# Man Refuses To Remove Flag From His Home



## MA-Caver (Sep 2, 2010)

Now this guy... heh... wants to fly a historical flag in the front of his home. I guess nothing is wrong with that however; the essential message of the flag, which is the famous Gadsden "Don't Tread On Me" flag from the American Revolution.





> *From Wiki:* Since the Revolution, the flag has seen times of reintroduction as a symbol of American patriotism, a symbol of disagreement with government, or a symbol of support for civil liberties.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag


Seems that he has a right via AZ state statues that allow him to fly this particular flag... which he has done since January of this year until recently he gotten a notice in the mail asking him to remove debris from his house. ? Debris ? 
Watching the video the guy is claiming innocence as to the WHYS they are asking him to remove the flag and he innocently states he wanted to honor the founding fathers and blah blah blah. 


> Arizona has a state statute that allows Arizonans to fly "the Stars and Stripes, the [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]state [COLOR=#366388 ! important]flag[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR],  flags representing Indian nations as well as the official flags of the  Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard," the Times reports.
> McDonel's homeowners' association is strictly  interpreting that law to ban the flying of any other flags, including  the Gadsden. The American Civil Liberties Union is  defending McDonel, saying the homeowners' group is taking too strict a  view of the statute and restricting McDonel's right to free speech.
> McDonel is chronicling his struggle on a blog, where he is asking for donations for a potential legal battle.
> McDonel isn't the only person to run into a dispute over the historic flag.
> ...


Yeah, right in Arizona of all places which just HAPPEN to be the place where immigration issues and arguments are going on. Your message isn't wholly lost upon us fella.  

Still, as long as he is following the law then those who are offended by the flag can just argue about it next time the issue comes to vote. 
This is a historical flag and while it's being used by other people for slightly different reasons than originally intended it still is the flag that represents opposition against tyranny. 




> *Also from Wiki:* Beginning in 2009, the Gadsden Flag has become an adopted symbol of the American Tea Party movement.[6][7] Tea Party activists have embraced the "Don't Tread on Me" flag and its message.[8] Nationwide it serves as an alternative to the stars and stripes[9] for Tea Party protesters upset at the current government yet still feeling patriotic. [10] It was also seen being displayed by members of Congress at Tea Party rallies.[11] Some lawmakers have dubbed it a political symbol due to the Tea Party connection,[9] and the political nature of Tea Party supporters.[12]




So is the guy illegally making a political statement? Or is he honestly wanting to honor our founding fathers? Is the HOA wrong to determine this flag is offensive? 



What you think? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag#cite_note-11


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 2, 2010)

I was unaware that people in this country needed laws to "allow" them to fly certain flags. Seems a bit odd, to me.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 2, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> I was unaware that people in this country needed laws to "allow" them to fly certain flags. Seems a bit odd, to me.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


I found it odd too which is why I started this thread. 
I can understand if it's anything related to a past enemy, i.e. Nazi, Japanese battle flag, Vietnamese, et al. Sure that would be insulting to fly anywhere in this country... but one of our own?
I think if the guy really wants to make a statement... he can take the current stars and stripes and fly it upside down.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2010)

I could be wrong, but when I first read this story, I was under the impression that the guy was not violating any laws, he was in violation of the rules of his Homeowners Association rules.  Many residential areas have HOA's, and many of them have fairly strict rules about all sorts of things, including what kind of flags can be flown, how high, what kind of flagpole, when, and so on.

Hey, if you don't like the rules of the HOA, don't move into a HOA area that will forbid you to fly the flag of your choice.  It's kind of like Sharia Law for the Homeowner's Associations - they want to have their own rules for their own neighborhoods, and everybody agrees to them when they move into the neighborhood; they always have the choice to go live somewhere else, or to join the HOA board and try to change the rules themselves.

I also read that this guy had been VP of the local HOA and decided to leave after getting in an argument with other members - as I recall - and now they're coming after him for minor violations.  OK, I get it.  Peyton Place politics.

But I don't think it's really about the Gadsden Flag.  I've heard similar complaints about people getting in trouble for flying Marine Corps flags and other kinds of flags.

