Posted on 06/15/2002 5:58:58 AM PDT by not-alone
JUPITER -- Former Marine George Andres got air support Friday from Gov. Jeb Bush, who flew in to give Andres $100 toward his legal fight and help him raise a new American flag on the white flag pole he has been ordered to take down.
Outside of the Indian Creek Phase IIIB Homeowners Association, the ongoing battle over Andres' 12 foot flag pole may seem a little silly, but for Bush, in the middle of a reelection campaign, it was a photo opportunity not to be missed.
Wearing a green tie adorned with American flags and bombs bursting in air, Bush handed Andres a flag that had flown over the state Capitol. Then the two marched over to the flagpole and hoisted the flag the short distance up the pole.
"This is the death of common sense," Bush told a swarm of reporters and photographers. Television stations did live reports in front of Andres' home while a score of supporters munched on American flag cake, deviled eggs and tiny chicken-salad sandwiches.
It is a classic homeowners dispute. Andres wants to fly his flag from a pole planted in the left front corner of his yard. The association insists that flags must be flown from a pole attached to the wall.
Andres will have none of it.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has said that I can fly my flag," he said.
State courts have disagreed. They say he is willfully violating the rules of the homeowner association. His defiance has cost him $30,000. The association says it has spent $21,000 in legal fees and court costs fighting Andres and they want him to pay it.
No one is budging.
After hearing about the flag fight, Bush signed legislation in April that says homeowners can fly the flag in a "respectful way" regardless of association rules. But the court ordered Andres to take down his flag nearly two years ago and the association argues that Andres must pay for his defiance prior to the new law.
In June 2001, the court said Andres must pay $100 for every day the pole stays.
One more thing, Jeb said one of the smartest things that strikes a chord with almost any voter, "This is the death of common sense". The article paints Bush to be a little of an "opportunist", but it is the Palm Beach Post after all (liberal alert).
I guess now we will have to hear from the FR crowd that says "a HOA rule is a rule is a rule".
One comment before you start all that claptrap:
Freedom of Speech is THE first rule of this country and flying our flag is a speech issue (the Supreme Court has said so). Let's talk about this rule being abused before we talk about some pithy little HOA rule.
An interesting side note to this story: yet another example of the liberal FL Supreme Court and their underlings DEFYING a standing rule of the US Supreme Court. I guess they will never learn.
Please tell me how a rule requiring him to fly his flag from a pole attached to the wall, not one by the road, violates his free speech.
it's kinda this way: a court judgement is a court judgement-and sumptin to do w/the Constitutionality of retroactive legislation?
some legal 'beagles' might add to this, PLS.
Sorry, but most HOA's specifically ban towers and antennas. The FCC does have PRB-1 which proscribes the ban of same in ZONING regs but the ban in CC&R's is always (almost?) upheld as a contractual agreement. If you buy the property with the always stupidly restricitve restrictions, you agree to them.
Here in Phoenix, most, if not all, new developments are burdened by such restrictions, e.g. No antennas, all house colors must be approved by the HOA, garage doors cannot be open for more than 10 minutes at a time, grass must be cut weekly, NO FLAGS (this one is being looked into), no motor homes, boats, trailers... You get the idea.
Of course, anyone who buys into these nazi like restrictions, deserves the protection he gets.
I for one, am relegated to older areas of town not burdened by these stupid restrictions so I may be allowed to raise my tower and antenna to 60 feet.
I am the past president of a HOA. When I moved last year, I bought 40 acres, parceled out lots and picked one to build on.
I chose NOT to set up a HOA. But I did put 14 pages of deed restrictions on the lots, governing RV's, square footage, outbuildings, etc.
Most Americans' biggest investment is in their home. And most Americans appreciate the security that HOAs [or in this case, deed restrictions] provide for the protection of that investment from a potential loss due to a neighbor who does something extreemely absurd with his property next door.
I also believe in the right to contract. If a homeowner agrees to certain rules before he moves in, he should live by them.
Oh my god, they are on a powertrip, aren't they.
Typical Palm Beach Post. Jeb has been on this case for months. He has responded to several freeper emails on the subject and, several weeks ago, wrote a letter to George's lawyer, Barry Silver, reiterating the reasons why he signed legislation prohibiting HOAs from banning American flags.
The reactivity of Florida laws such as this one has been affirmed by the courts.
The story states that the HOA rules support his right to fly a flag. Their requirement is simply that the flagpole be attached to the wall of the condo.
How is a requirement that he flies his flag from a pole on his house, not by the road, the equivilent of taking away his right to fly a flag?
we "nay-sayers" are jus focusin on fundamentals of the Constitution, courts, contracts related to propety values, etc..
ya make us property owners sound soo bad-and i'm not a member of an HOA
BTW, do you own or rent:)?
Let's look at another example. Many HOA's, cities, and townships also have rules regulating how close a building may set to the property lines.
If there is a commercial district that call for 150 foot setbacks, and a church wants to build their building thirty feet from the road, not the required 150 feet, they should be denied unless they can show how the 150 foot rule is unreasonable. And I do not think it is religious discrimination to insist that they abide by the 150 foot rule.
In the same way, I don't think that since the man is flying an American flag, versus a Detroit Red Wings flag, that he should be able to thumb his nose at the rules to which he agreed when he bought the property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.