A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

WHY BOARDS GO CRAZY

Started by DonnaS • 52 replies • 4377 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Reading the article about a homeowner who has an illegal political sign and her Board reacted extremely nonconfrontational but she has decided to be the jerk and disobey what IMHO, was the correct way for the Board to handle this. This is an example of Boards having to react to a blatant disregard for living within the rules.
What do you all think excerpt below.

"Last week the homeowner's association sent Fish what it called a courteous reminder demanding the sign be removed. The neighborhood covenants forbid signs on fences -- but explicitly make an exception for political signs for 90 days before and 15 days after an election.

The state property code also says homeowners associations can't outright forbid political signs.

The association did not assess a fine, but reminded Fish the regulations are there to preserve and enhance property values.

Fish says she appreciates living in a well kept neighborhood, but says she has no plans to remove what's become the talk of her street.

DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
I don't agree with you Donna,

"The neighborhood covenants forbid signs on fences -- but explicitly make an exception for political signs for 90 days before and 15 days after an election."

If there is an exception for political signs there is an exception! The only question is whether the CCR's granted the exception without stipulating that the exception doesn't apply to political signs ON FENCES. Otherwise she isn't in violation.
JohnK3 (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 967
Posted:
Donna,

The article states:

“Last week the homeowner's association sent Fish what it called a courteous reminder demanding the sign be removed. The neighborhood covenants forbid signs on fences -- but explicitly make an exception for political signs for 90 days before and 15 days after an election.”

So is the exception for any political sign anywhere, or are political fence signs still prohibited? I’m guessing the latter. Anyway…bring up the spotlight as I take the stage.

“This is just another example of power-hungry HOA boards, which attract power-hungry individuals with low self-esteem, trampling on the rights afforded to non-HOA citizens of the United States, more specifically as outlined in Amendment 1 to the Constitution of the United States, various Federal and State case law, the Charter of Amnesty International and other applicable principles which I am very familiar with but which are probably beyond your knowledge or comprehension.”

(scattered APPLAUSE and GROANS)

“Thank you, folks, for enjoying my impersonation of...”

“I’m here all week. Try the veal.”
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:


I guess the rest of the article is where she got into trouble

"The Obama sign on her fence measures 4 feet by 8 feet. "
JohnK3 (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 967
Posted:
I've heard that size does matter - though others say it doesn't - but I think the operative term here is "fence."
SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:

"The neighborhood covenants forbid signs on fences -- but explicitly make an exception for political signs for 90 days before and 15 days after an election."

Unless we see the exact wording of the exception, then we don't know, do we?

Shame on the board if it did not place restrictions on place and size for signs, as it did for the dates.

P.S. a 4' x 8' is not a sign, that's a billboard!!
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
To add to Susan's observation,

A billboard is just a big sign!

So now we can debate 'fence' and 'sign', but the 'political' is not up for debate.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Gosh John,
What office are you running for?- Sounds like you have been hanging out with G.-- another
KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665
Posted:
Well in regards to this sign, if the HOA has size limits written, then they could possibly complain about the size of the sign. I looked up the statutes and they indicate that an HOA can make the following restrictions:
  • sign must be ground mounted and may not be attached to another architectural element (including a fence)

  • restrict to a single sign per candidate or ballot item

  • restrict signs to a maximum size of 4 feet by 6 feet

  • prohibit lighting

  • restrict the use of roofing material or landscape material in the signs

  • prohibit the use of balloons, music, and some other items to attract extra attention

Now understand that they still have to write the rules into effect. They don't take effect automatically. And if they simply prohibit signs altogether then thing could be struck leaving them with no restrictions.
JohnK3 (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 967
Posted:
Donna,

You finally got the attempted humor?

Thank goodness!
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

John,
Naw, I got your number long ago and usually I am laughing to myself but I finally had to acknowledge you.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Kirk,

I reread the article on HOATALK Homepage and the lady has other political signs on her property which leads me to believe that her sign on the fence is in non compliance because of it's size. The article is not very complete with information so we have to guess what is going on. This statement makes me think that size is the only issue with the sign.

"The association did not assess a fine, but reminded Fish the regulations are there to preserve and enhance property values." "REGULATIONS" BEING THE KEY WORD HERE

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665
Posted:
Her sign does exceed what the law requires to be allowed. I could see two areas that the HOA could go after:
1) The size (must cut two feet off the thing, perhaps one foot off each end)
2) The mounting to the fence.