Heck, one guy got into trouble for flying the Mexican flag over his house.  Seems some people don't like that much - they say you can fly the state flag or the US flag, but NO OTHER FLAG over your house.  So the Gadsden Flag is, uh, not OK with them.  Unless it is.  I guess it depends on which side your bread is buttered, eh?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 2, 2010)

3 houses near me fly Confederate flags. I've seen a half dozen flying MIA/POW flags.  I'm ok with it.

Facebook is however deleting accounts of anyone who posts the Gadsden flag I heard.


----------



## Carol (Sep 2, 2010)

I suspect the chain of events went like this:

Homeowner flies Gadsden flag.

Other residents complain to HOA.

HOA checks bylaws, to find that they do not have a bylaw that forbids flying the Gadsden flag.

HOA uses AZ state law as a crutch to make up for the fact that they can't find anything in writing to specifically preclude the homeowner from flying the Gadsden flag.

Ironically, the namesake of the flag, Christopher Gadsden, had a grandson named James Gadsden...also from South Carolina.  James Gadsden successfully negotiated negotiated a piece of land from Mexico that is now part of Southern Arizona -- the Gadsden Purchase -- which made it possible for a railway to be built from the Mississippi out to California...leading to the growth of the American Southwest.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2010)

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/08/gadsen_flag_shouldnt_be_banned.php



> McDonel says he started flying the flag in front of his Laveen home in January because it looks cool and symbolizes his patriotism. A couple of weeks after he quit the HOA board of directors, he received a letter ordering him to remove the flag or face a fine. He's not sure what prompted the HOA to go after his flag.



I think he ticked off someone on the HOA board and they went looking for something to gig him with.

As far as Arizona state law goes:



> What's especially troubling about this case is the HOA's refusal to budge even though a state law seems to block HOAs from banning military flags. As the ACLU's Meetze notes, though, the law isn't perfectly clear. It states, in part, that HOAs can't prohibit:
> _The American flag or an official or replica of a flag of the United States army, navy, air force, marine corps or coast guard..._
> Clearly, the Gadsden flag was once used by branches of the military. The law doesn't say anything about historical military flags, but the Gadsden seems to fit the spirit of the law.



Frankly, I find the entire thing a bit amusing.  People who live in the suburbs started HOAs way back when.  The government didn't come up with them, residents and homeowners did.  They did it to protect the value of their property, to ensure they were living in the kind of neighborhoods they wanted to live in; even for less-wholesome reasons like racism (back in the day).  HOA's are US!!!  Now they're the evil bad guy.  Oh please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association

People love HOAs when they make the slob down the street quit parking Chevys on his lawn or make him mow the grass before it's three feet high.  They love HOAs when it keeps their nutty neighbor from painting his house that garish shade of purple or keeping their Christmas lights up year 'round.  Then they make some guy take down a flag and everyone thinks the devil just came right down to earth and wiped his bottom with that flag.  Can we grow up a little bit here?  It's not a big deal.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 2, 2010)

I just want to know why does anybody give a **** about a flag in someone yard? What the **** has our country gone to, when you cannot fly an American flag? Lets go and become a country of doing what the man say because lord knows we are not smart enough to figure it out by ourself. Last things is simple will someone go and put their foot up the HOA *** so it will not be so tight.....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> I just want to know why does anybody give a **** about a flag in someone yard? What the **** has our country gone to, when you cannot fly an American flag? Lets go and become a country of doing what the man say because lord knows we are not smart enough to figure it out by ourself. Last things is simple will someone go and put their foot up the HOA *** so it will not be so tight.....



It's like this.  People often want to live the way they want to live.  They created HOAs so that they could, to the extent possible, live in a neighborhood that reflected their own values.  These have been around forever.  Most people like them when they're doing things like making sure that the neighbor doesn't paint his house a ghastly shade of purple.

Now imagine this same guy was flying a flag that others found offensive, maybe even you.  Perhaps a KKK flag, or a Nazi flag. Would you think it was OK then?  Perhaps, but if you had to live next door to the guy?  If you thought what it might do to property values?

