case -- how big is the guy's lot, how big is his pole, what is the rest of the neighborhood like, etc. -- that would be essential for us to make a reasonableness determination before we start spouting opinions?
I apologize for assuming that you were looking for an exception or immunity for this one person. It was an understandable mistake considering that you have referred in the title of the thread and in your posts to his status as a 90-year old decorated veteran, which is completely irrelevant unless you are advocating such an exception.
August
Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:27 pm
Woo Hoo! I wish I lived closer, I'd go there just to shake his hand for ALL of the battles for this country he's fought. I think a nice Christmas card with some nice warbird image is due!
Rich
Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:29 pm
k5083 wrote: I'm a lawyer and...
Figures...
I always enjoyed reading Shakespeare...
Rich
Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:27 am
Good for him. So the HOA was reasonable after all.
Sure glad we got to jump up and down and scream for a while, though.
August
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.