The thing is that according tot eh article the fence is a non-issue in her neighborhood and that could well be. It could also be that they didn't bother to put in size limits. We really don't know how their rules are written. I do know that state laws allows for a sign up to 4 feet by 6 feet.

And it doesn't surprise me that she isn't going to remove it if she knows the system well. First, they can not do anything without a ten day period of correction. But the owner can request a hearing and then that will buy an additional 10 days minimum (because they must be given 10 days notice of the hearing). Then the owner gets 10 days to correct the violation after the hearing and now the election is over and the sign down anyway.
JohnK3 (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 967
Posted:
Donna,

Off-topic. Many years ago, when my future (and current) bride and I got engaged, as she was from out of town, I invited two couples, old friends of mine, to meet us for dinner to satisfy their amazement at the fact that I had committed to matrimony. When the women adjourned for the traditional trip to the ladies’ room before dessert, one of the guys smiled, shook his head and advised: “Boy, has she got your number!” So I guess my number is easy to get? Anyway…

Back on topic. Yes, as you know, I am, like you, a pro-Boardite. And yes, sometimes that can lead to craziness. But overall (and I note Gloria’s post on another thread about her long experience in the biz, to which you responded), I’ll bet the good BODs substantially outnumber the bad ones.

So, I’ll keep up with my hopefully positive, helpful comments, as will you and our other fellow travelers, and let the gripes fall as they may.

Carry on.
DwightT (Idaho)
Posts: 664
Posted:
What gets to me is the article itself. Big bold headline "Homeowner's Obama sign stirs controversy...".

  • The fact that it was for Obama is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if it was for McCain, Ron Paul, or Joe the Plumber. The only thing that matters is that it is a campaign sign. IMO all that should really matter is that it is a sign, but that's a different argument.

  • In reading the article, it doesn't sound like there is all that much "controversy". The HOA sent her a "courteous reminder". Other than the homeowner herself, it doesn't sound like anyone else is upset. I have to wonder why the media was even contacted at this point. If the HOA has a procedure similar to ours, then this "reminder" letter probably just pointed out the rule in the CC&Rs and requested her compliance. Sounds to me like the homeowner is just trying to get herself some attention.

  • The article doesn't give any info about what the CC&Rs really say or even what the "reminder" letter actually said. Pretty poor job of reporting if you ask me.


Bottom line, I think for the most part this is really a non-issue that the homeowner herself and news station are trying to turn into a "controversy".
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Dwight,
EXACTLY!. It must have been a slow news day. Her statement is why Boards go crazy, not the issue itself.

"Fish says she appreciates living in a well kept neighborhood, but says she has no plans to remove what's become the talk of her street. "
KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665
Posted:
Well, y'all are clearly not from these parts now are you?

The fact that the sign is for Obama does have something to do with it. To give you some idea when our town had a fall festival the republican party was handing out signs left and right. The democratic party was not there at all.

But all of the large signs I have seen are for Obama. There is one near me that is attached to a chimney. But most people figure ti as a foregone conclusion that our electoral votes will go to McCain.
DwightT (Idaho)
Posts: 664
Posted:
Kirk - I'm from Idaho. We can probably give Texas a serious challenge for the position of longest-running red state. I don't think our electoral votes have ever gone to the Democrat.
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DwightT on 10/29/2008 7:46 PM
Kirk - I'm from Idaho. We can probably give Texas a serious challenge for the position of longest-running red state. I don't think our electoral votes have ever gone to the Democrat.

That's unfortunate.
KarenS11 (Florida)
Posts: 148
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By KirkW1 on 10/29/2008 6:43 PM
Well, y'all are clearly not from these parts now are you?

The fact that the sign is for Obama does have something to do with it. To give you some idea when our town had a fall festival the republican party was handing out signs left and right. The democratic party was not there at all.

But all of the large signs I have seen are for Obama. There is one near me that is attached to a chimney. But most people figure ti as a foregone conclusion that our electoral votes will go to McCain.

I agree that the sign probably had everything to do with it. Our HOA does not permit signs, but has never one time issued a violation letter for campaign signs. When I put mine up- the only one that was for the democratic candidate- I received a notice of violation. By pure coincidence, I'm sure, the owner of the PM company is listed as a major contributor to republican candidates.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Karen,
And this is the reason that documents state-- NO SIGNS! Every 4 years we had to go thru this. IMHO, if it says no signs, there will be no signs. It becomes subjective as to what or when to enforce. The Government should stay out of this because they don't have to deal with finger pointing, signs being torn down, selective enforcement and all of the other junk that goes along with trying to say which ones are allowed and which ones are not.