So the HOA maybe has a no-flag rule that means no flags that are not the US flag, the state flag, or the flags of the various branches of service.  They don't particularly care about the Gadsden flag one way or another, but if they try to make a rule for each and every kind of flag out there, they'll be at it forever, so they just have a general no-flag rule.

And this rule existed when the guy moved in.  He had a copy of the agreement, he signed it.  He's free to move out of the area and fly whatever flag he likes.

It's not really about the Gadsden flag.  It's about people having the right to control how they live, in cooperation with those around them.  The HOA would never have existed if people of like mind hadn't created them.  And the HOA can change whatever rule they wish to, like any quasi-government corporation; just vote and it's done.  So they don't want the flag in the neighborhood.  Wah.  Big deal.  They also don't want cars parked on lawns with no wheels on them.  That's how it goes.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 2, 2010)

Bill that is a great way of saying it but for the record I do not care about HOA and what they do. They where invented so the few could manipulate the many and make money. I was in California when they started this **** and it was prityful. I wish people would have enough common sense to let people live their lives and worry about themself and yes you sre right the HOA can and will change rules when they need them to be. Alot of the times it was never a rule when you bought the house but because someone finds it offensive they make a new rule and even when they do not have enough votes they still finds way of making things happen. Not trying to piss in anybody corn flakes but we need to worry more about the economy and the fallen job rate in this country not a flag.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> Bill that is a great way of saying it but for the record I do not care about HOA and what they do. They where invented so the few could manipulate the many and make money.



No, they were invented so that people would not have to worry about having a jerk move in next door to them and destroy the resale value of their home.  I live in such an area now.  It doesn't allow trucks with lettering on the sides to be parked permanently in the streets.  Not a big deal for me.  I suppose it would be for some guy who runs a business that has such a truck as his personal vehicle, but it's not like he would not know about the rule before moving in.

With regard to condos and that kind of thing, they were invented so that common areas would be maintained; parking lots repaved, lines painted on parking spots, abandoned cars not kept in lots, etc.



> I was in California when they started this **** and it was prityful. I wish people would have enough common sense to let people live their lives and worry about themself and yes you sre right the HOA can and will change rules when they need them to be. Alot of the times it was never a rule when you bought the house but because someone finds it offensive they make a new rule and even when they do not have enough votes they still finds way of making things happen. Not trying to piss in anybody corn flakes but we need to worry more about the economy and the fallen job rate in this country not a flag.



Do people have the right to live as they wish or not?  That's all a HOA is.  School boards do it, every municipality does it.  One town near hear doesn't let people park cars on the street at night, period.  I don't care for that - so I don't live there.  Life goes on.

Again, if the guy was flying a Nazi flag, then you'd want the HOA to 'do something' about it if he was your neighbor.  It all depends on whether you like his flag or not, instead of whether or not a rule that the HOA agreed upon should be followed.  It's silly business.


----------



## Nomad (Sep 2, 2010)

So far, my neighbours have not complained about the Canadian flag flying in my backyard (clearly visible from the street) in San Diego.  

Of course, it will be time to take it down soon (pretty sun-faded at this point anyway), and replace it with the Jolly Roger, at least until after Halloween.

Yeah, he's probably making a political statement with the flag.  Um... ok.  Last time I checked this was still theoretically a free country.  Did I miss the memo?


----------



## seasoned (Sep 2, 2010)

Sad thing is no matter what we do nowadays we will offend someone. My neighbor flies a beer flag, it's a good thing I'm not a teetotaler.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 2, 2010)

Bill just for the record and I believe you to know this, I am Jewish and if somebody wanted to fly a Nazi flag on there property so be it. Little things such as that really does not effect me at all. Since somethings have been brought up remember when they did not allow high school to fly the confederate flag, I do because I went to a school called South Grand Prairie, we did not care about the south vs. the north it was about two rival high schools having fun. Did they change the name of the school no just made us stop waving a southern flag, what a waste of good fun for all the high schools. To many groups complaining about other groups, let us live as we always have free from fear,anger and free of being free.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 2, 2010)

