• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut condo owner told to remove Jewish religious ornament or face fines

Bob Blaylock said:
But when it comes to dictating what color one may paint his house, what kind of landscaping one may have in his yard, what decorations one may display, and such, then I think that's out of bounds. We wouldn't think of letting a state or city government dictate such things; I don't see why a neighborhood-level of government should have that power either.
Click to expand...
Nope! That's 100% within an HOA's power. We had a case here several years ago about house color. A guy put siding on his house in a color that didn't meet the HOA criteria so the HOA sued him to change it and won in court. He had them OK several colors of house siding as a replacement for the siding they were making him take down, just to make sure he was abiding my the color rules. He then proceeded to have the siding installed - all four colors, in alternating strips! Wasn't a damn thing the HOA could do about it, either, they tried - took him back to court and lost because he was within the HOA guidelines. Served those HOA bastards right! LOL!

We also had another case where the HOA didn't allow anything but shake shingles. Timberline asphalt shingles had just come out and a homeowner used them instead of shakes. The HOA sued and the homeowner took it up the ladder through the courts claiming TImberlines didn't subtract from the looks and asphalt had a much better safety record than shakes. (very true!) The homeowner eventually won and kept his Timberlines, after which most HOA's around here allowed Timberline or similar as an acceptable replacement for shake shingles.

HOA's can be a PITA if you get some anal retentive idiots running them.
 
jamesrage said:
With anal retentive home owner associations telling people they can't American flags, have to mow their lawns at a certain time, can't have certain types of Christmas decorations in their yard why would anyone in their right mind buy a home with a home owners association attached to it?
Click to expand...
Amen!


Ikari said:
Yes, but property and contract rights as they are; one can argue that she knew the terms.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean the terms are literally carved in stone. I have no issue with someone signing a contract and "agreeing" to terms, then working to have some of the terms overturned.

Where I think the association will lose in this case is the differing standards based on which religion it is. If they were more consistent, either allowing all or banning all, without exception, they might withstand a legal challenge better. I predict they will either lose or back down on this one.
 
jamesrage said:
But when it comes to dictating what color one may paint his house, what kind of landscaping one may have in his yard, what decorations one may display, and such, then I think that's out of bounds. We wouldn't think of letting a state or city government dictate such things; I don't see why a neighborhood-level of government should have that power either.
Click to expand...
There are some cities and other local governments that do restrict what colors one can paint their homes. It's not common, though.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Nope! That's 100% within an HOA's power. We had a case here several years ago about house color. A guy put siding on his house in a color that didn't meet the HOA criteria so the HOA sued him to change it and won in court. He had them OK several colors of house siding as a replacement for the siding they were making him take down, just to make sure he was abiding my the color rules. He then proceeded to have the siding installed - all four colors, in alternating strips! Wasn't a damn thing the HOA could do about it, either, they tried - took him back to court and lost because he was within the HOA guidelines. Served those HOA bastards right! LOL!

We also had another case where the HOA didn't allow anything but shake shingles. Timberline asphalt shingles had just come out and a homeowner used them instead of shakes. The HOA sued and the homeowner took it up the ladder through the courts claiming TImberlines didn't subtract from the looks and asphalt had a much better safety record than shakes. (very true!) The homeowner eventually won and kept his Timberlines, after which most HOA's around here allowed Timberline or similar as an acceptable replacement for shake shingles.

HOA's can be a PITA if you get some anal retentive idiots running them.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt you're right about bolded statement. But the guy who sided his house in four different colors? He was an asshole. I hope the guy has to put his house on the market soon. The last laugh won't be his. (Frankly, this sounds more like an urban legend than truth. Link?)
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
HOA's can be a PITA if you get some anal retentive idiots running them.
Click to expand...