Freeedom of speech? Don't we have enough free speech without putting a sign in our yards? Example--someplace up north, some jackel has an effegy of Palen hanging by a noose. Down here in Tn, this is considered a "Hate Crime" and they just prosecuted some bozo for doing that on a construction site. Forget Halloween, he could have hung anything else but someone reccognizable. (FYI--I'm an Independent voter)
DwightT (Idaho)
Posts: 664
Posted:
Karen - you stated that when you put your sign up, you received a notice of violation since as you also stated, your HOA does not permit signs. Your implication is that you received the notice because of your political party affiliation and that every one who had signs out for the other party did not receive any violation notices. I would have to ask what evidence you have to back up that claim?

Just because campaign signs (regardless of party affiliation) are still present in some yards does not mean that those homeowners have not received any notices. This is one of those that can be very difficult to enforce. In my HOA we sent out our first "Courtesy" letter this week to remind a homeowner about the "No signs" rule. They have two weeks to correct the violation before we take any further steps. By that time, the election will be over and the sign will probably be gone anyway. Depending on your HOA's enforcement procedure, these homeowners may have just decided to ignore their notices.

People often want to see ulterior motives, but we should probably all try to remember Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

BTW: in spite of which state I live in and they way the vote usually goes here, like Donna I consider myself to be an independent. Rather than disparaging the viewpoints of somebody else I try to keep an open mind and understand the issue from their side as well.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:


Dwight,

I DO NOT want to start any political arguement here but the "red State / blue State" thing drives me crazy.

Please explain to me if??? say the red party runs a bobbling idiot for President, will the reds vote for the idiot? Say the blue party runs another time, another bobbling idiot, will the blues vote for the idiot? OF COURSE THEY WILL because thats how we have gotten into this terrible habit of belonging to a specific party and whoever they pick is the choice that we have.

I say NO MORE PARTYS (venting here because my spouse has it on 24/7)5 more days thank God
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Okay, one more jab and I'm done. Just listening to talk about Florida maybe not getting the job done again, after 2000 elections, there was a bumper sticker down there saying--

"IF YOU THINK WE CAN'T DRIVE, YOU SHOULD SEE US VOTE"
DwightT (Idaho)
Posts: 664
Posted:
Donna - I completely agree with you on NO MORE PARTYS. Frankly, I have a hard time telling one from the other.

As for the bobbling idiots, I'm afraid that you are correct. Look at the guy that we sent to Congress two years ago (tried to repeal the law of gravity). At least there is actually a chance of getting him replaced this year.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Dwight,
I am in a new developement and our Covs state--NO SIGNS also. We are only 7 sold houses so the neighbors that we have we need to keep on good terms as we are in the country and need to protect each other from the wolves, etc.

Anyhow, our brand new neighbor works for the Red party and on day one, he started to lecture me with the state of this country and how the blue party is at fault.

I gave him the big "TIME OUT" hand signal and told him that under no circumstances shall I engage in any discussions about politics or religeon. (he's also an armchair preacher). I want to be good neighbors and friends and those types of discussions will make that not happen. He seemed okay.

Then we had a neighborhood watch meeting and he came wearing all of his buttons and red colors. I guess that some people just cannot keep their affiliations to themselves, hence the big signs, etc.

Does a whopping sign anywhere make me vote for a candidate? NOT! So the moral of the story is that it doesn't matter if there are signs or no signs. People don't vote for a candidate because of ugly signs up and down the highways.
KarenS11 (Florida)
Posts: 148
Posted:
Dwight-

The reason that I know this is because I had just been elected to the board and made president. Four on the ballot for five seats, so no angry losers. Now, it could have been a complaint from a homeowner. But, IMO, if a complaint had been made, the CAM should have told that person that there were more than 20 political signs on the property and they could not single out one person. Or else all 21 of us should have gotten the letter.

When I received the notice, I did some research and learned that these provisions have been successfuly challeneged in another state and that the challenges must be on a state-by-state basis. I notified my board that I would not be removing the sign and that if they choose to take further action, we could take it all the way to the state and have the law changed.

I also said that I would not be involved in their decision and would hold no grudge, but that this is something that I felt strongly about and would not back down. I didn't present it as a threat, just that I believe that this is a basic right that all Americans should have.

I have to say that we have a great board. In no way do we agree on everything, but so far we have shared our views, taken votes and then went on.