Personally I don't care if or what flag someone flies on thier personal property.  Heck, if they are flying something like a nazi flag, it tells me something about them without having to meet them.  The thing is though, if he is part of a HOA that has rules against it and he was the vice pres of said organization, he knew the rules.  So while he was vice pres he supported following the HOA, but now that he doesn't like one of those rules, he feels he doesn't have to follow the HOA rule.  Seems a bit hypocritical to me.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I could be wrong, but when I first read this story, I was under the impression that the guy was not violating any laws, he was in violation of the rules of his Homeowners Association rules.  Many residential areas have HOA's, and many of them have fairly strict rules about all sorts of things, including what kind of flags can be flown, how high, what kind of flagpole, when, and so on.
> 
> Hey, if you don't like the rules of the HOA, don't move into a HOA area that will forbid you to fly the flag of your choice.  It's kind of like Sharia Law for the Homeowner's Associations - they want to have their own rules for their own neighborhoods, and everybody agrees to them when they move into the neighborhood; they always have the choice to go live somewhere else, or to join the HOA board and try to change the rules themselves.



HOAs are evil.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 3, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> HOAs are evil.



Here's the deal.  I don't care for HOA's either, for the most part.  Given my choices, I would not live in an area that had one.

However, they are still voluntary; if you don't want to live in an area where there is an HOA, don't.  If you don't like their rules, read the bloody agreement before signing it and if you find it restrictive, don't sign and don't live there.

And like it or not, they reflect the desire of the people who DO live there to live as they wish and to set rules which reflect their own values.  Freedom means not only the freedom to live as one wishes, but to group together with others who feel the same way.

Most people hate HOAs until the neighbor parks a chevy with no wheels on his lawn and the place starts looking like hell.  Then they call the city and find out there's no public nuisance law in their own and gee if they only had an HOA, they could make the guy get rid of the car.

And HOA is also similar to apartment renting.  In my former apartment complex, they had rules against things like BBQ grills on the patio.  Many people complained about how EVIL that rule was.  Then some idiot burned down the building with a hibachi on the patio.  Suddenly everyone wanted to know what the apartment wasn't vigorously enforcing the rules!

Anyway, HOA evil?  Not hardly.   They're voluntary.  Don't like it, don't live there.  How hard is that?


----------



## geezer (Sep 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Anyway, HOA evil? Not hardly. They're voluntary. Don't like it, don't live there. How hard is that?


 
er, OK then. They're a _voluntary_ evil.


----------



## Carol (Sep 3, 2010)

I think one issue with HOAs is that some buyers (not all) do not take HOA contracts seriously enough.  I had 70 pages of association paperwork to look over with my condo.

Most folks would rather not sign a 70 page employment contract unless they have had a chance to discuss the matter with an attorney or similar mentor.

So why is it that people see fit to sign in to 70 page HOA contracts, without the advice of a similar subject matter expert to guide them?

A HOA can do more to affect the property value of your house -- for  good, or ill, or both -- than any other factor of the property.   Not all associations are alike.  Some are definitely better than others.  

It is very important for the buyer to understand what makes a good association/contract and what makes a bad one before the commitment of a mortgage.  Easier said than done.

Personally, I like being in an HOA.  It best fits my needs at this moment in time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 3, 2010)

Carol said:


> Personally, I like being in an HOA.  It best fits my needs at this moment in time.



For a condo, it absolutely makes sense.  If the HOA lets the parking lots go to heck, or don't paint and take care of the common areas, or lets trash pile up, or don't take steps to keep people from doing auto repair work in the parking spots, etc, etc, your value in your home plummets with the appearance of the place.  And you're trapped in there; not like you can put up a privacy fence or grow a hedge or something.  I totally get it.

I chafe a bit under the constraints where we're at now.  We're renting a house; but the HOA here has already been 'round to tell us that we're not fertilizing enough, my $500 car is 'unsightly' and so on.  Urgh.


----------



## Carol (Sep 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I chafe a bit under the constraints where we're at now.  We're renting a house; but the HOA here has already been 'round to tell us that we're not fertilizing enough, my $500 car is 'unsightly' and so on.  Urgh.



Ugh Indeed!  Sorry    Stuff on that level bugs me. My community is entry level...if they did the snobby stuff like lettering on the sides of trucks, bumper stickers, or runabout cars....we'd prolly lose half of our residents.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 4, 2010)

What I don't get is this: where do they get their authority from?
If I buy a plot of land, it is mine to use, and the only things that apply are the local zoning laws. If I buy a house somewhere, it is equally mine, and any contracts signed by the previous owner are null and void.

I could understand that IF you sign the contract, then the HOA has you by the shorts and curlies. But signing the contract cannot be (in Belgium at least) a legal requirement of the sale.

So what am I missing here?


----------



## Carol (Sep 4, 2010)

Signing a contract can be a legal part of the sale in the U.S.  The buyer is buying in to a managed community. 

In the case of my condo complex, I didn't buy a plot of land per se.  The deed says I have my one condominium unit and the equivalent to some fraction of land in the complex.  I'm in a 3 story building with 8 units per floor...it is not like we all have our own yard. What we have is common areas, and the rights to access appropriately.  I can walk in the green space surrounding other the other building or the other sub-developments in my complex.  I have access to the playground, the basketball courts, the swimming pools, and the hiking trail that goes across the conservation easement protecting the local brook.

My mom and I each live in managed communities, my sister does not.  We all have our own reasons for wanting to live in the type of arrangement we have.  I greatly appreciate the freedom to choose what's right for me, and I respect another person's desire to chose what is best for them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 4, 2010)

Buying a plot of land doesn't grant you all rights to it. Only Texas currently allows you to really own it. (Don't believe me, go buy some land in NY and try digging for oil.) 

"in the United States, all land is subject to eminent domain by the  federal government, and there is thus no true allodial land. Some states  within the US (notably Nevada and Texas) have provisions for  considering land allodial under state law, but such land remains rare." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title#United_States

That's a tangent though.   Basic thing in the HOA cases are that when you buy your home you agree to comply with this groups terms.  These terms can limit what colors you may paint your house, if your kids can play on the front lawn, if you can have pets, and how many, where you may park your car, how many visitors you may have at a given time, and what vehicles you may drive, and more.

My opinion is, piss on em. When I buy a house, I want the ability to paint it purple, put the Prius up on blocks, and fly a Klingon war banner.   Not going to do it, but I don't care to be told "no".   So our house search eliminates any place with a HOA, or zoning laws that restrict us similarly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> What I don't get is this: where do they get their authority from?



Like a 'real' government, the consent of the governed.  In the case of an HOA, it's generally a non-profit corporation created at the time a housing development is built - often by the developer.  When the housing development is finally sold out, the new residents take over the corporation.  That's why you seldom see an HOA in rural areas or in towns that 'grew up' without suburbs or intentionally-developed areas.

The theory is that the HOA gets it's authority from the members of the housing area; they agree to be members of the HOA when they buy a house in that development.  They don't have a choice, it's a deed restriction.  So either they agree to be members of the HOA, or they cannot complete the sale.

That also gives the HOA the power to levy fines, enforce regulations, collect fees, and in extreme cases, seize houses and sell them without the owner's permission.



> If I buy a plot of land, it is mine to use, and the only things that apply are the local zoning laws. If I buy a house somewhere, it is equally mine, and any contracts signed by the previous owner are null and void.



Actually, that's generally not true at all. In addition to things like the mineral rights or other rights that previous owners may have sold (meaning they cannot convey those rights to you when you buy the property), there are deed restrictions to consider.  This is why it is so complicated and expensive to close a real estate deal in the USA; for one reason, a title search has to be done, and any deed restrictions discovered and disclosed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_covenant

A lot of people don't know about them; they assume that when they buy a piece of land, it is theirs to do with as they please (other than zoning laws, as you stated).  But no...

And you don't have to live in an area that has an HOA to have a restrictive covenant on the land.  Some people have been surprised to find that they bought empty fields that they intended to develop, only to find out that they were forbidden from ever building on the property by the deed itself.  Such things can be fought in court, but it's expensive, time-consuming, and if you lose, you own land that you can do nothing with - literally.

Check THIS one out!

http://savannahnow.com/stories/020698/CMNstock.html

The weird thing about deed restrictions - you can be the second, third, or one hundredth owner of the property - only the person who put the restriction on the deed can remove it. If that person is deceased, then it cannot be removed, as I understand it.