I was at a friend's place as were members of the HOA who were at poolside. There was a bird on a balcony in a cage making tweety bird noises. Next thing I hear there were measures before the HOA to have the bird banned and a battle ensued between the resident and the HOA...:cuckoo:
 
How fitting that this thread appeared right below the Wegmans thread...lol


j-mac
 
MaggieD said:
There is no doubt you're right about bolded statement. But the guy who sided his house in four different colors? He was an asshole. I hope the guy has to put his house on the market soon. The last laugh won't be his. (Frankly, this sounds more like an urban legend than truth. Link?)
Click to expand...
He was an asshole, absolutely, but... I love it! I have pretty much zero sympathy for HOAs. They have to live by the restrictive rules they make as well, and he made sure they did. As far as I'm concerned they brought it on themselves as much as he brought it on them. When you push too far, don't be surprised when people push back.

Something tells me if he can afford to be an asshole in that manner, he can afford to fix his siding if/when he sells his home.
 
j-mac,

I totally agree, the girl in the Wegmans thread shows us the proper way to go about asking for something when dealing with a non governmental authority vs the condo lady just doing it without regard for the contract she signed. Seems our nation's new motto is 'it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.'

Until a group challenges the rules of a HOA or Condo Board the rules stand, thats the way it was prior to 1963. Until challenged sundowner laws, literacy tests, separate but equal were all legal.

She knew the rules, she didn't put it up when she moved in but sometime later when she was given one as a gift. I'd support a law allowing small religious symbols on individual doors/frames but as the law stands now the Condo Board is well within it's rights, all right wing ranting aside.

Perhaps the older lady could learn something from the younger one.
 
MaggieD said:
There is no doubt you're right about bolded statement. But the guy who sided his house in four different colors? He was an asshole. I hope the guy has to put his house on the market soon. The last laugh won't be his. (Frankly, this sounds more like an urban legend than truth. Link?)
Click to expand...
It was in the mid-80's, it was local, the only link I have is the one in my brain. I've seen the house, it was located at the corner of a residential street and a parkway - but some parkways around here have a really wide RoW so it wasn't "right on the street" on the parkway side. I'll see if there's an on-line reference. Short of that I'd have to dig it out of the newspaper archives here. I know it made the paper. We called it the Rainbow House but that was before the term implied gay. It was four colors of pastel, the required colors for the HOA. I'll look but I don't expect to find it on-line considering how long ago the hoopla was.
 
radcen said:
Doesn't mean the terms are literally carved in stone. I have no issue with someone signing a contract and "agreeing" to terms, then working to have some of the terms overturned.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to agree to terms of a contract and then try to weasel out of your responsibilities?
 
Ikari said:
So it's ok to agree to terms of a contract and then try to weasel out of your responsibilities?
Click to expand...
Your phrasing is presumptuous and incorrect. Apparently, you feel that once a law/rule is passed that it is sacrosanct and can never... ever... be questioned or challenged or modified.
 
Well, it's certainly tempting to go down the road of personal responsibility with signing on to buying a condo with such restrictive covenants...
 
Ikari said:
So it's ok to agree to terms of a contract and then try to weasel out of your responsibilities?
Click to expand...

Responsibilities under a contract that will be proven to be unconstitutional?
 
radcen said:
Your phrasing is presumptuous and incorrect. Apparently, you feel that once a law/rule is passed that it is sacrosanct and can never... ever... be questioned or challenged or modified.
Click to expand...

It would be ok to question, challenge, or modify. Condo and homeowners associations do this all all the time. It is not ok to violate.

At least in my homeowners association, there are procedures to change the regs and request variances.

What some miss is that there are reasons for homeowners assn rules. I do not want junk cars parked in front yards next to my luxury home, or destruction of the lakefront for a single owners personal gratification, and therefore the appeal of a homeowners association that had rules similar to what I wanted played a part in the decision to purchase where I did.
 
justabubba said:
some will be relinquished when executing acceptance of the condo association bylaws
"The declaration expressly prohibits unit owners from hanging or displaying anything on the outside windows or outside walls of any building, and also prohibits any sign from being affixed to or placed upon the exterior walls … without prior consent of the association's board of directors,"
did she follow protocol and seek the consent of the board to permanently affix her mezuzah
i am guessing 'no', otherwise she would have cited the disparate religious treatment when recognizing "According to an agreement with its condo owners, the display of items like Christmas wreaths and crosses on doors is allowed ...".
somebody wants to be a victim; they are special
Click to expand...

I doubt the condominium company will win. Have you ever seen these things? They are no larger than a door knocker which is likely allowed. You have to be right up by the door as well, and it is not on the door, but next to it. If you didn't know what it was you probably wouldn't figure it out from any reasonable distance away. The law firm will probably embarrass the condominium through media stories like this, and show what small-minded pricks this company is.
 
She is wrong. I live in a condo and I do not want to see politics and or religion displayed anywhere. It is MY home as well as hers and eveyone elses. We all agree to abide by the condo laws or pay the price. Your right to freedom of expression is simply not permitted anywhere where others find it offensive or disturbing. Don't scream whereever to desire or you may go to jail. She should moe out to a place where she is not OBLIGATED to an association but I hope she has tolerant neighbors in her new neighborhood!!
 
They are out of line, you all realize this is what they are talking about right?


mezuzah.jpg



it's literally like 4", 1". and hardley noticable. I think fools live in HOA developments. I will never.
 
rhinefire said:
She is wrong. I live in a condo and I do not want to see politics and or religion displayed anywhere. It is MY home as well as hers and eveyone elses. We all agree to abide by the condo laws or pay the price. Your right to freedom of expression is simply not permitted anywhere where others find it offensive or disturbing. Don't scream whereever to desire or you may go to jail. She should moe out to a place where she is not OBLIGATED to an association but I hope she has tolerant neighbors in her new neighborhood!!
Click to expand...

So you are offended by this tiny display? You are too easily offended to live in a republic, maybe you should consider a communist regime where each nut and bolt on the premises are controlled.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Click to expand...
 
radcen said:
Your phrasing is presumptuous and incorrect. Apparently, you feel that once a law/rule is passed that it is sacrosanct and can never... ever... be questioned or challenged or modified.
Click to expand...

It can be modified if both parties involved in contract agree to modify the contract. I'm not saying it cannot be. But it sounded more from the statement that it was meant that an individual can sign a contract not intending to uphold his end of contract, but rather to take it to court and get the terms forcibly chnaged through government.
 
washunut said:
Responsibilities under a contract that will be proven to be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

A man has right to contract; that's a two way street.
 
Ikari said:
It can be modified if both parties involved in contract agree to modify the contract. I'm not saying it cannot be. But it sounded more from the statement that it was meant that an individual can sign a contract not intending to uphold his end of contract, but rather to take it to court and get the terms forcibly chnaged through government.
Click to expand...

So you would be fine if this association had in it's rules that no blacks are allowed. Sorry these are the "good old days" when bigots could keep undesirables out of their neighborhoods.
 
I think the most important question here is:

What's an internationally renowned harpsichordist? And what's a harpsichord?
 
washunut said:
So you would be fine if this association had in it's rules that no blacks are allowed. Sorry these are the "good old days" when bigots could keep undesirables out of their neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

There can be issues to which the government may get involved; I'm not saying that absolutely there can be no government involvement. But I think that your example doesn’t work well with the construct of the hypothetical which was that people can enter a contract expecting not to uphold their end of contract; but rather running to the government in order to get the terms changed. As this hypothetical is well more general and not specifically speaking to the outside chances of government intervention being a necessity.

All in all, a man has right to contract. What some are looking to avoid is the two-way nature of that right. You can sign contract and agree to terms you desire. True. But you enter into contract and then are legally obligated to hold up your end. Of course there are exceptions, let’s not run down that road. What you want to say here is that this display of property on someone’s not-property when agreed to terms is one of those exceptions. Perchance, perchance not. My point is that the argument can be made that she knew the terms she was agreeing to and exercised her right to contract. Now she can try to get the terms changed and both parties can agree to do so; but that doesn’t alleviate her obligation to the current contract as written. She has right to contract and exercised said right, yes? Such an argument in fact isn’t necessarily out of libertarian political philosophy either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom