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:
Quote:
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
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