Sorry to get OT, but I do feel that the sign may have been a factor in the violation notice that the woman received. But I also feel that a sign that big, as previously posted, is no longer a sign, but a banner. That was what they should have gone after before the welcome home signs to a returning military person ever went up.
KarenS11 (Florida)
Posts: 148
Posted:
DonnaS-

No more parties?! It's the parties (in our park) that have helped to make our subdivision a neighborhood! LOL Party on....
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By KarenS11 on 10/30/2008 7:04 PM
Dwight-

The reason that I know this is because I had just been elected to the board and made president. Four on the ballot for five seats, so no angry losers. Now, it could have been a complaint from a homeowner. But, IMO, if a complaint had been made, the CAM should have told that person that there were more than 20 political signs on the property and they could not single out one person. Or else all 21 of us should have gotten the letter.

When I received the notice, I did some research and learned that these provisions have been successfuly challeneged in another state and that the challenges must be on a state-by-state basis. I notified my board that I would not be removing the sign and that if they choose to take further action, we could take it all the way to the state and have the law changed.

I also said that I would not be involved in their decision and would hold no grudge, but that this is something that I felt strongly about and would not back down. I didn't present it as a threat, just that I believe that this is a basic right that all Americans should have.

I have to say that we have a great board. In no way do we agree on everything, but so far we have shared our views, taken votes and then went on.

Sorry to get OT, but I do feel that the sign may have been a factor in the violation notice that the woman received. But I also feel that a sign that big, as previously posted, is no longer a sign, but a banner. That was what they should have gone after before the welcome home signs to a returning military person ever went up.

Karen,

Sorry, but I must say that IMO you should NOT be a board member. Board members should set an example to the members of the community by strictly adhering to the CCRs, whether you agree with some rules or not -- not blatantly violating them! Since you mention other states have successfully challenged this rule, I'm assuming FL has not addressed the issue. However, until FL decides to make it unlawful to prohibit the display of political signs -- no matter what other states have done, all FL HOA residents will have to live with the restriction. If you feel this strongly about this issue then, as a board member, you should work to have your assn docs changed, instead of blatantly violating them. Know that I agree with your position; however, I would never do what you did, especially if I were a member of the board.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Mary,
Did you nail this one on the head. Any Board member who is in violation of any rule, covenant or restriction should not be a Board member. Agree or disagree with any governing documents, that is her right but enforcement of those rules, covenants and restrictions is her duty. Fudituary Duty!

Challenging them in such an open fashion sets the worst of all examples. If she wants to change the sign rule, do it according to procedures from her Bylaws and Statutes.

I think that it is wonderful that people are so passionate about the elections but breaking the HOA rules, eliminates them from good standing in the community and she is a Board member. Shame shame.
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Mary, Donna, I am 100% in line with both your responses.

Especially as a board member she should work WITHIN THE LAWS AND WITHIN THE SYSTEM to change a restriction she feels is inappropriate.

Just as there have been SUCCESSFUL challenges, please keep in mind that there have been UNSUCCESSFUL challenges.

Remember, a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE "restricting" "free" or "political" "speech" is not the same as a government agency or entity doing so. AN HOA IS NOT A GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT AGENCY, OR GOVERNMENT ENTITY.

If the documents say "no signs" and you agreed to them when you purchased your property, then you are obligated to abide by them, contractually.

Your "protest" is noted, but not only does it set a bad example. Personally I would consider it a violation of your fiduciary responsibilities.

Fix the problem the RIGHT way.

EllenS1 (Florida)
Posts: 1,148
Posted:
DonnaS,

Usually I agree with you but not now. We have troops fighting for our right to have freedom of speech. To me this is far more important than nitpickers looking for the slightest violation of their old and probably unenforceble covenants. I am on a board also and put out my sign in the am and take it in at night so it won't be stolen. I WILL continue to do this. As far as changing our docs most owners could care less and this would be next to impossible. We have more important issues than a sign that may be out for 30 days. The purpose of an hoa is to keep up property values, in my opinion. I might add we have some on the board who ignore the covenants (not saying that is right). One, who served on the last board, who recently cut down a hundred old oak tree (NOT allowed), a couple of others who let their dogs poop without cleaning up after them, etc. In a perfect world this would not happen but we are doing the best we can to keep our townhomes kept up to snuff which affects the value of all our homes. To send violation notices for political signs is a total waste of time and money. I live in a association of 101 owners and we are lucky if we even have 20+ at our annual meeting so my thinking is just be glad you have an active and concerned board doing the best they can and ignore politial signs that are only there for a short period of time.