It seems counter intuitive - if you own something and sell it, you sell all interest in it.  But not land, not in the USA.  You can put your stamp on a deed by placing a restriction on it, and that restriction will have to be obeyed in perpetuity unless overcome in a court of law.



> I could understand that IF you sign the contract, then the HOA has you by the shorts and curlies. But signing the contract cannot be (in Belgium at least) a legal requirement of the sale.



In the USA, it can indeed be a legal requirement of the sale.  You agree or you cannot buy the property.



> So what am I missing here?



Real estate law is weird and complex in the USA.  Nothing a person could guess, and most Americans have no idea about it either.


----------



## Carol (Sep 4, 2010)

Hey man, I like not having to mow grass, fix doorbells, do landscaping, demuck the gutters, shovel walkways or snowplow lots.


----------



## MJS (Sep 4, 2010)

I live in a condo, and everyone else that lives in the complex, has a set of rules that we have to go by.  There are certain things that can/can't be done.  I've seen a number of decks that have US flags flying from them.  Now, if it were something other than a US flag, such as in this case, would anything happen?  No idea.  

We have areas in front of each unit, that have small bushes, flowers, etc.  The condo assoc. will take care of the upkeep of this.  However, should we decide, and many people have, to take care of this ourselves, all we have to do is notify the assoc. of our decision, and that upkeep now falls on the owner of the condo.

This case sounds to me, like someone wants to live in a place with a HOA, but wants to do what THEY want to do.  Umm...no, sorry, doesnt work that way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2010)

MJS said:


> This case sounds to me, like someone wants to live in a place with a HOA, but wants to do what THEY want to do.  Umm...no, sorry, doesnt work that way.



I agree.  And with regard to 'stupid' rules being enforced, such as the apparent enforcement of the no-flag rule on the man's Gadsden flag...sure, it seems pretty silly, the flag is not offensive and one might wonder why the rule is being enforced.  But when the HOA takes no action on rule violations that it finds 'OK', then it is harder to enforce the same rule on situations that are 'not OK' later on.  So today they give the guy a break on the Gadsden flag, and tomorrow someone decides to fly a Nazi flag.  While some here apparently don't care, trust me that many would.  And the guy with the Nazi flag could legitimately say "Hey, that rule can't be enforced whenever you feel like it.  Either it's a rule for everyone, or it's a rule for no one."  The HOA could choose to amend their rules to allow the Gadsden flag, but apparently they choose not to.  Them's the breaks.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 4, 2010)

Thanks. It is clear now. Something similar exists here, but only for people who one a condo (because they exist in a shared infrastructure and need maintenance that is common to all). Other than some very specific (and logical) exceptions like that, we generally really own the land for which we own the deed and what we do is noone's business.

It is interesting that the situation you describe exists in a country like the USA where individual liberty is cherished so much. It almost sounds like a communist committee.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Thanks. It is clear now. Something similar exists here, but only for people who one a condo (because they exist in a shared infrastructure and need maintenance that is common to all). Other than some very specific (and logical) exceptions like that, we generally really own the land for which we own the deed and what we do is noone's business.
> 
> It is interesting that the situation you describe exists in a country like the USA where individual liberty is cherished so much. It almost sounds like a communist committee.



I guess the legal term is '_covenant appurtenant' _and it means 'covenant running with the land'.  I really don't know much about the history of such covenants, but I know they've been used for 'good' and for 'evil'.  For example, in many cases, such covenants were used to ensure that there would be right of passage or an easement granted in perpetuity.  No one would want to own property they could never access because it was surrounded by other private property which would not grant them right-of-way to get to their own property.  I understand that in some countries in Europe, hunters and fishermen have the right to cut through fields and other private properties to reach hunting grounds and fishing areas; this is a sort of easement, and one could say it encumbers the property, since the owner can never remove the right to passage.

The 'evil' use to which '_covenant appurtenant' _was put was racial segregation; people tried to use such deed restrictions to keep blacks, Jews, and Catholics out of 'their' neighborhoods.  Such deeds are still sometimes found; but the Supreme Court ruled them all illegal a long time ago, so such requirements cannot be enforced.  However, all such use which does not restrict the right of people whose civil rights are specifically protected from infringement can and are restricted in some cases.

Most often, though, such encumbrances on land are meant for good purposes, such as preventing development on farmlands or wildlife refuges, etc.

Let's say you owned some land that you left undeveloped to let wildlife flourish on it, and when you died, you wanted to pass it on to a nature conservancy.  You might just give it to them, but who knows if they might decide they really didn't want it after all and sell it to a shopping mall developer?  If you put a restrictive covenant on it and then give it to them, if they accept the land, they are prevented from ever selling it to anyone who would develop it; and so on down the line.

I'm not sure what the history is or where it really came from.  I agree with you, it's weird for a country so fiercely independent like the USA.  If anyone knows, I'd be interested in learning.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 4, 2010)

There was a case a couple of years ago where a HOA contract had not been updated in many, many years.  A local Jewish familt went to move into the housing development and noticed that the HOA contract had a claus for no Jewish people.  of course it was not enforced and the HOA had it removed.  It is interesting some of the ignorance we once thought was acceptable. I'm glad we have progressed somewhat.


----------



## Carol (Sep 4, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> There was a case a couple of years ago where a HOA contract had not been updated in many, many years.  A local Jewish familt went to move into the housing development and noticed that the HOA contract had a claus for no Jewish people.  of course it was not enforced and the HOA had it removed.  It is interesting some of the ignorance we once thought was acceptable. I'm glad we have progressed somewhat.



Sheesh!  That's horrible! I don't how that could have been legal to begin with, violation of the Fair Housing act and all that.


----------



## Carol (Sep 4, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Thanks. It is clear now. Something similar exists here, but only for people who one a condo (because they exist in a shared infrastructure and need maintenance that is common to all). Other than some very specific (and logical) exceptions like that, we generally really own the land for which we own the deed and what we do is noone's business.
> 
> It is interesting that the situation you describe exists in a country like the USA where individual liberty is cherished so much. It almost sounds like a communist committee.



But it is also an exercise in individual liberty to choose whether such a situation is right for you or not.   

For example, my mom is 76 years old.  She has lived alone since my dad passed away at the beginning of the decade  She has a single family home and a small yard. She has the option of making her yard completely private (ie: telling maintenance that it is absolutely off limits, even locking a gate), or she can have the yard crew come in and keep it landscaped.  She chose the latter.

My mom leads a very active life but she still has some health problems relating to advancing age.  She bought in the community where she did because she can enjoy all the benefits of having a single family home, no common walls, private entries, etc....but without the obligations of the things she cannot do, such as mowing the lawn or fixing an exterior light.  The HOA fees as a whole are a fraction of what she would have to pay in landscaping and maintenance had she needed to hire people on her own.

If I were in a position to desire a single family home of my own, I'm not sure I would want that.  But I am very glad my mom has that option because it gives her much more independence, and it opened up options in the housing market that she would not have had otherwise.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 4, 2010)

Carol said:


> Sheesh! That's horrible! I don't how that could have been legal to begin with, violation of the Fair Housing act and all that.


 
The original contract was written sometime in the 50's.  Fair had nothing to do with it.  Some people look back as the 50' as the 'good ole' days' but not many of those people are minorities.


----------



## Carol (Sep 5, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> The original contract was written sometime in the 50's.  Fair had nothing to do with it.  Some people look back as the 50' as the 'good ole' days' but not many of those people are minorities.



That explains it :asian:  Fair Housing Act wasn't written until the late 60s.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 5, 2010)

I had an argument recently with someone who insists that it's his house, who the hell is the government to tell him what he can and can't do with it, or who he can and can't rent to.  Lets just say the restrictions in his mind are "must be same color as me, no kids, no pets, and I can enter their apartment any time I want to since it's my house." Stuck in the 40's is an understatement.

A print out of the various laws that apply, as well as the recent one outlining that the presence of a smoker on site must be disclosed was not well received.  (You folks think I post a lot of links in an argument here....argue with me in real life when I drop a ream or 2 of support documentation on you, LOL!)


----------