I'd rather address problems such as leaving garbage cans outside, letting their units deteriorate, etc. It's all about priorities.
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
For the record, I am a veteran myself, Vietnam era veteran, and I take huge offense to people using that cliche about our soldiers dying to defend our "freedom of speech," because in the process it is invariably abused.

You also have an OBLIGATION to follow the rule of law, which is ANOTHER little known thing that we "vets" fought for.

Not just one or two cherry-picked mantras.

The HOA is NOT a government agency. It is a corporate entity that has a contractual relationship with its members.

One of them, YOU, have agreed to not only abide by the CC&Rs and other governing documents when you moved into the HOA, but you also have a responsibility, as a board member, to actively maintain the integrity of those documents.

If you can't do that; if you feel there are some that are "petty" and "not worth following" then you need to step down.

But either way, you still need to abide by the RULES that YOU agreed to.

Doing otherwise is akin to anarchy. And THAT IS something that we vets feel strongly about.

Thank you for your support.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
In addition, if you feel that strongly about the political signs, and obviously you do, the ADULT and RESPONSIBLE thing to do is to get the governing documents amended to allow for them.

Doing it YOUR way, again, is irresponsible and inappropriate.

You don't get to pick and chose which rules to enforce are a waste of time. That's not your role. Your role is to maintain the integrity of the documents and enforce ALL of the rules.

If some are not appropriate for your community, amend them the PROPER way, the LEGAL way, and not the vigilante way.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Just so we are all on the same page, and to remind us of what we are discussing:

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

This only speaks to CONGRESS's actions, not private enterprise.

My boss can prevent me from wearing campaign buttons.

My HOA can prevent me from erecting political signs (if there is no state statute preventing them from doing so).

The concept of "free speech" is not, and never was, "absolute."

DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
Michele,

It is simplistic to claim people who buy into a HOA agreed to follow the rules when they bought. Sometimes it comes down to 'interpretation' of the rules that raises conflict as it appears in the OP.
KarenS11 (Florida)
Posts: 148
Posted:
I don't disagree with any of you. I "should" step down. But there were only five of us willing to run last Feb., two of whom only agreed if I would run again. We had been calling folks practically begging them to run. Once reelected, I nominated another member to serve as president- but she resigned frm the board due to increased job demands three months later(her agency lost 25% of employees due to budget cuts).

Many, if not all, of us are on the board not because we choose to be, but because there is no choice.

Our by-laws are terribly outdated and we are running a deficit due to a previous board's decision to undertake a lawsuit and an increase in unpaid assessements. Our first priority once our legal expenses have been recouped is to revise our documents, but it is not in our budget at this time. The political sign issue is in a thick folder with other revisions to be presented to our members.

I have shared this site with many at my HOA and hopefully someone reading will feel as strongly as you all do and offer to replace me. We have also been developing our committees to groom new board members. I think too many people feel that one needs special skills or experience to serve- LOL- and we know that this ain't necessarily so! Hopefully their involvement within a committee will give them the confidence and desire to serve on the board. In my association, anyway, it is a mostly positive experience and a great way to get to know your neighbors.

Thank you for your comments. I have made the decision to remove the political sign from my yard....on Wednesday. ;)
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Thanks for showing your commitment to the spirit of the law.

Very upstanding of you.
DwightT (Idaho)
Posts: 664
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By EllenS1 on 10/31/2008 3:42 PM

I'd rather address problems such as leaving garbage cans outside, letting their units deteriorate, etc. It's all about priorities.

Interesting. While I'm not exactly a fan of people leaving their garbage cans out, that is one that I probably won't even notice half the time unless it is pointed out to me and if given the choice I would rather just ignore. However, signs of any type will almost immediately get my attention and get the enforcement process started.

But, I don't get to ignore either one.

  • As a homeowner, I agreed to follow the rules of the HOA when I purchased a home in this neighborhood, including the rule about unsightly items (such as trash cans) and the one about no signs.

  • As a board member, part of my responsibility is to enforce all of those rules evenly for all homeowners. That means I don't get to decide to ignore some rules while enforcing others.



If the homeowners don't like a particular rule, they have the power to change it. But until that happens as a homeowner I have an obligation to follow the rule, and as a board member I have an obligation to enforce the rule as it stands.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Karen,
Michelle and Dwight have so eloquently stated the basic issue here and that is IF you have the rule for something, --in this case--NO SIGNS, then that is what you as a Board member have to enforce. Outdated?, perhaps, but that type of covenant is in almost every set of CC&Rs that were ever written. And for a very good reason as I hate to see anyones yards junked up with signs. It leads to conflict between neighbors when they have conflicting opinions on the signs.

We are not arguing about the first amendment, we are not arguing if the sign thing is right or wrong, we are saying that IF it is one of your restrictions, then that is what you have to behave like.

As a fellow Floridian, if you have seen the billions of signs plastered everywhere, the need for another one on your front yard seems like an unnescessary way to get in trouble with your HOA. But being a Board member does not exempt you from being enforced upon. I'd change the no signs rule if you feel so passionately about it but you might be suprised that it just might not pass the membership for removal.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Karen,

So, let me get this straight. Because no one else is willing to run for the board, and because other board members would only run if you did, this gives you the freedom to break whatever CCRs rules you choose. I guess you consider this pay-off for being on the board? Well, as Michelle said:

"Thanks for showing your commitment to the spirit of the law.

Very upstanding of you."

Every HOA member who thinks nothing of breaking the rules would consider you the model board member!!!
FrancescaM (Washington)
Posts: 264
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DonnaS on 10/31/2008 6:11 AM

Mary,
Did you nail this one on the head. Any Board member who is in violation of any rule, covenant or restriction should not be a Board member. Agree or disagree with any governing documents, that is her right but enforcement of those rules, covenants and restrictions is her duty. Fudituary Duty!

Challenging them in such an open fashion sets the worst of all examples. If she wants to change the sign rule, do it according to procedures from her Bylaws and Statutes.

I think that it is wonderful that people are so passionate about the elections but breaking the HOA rules, eliminates them from good standing in the community and she is a Board member. Shame shame.

That isn't too far off with the board member who knowingly is breaking the rules, admits to it and won't do anything about it? Thats insane. I do have a strong feeling about our up and coming election, but guess what? Our rules prohibit signs too. I don't have one, but I would love to put one out..... this is just plain jane lame in my opinon. Nothing like making a crap example of yourself infront of your HOA. Credibility is OUT the window here folks.. long gone.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Francesca, Nice Post and Thanks!

Everyone of us has a passion and at this time every 4 years, that passion sometimes gets kind of mixed up with issues that it should not. Neighbors against neighbors because of supporting opposite parties is one of those needless things and because of opposing party signs, I have seen people get nasty because they do not support our views and vice versa. Here, as I am passionate about HOAs and rules being followed, not everyone agrees and that's okay with me. Unless rules are assinine and unable for the masses to adhere to, then my answer is always very simplistic. If you don't like it, change it as we have all said already.

My yard is a "National Wildlife Sanctuary" and I have a very beautiful 8-1/2 x 11" sign that was handmade and because the developer told me--no signs, it is carefully tucked into the plants in the backyard. I guess the birds and butterflys really don't much care if they can see it so there it sits, just following the rules.
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
Donna,

Your developer says no signs but you have one, albeit in the backyard tucked into some plants. Kind of funny that you are breaking the rules when you say others shouldn't.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

DJ,

Nice that you spotted that I posted my owning a sign in my backyard. Just to let you all know, my entire yard is enclosed with thick bushes, trees and layered with plants to form a solid wall of vegetation and the sign is within the bed. No one can see inside the yard and the Pampas grass has just about eaten the sign so it is not in view for anyone. Yes, if you wanted to get technical, there is a small sign in my backyard. I'll remove it if y'all feel that I am in violation
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
Just find it funny that others are going on about strict interpretations, BOD violating the spirit etc etc only to hear you are actually willingly violating your CCR's...just that no one can see it. It just provides an example of how grey CCR's can sometimes be and the mindset of one can justify breaking CCR's.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

DJ,
How would you interpret one of those cute little metal or ceramic "TURTLE CROSSING? signs? This is what we all mean as the grey area.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
DJ,

Although I haven't read Donna's CCRs, most rules apply to only what can be seen from the street or neighbor's property. In live in an HOA with walls around each individual lot. You cannot see into my backyard unless you climb an 8' ladder; then I could call you a peeping tom and have you arrested.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Mary,

As long as DJ brought it up,I decided to go back and reread my CC&Rs from our new developement. It says that no signs anywhere that can be viewed from any street or neighboring lot. I guess that mine is really safe seeing that you cannot view it even from my back deck. It's in a flower bed and has no message other than the yard is a sanctuary. But I was willing to remove it if it was against the covs and popular opinion.
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
So the ccr isn't simply 'no signs', it is 'no signs' & 'visible from ....'. I'll put my Barack sign back in my backyard now. Whew!!

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement