MoH winner to be sued for Flagpole

Caught you with that title didn't I?

Heres the story:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/ne...201/309031/P0/

Quote:

---

Col. Van T. Barfoot, a local Medal of Honor winner, is under the gun from his Henrico County community's homeowner association.

In a five-paragraph letter to Barfoot that he received yesterday, Barfoot is being ordered to remove a flagpole from his yard. The decorated veteran of three wars, now 90 years old, raises the American flag every morning on the pole, then lowers and folds the flag at dusk each day in a three-corner military fashion.

In a priority mail letter, the Coates & Davenport law firm in Richmond is ordering Barfoot to remove the pole by 5 p.m. Friday or face "legal action being brought to enforce the Covenants and Restrictions against you." The letter states that Barfoot will be subject to paying all legal fees and costs in any successful legal proceeding pursued by the homeowner association's board.

Barfoot's daughter said this evening that news reports about the association order have prompted an outpouring of sympathy and offers of help from people following her father's ordeal.

Tonight, the Sussex Square Homeowners Association issued a statement reiterating its position that Barfoot directly violated the association board's denial of his request to erect a flagpole.

"This is not about the American flag. This about a flagpole," the statement reads.

Barfoot lives in the Sussex Square community in far western Henrico; its board of directors rejected a plea from Barfoot in July to approve the pole, disallowing the fixture on aesthetic grounds.

There is no provision in the community's rules expressly forbidding flagpoles, Barfoot's daughter said. But she said the board ruled against her father's fixture and ordered it removed in July, deciding that free-standing flag poles are not aesthetically appropriate. Short flag stands attached to porches dot the community.

"Dad sort of feels like this is the end," said Margaret Nicholls, Barfoot's daughter, who lives a few doors away. But she said this morning that she and her husband are attempting to generate support for her father's cause, a flag-raising rite that he has undertaken for most of his life.

Barfoot received the Medal of Honor on the battlefield during World War II in Italy and fought as well in the Korean and Vietnam wars. A portion of a highway in rural Mississippi, his native state, was named in his honor this fall. A building at McGuire Veterans Hospital in Richmond also carries his name.

Barfoot began regularly flying the flag on Veteran's Day this year despite the Sussex Square board's decision.

He said in November that not flying the flag would be a sacrilege to him.

"There's never been a day in my life or a place I've lived in my life that you couldn't fly the American flag," he said.

For more on this story, see tomorrow's Richmond Times-Dispatch.

-- Bill McKelway

---

Can you believe this? Absolutely ludicrous. If he gets in a ton of trouble for having the frickin flag pole and flag in his yard, and being an MoH winner, and a WWII, Korea, and Vietnam Veteran, let's just say that the local HOA will have a lot of company dressed in green, black, and brown (cammies).



discuss

Did you just blatantly rip this from the Minaret thread? :thumbsdown:

Sussex Square Homeowners Association

Freaking NIMBYS.

EDIT: I didn't see that this was from the Minaret thread. SHAME.

Cry me a river. Homeowner's association rules are not arbitrarily imposed on people against their will. They're part of the contract you sign when you buy the property and you explicitly agree to abide by them when you buy the house. He knew what the rules were when he bought the place, so he has no reason to complain. If the flag mattered to him that much, he shouldn't have moved to a place that didn't allow flagpoles and then signed an agreement to legally bind himself to abide by their rules.

Receiving the Medal of Honor doesn't make you immune to the rule of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Cry me a river. Homeowner's association rules are not arbitrarily imposed on people against their will. They're part of the contract you sign when you buy the property and you explicitly agree to abide by them when you buy the house. He knew what the rules were when he bought the place, so he has no reason to complain. If the flag mattered to him that much, he shouldn't have moved to a place that didn't allow flagpoles and then signed an agreement to legally bind himself to abide by their rules.

Receiving the Medal of Honor doesn't make you immune to the rule of law.

---

Have you ever thought about looking into the law profession?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Cry me a river. Homeowner's association rules are not arbitrarily imposed on people against their will. They're part of the contract you sign when you buy the property and you explicitly agree to abide by them when you buy the house. He knew what the rules were when he bought the place, so he has no reason to complain. If the flag mattered to him that much, he shouldn't have moved to a place that didn't allow flagpoles and then signed an agreement to legally bind himself to abide by their rules.

Receiving the Medal of Honor doesn't make you immune to the rule of law.

---

Flagpoles aren't forbidden in the agreement, the board made the ruling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Have you ever thought about looking into the law profession?

---

See witticism like this is why I want to marry you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Cry me a river. Homeowner's association rules are not arbitrarily imposed on people against their will. They're part of the contract you sign when you buy the property and you explicitly agree to abide by them when you buy the house. He knew what the rules were when he bought the place, so he has no reason to complain. If the flag mattered to him that much, he shouldn't have moved to a place that didn't allow flagpoles and then signed an agreement to legally bind himself to abide by their rules.

Receiving the Medal of Honor doesn't make you immune to the rule of law.

---

Quote:

---

There is no provision in the community's rules expressly forbidding flagpoles, Barfoot's daughter said. But she said the board ruled against her father's fixture and ordered it removed in July, deciding that free-standing flag poles are not aesthetically appropriate. Short flag stands attached to porches dot the community.

---

I dunno, it seems to me that he has a case here. :shrug:

Laws still apply to war veterans. I'm sure there are other places he can go to fly a flag.

I'm a doctor - can I drive at 80mph instead of 70 as I'm special too? :inquisitive:

He might have a case, and that's fine. But that's for the courts of law, not of emotive public opinion.

~:smoking:

Maybe to make a point, he should set up lots of little flag poles, with the Iranian Flag, North Korean Flag, USSR Flag etc, just out of badness :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Laws still apply to war veterans. I'm sure there are other places he can go to fly a flag.

I'm a doctor - can I drive at 80mph instead of 70 as I'm special too? :inquisitive:

He might have a case, and that's fine. But that's for the courts of law, not of emotive public opinion.

~:smoking:

---

He asked for a flagpole, and that specific request was declined. It has nothing to do with making an exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Maybe to make a point, he should set up lots of little flag poles, with the Iranian Flag, North Korean Flag, USSR Flag etc, just out of badness :shrug:

---

except that he is a total patriot, thats why he served in 3 wars and has a real flagpole.



and no, being an MoH winner or veteran of 3 wars doesn't give him different rights, but it does entitle him to be as patriotic as he damn well pleases. if I was him, I'd put up flag poles all over the property just to be a dick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

He asked for a flagpole, and that specific request was declined. It has nothing to do with making an exception.

---

Then why is it still there? Clearly he feels he is an exception and that the ruling does not apply to him, else he'd have taken it down.

~:smoking:

Just a quick clarification to those unfamiliar with Homeowner's Associations (AKA Neighborhood Nazis): This has nothing to do with breaking laws or inalienable rights. He is in violation of lawn and building standards set aside by the HOA, so I believe he is technically in breach of contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Then why is it still there? Clearly he feels he is an exception and that the ruling does not apply to him, else he'd have taken it down.

~:smoking:

---

You think he wouldn't support his neighbor if they were being asked to take a flagpole down?

The reason I posted it in the minaret thread is that it's similar in many ways. The swiss ruled no minarets, many were saying that was unfair. You could say the muslims feel they are an exception, but that would be an oversimplification.

The rules are clear. He broke them. Simple. Whether he would allow someone else to do something is not relevant.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The rules are clear. He broke them. Simple. Whether he would allow someone else to do something is not relevant.

~:smoking:

---

Rosa Parks broke the rules too.

They were simple. They were clear. If you are black, you have to sit at the back of the bus. Clearly she thought she was an exception.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:laugh4:

Well, I'm joking around with that.

So you aren't claiming he thinks he's an exception any more?

Some rules are dumb and it's perfectly legitimate to say so. The HOA is probable going to catch some well deserved flack for this, can't see that as a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

except that he is a total patriot, thats why he served in 3 wars and has a real flagpole.

---

:wall:

Which is why I said he should make a point. By the logic of the HAA, they would prefer to see the Hammer on Sickle flapping around in their neighbours garden on a little pole than their nation's flag on a big one.

I'm sure he could just plead the first or something and be done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Flagpoles aren't forbidden in the agreement, the board made the ruling.

---

From another article on the OP link website:

Quote:

---

There is no provision in the community's rules expressly forbidding flagpoles, Barfoot's daughter said. But she said the board ruled against her father's fixture and ordered it removed in July, deciding that free-standing flag poles are not aesthetically appropriate. Short flag stands attached to porches dot the community.

---

My house is in a community that has a homeowner's association. That association is also very concerned with aesthetic standards. The reason for this is that the entire street is very attractive because of the way it is designed. There is a uniformity of tree plantings and lighting that makes the entire area look and feel like a single community. It creates a very friendly feeling. The property value of each individual house is increased as a result of this. If the aesthetics of the street are broken up, then the property value of each house will go down.

Free-standing flagpoles are much more intrusive than flag holders that are attached to the sides of buildings. If someone put up a flagpole on my street, I would complain very quickly. That flagpole would be damaging the property value of my home.

It's worth noting that a Homeowner's association is comprised of representatives of the residents of that area. Thus, the ruling was made by his neighbors, who are the ones who would directly suffer from any decrease in property value as a result of his actions. So, we've got a situation where the majority of the elected representatives of his street feel that his actions risk damaging the property values of all the houses in the area. Yet he refuses to take it down. Medal of Honor or not, in that situation, he's just a jerk.

I am in 100% agreement with what Tincow has stated in both of his posts.

The gentleman in question is out of bounds and in breach of his community covenant. Large flagpoles are very intrusive, and his is probably damaging the property value of his neighbor's houses. He can put up a normal hanging flagpole just like dozens of his other neighbors probably have (and we have here) and fly a flag that way. This is the exact same situation that I would expect and hold myself to and my neighbors to in our community.

In short, cry me a river.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

From another article on the OP link website:



My house is in a community that has a homeowner's association. That association is also very concerned with aesthetic standards. The reason for this is that the entire street is very attractive because of the way it is designed. There is a uniformity of tree plantings and lighting that makes the entire area look and feel like a single community. It creates a very friendly feeling. The property value of each individual house is increased as a result of this. If the aesthetics of the street are broken up, then the property value of each house will go down.

Free-standing flagpoles are much more intrusive than flag holders that are attached to the sides of buildings. If someone put up a flagpole on my street, I would complain very quickly. That flagpole would be damaging the property value of my home.

It's worth noting that a Homeowner's association is comprised of representatives of the residents of that area. Thus, the ruling was made by his neighbors, who are the ones who would directly suffer from any decrease in property value as a result of his actions. So, we've got a situation where the majority of the elected representatives of his street feel that his actions risk damaging the property values of all the houses in the area. Yet he refuses to take it down. Medal of Honor or not, in that situation, he's just a jerk.

---

That makes sense for your neighborhood. But it's pretty clear that he lives in an old people suburb type of neighborhood. Property values are not an issue here, and his house is butt ugly anyway :laugh4:

Eh, trying to find a picture of the street it does look like one of those "picturesque" neighborhoods. I find the whole thing goofy, but they are within their rights to removed the flagpole.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2wghf9h.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

In short, cry me a river.

---

That's probably what he thinks when people start complaining about their property value :laugh4:

I detest homeowner's associations.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I detest homeowner's associations.

CR

---

I don't know much about buying houses, but surely he could have found a place that didn't come with a homeowners association?

I think the "nice neighborhood" look is silly, but he wanted to live there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Eh, trying to find a picture of the street it does look like one of those "picturesque" neighborhoods. I find the whole thing goofy, but they are within their rights to removed the flagpole.

---

Yeah, I can't find a good picture either. The news articles just have close-ups of the guy and the flag without showing the pole in the context of the street. Google streetview goes right past the community, but not down the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I detest homeowner's associations.

CR

---

Indeed. I guess I can see it Tincow's way, in that he is in violation of the contract and the HA has an interest in keeping everything uniform. But on the other hand, Homeowner's Associations can be really bad for neighborhoods. For example, my family moved into a neighborhood that was later taken over by something similar to a homeowner's association, called the *insert street name here* Historical Society. The Historical Society then proceeded to stop people from doing things like putting up artificial siding that, in addition to being much better for a house than wooden siding, is indistinguishable from the real thing (I'm not talking about the older stuff that people put up on cheap houses decades ago; I've seen real siding and this stuff, and believe me, it looks completely real.) Their reasoning? It wasn't historical or aesthetically pleasing. So they would rather have houses with old rotting wooden siding falling off the walls and destroying the property value, aesthetic appeal and overall structural integrity of the houses than a perfectly good-looking house that will last decades longer just because it requires artificial siding. And it gets worse: people have complained about not being allowed to cut down old, rotting trees that are a serious danger to their house and their neighbor's houses because the Historical Society wants to preserve the historical appeal of the neighborhood.

You can argue that these people could just move to another neighborhood. But that requires them to be able to move to another house, and that's just not something most people can do whenever they please. So much for a man's house being his castle.

Can neighborhoods really be taken over by a HOA? I don't see how that works.

Typically, the group who is ultimately in charge of the HOA (ie board of directors, not elected reps) are the people who owned the land where the houses were built and membership in the HOA was required up front before building the houses.

In other words, a HOA who pops up in your neighborhood years and years after it is built is not going to have much power.

However, if me, joe snuffy and jane doe own 48 acres and decide to subdivide and allow people to buy lots and build houses if they agree to abide by the HOA chaired by us for our wonderful neighborhood XXXXX, then by god you are stuck, because even tho u own the lot, the roads, sidewalks, pool and everything else belongs to us.

HOAs are most common in fenced communities and areas with roads that are not kept by the city

The people who really get screwed are the folks who move into the home as the 2nd, 3rd owners, etc, and may not realize what they are getting in to, as the previous owners whitewashed the situation so they could GTFO

It also means if the original owners of the subdivided property, me, jane and joe, go bankrupt and lose our assets and have to skip town, that the bank who forecloses us is now the HOA because they won the rights to our little enclave.

beautiful, eh?

I'm in an HOA neighborhood. I flew the American flag, attached to my house. Three times it got ripped off, pole and all. So I applied for permission to erect a 15 foot flagpole on my tiny lawn, so I could fly the colors in a place less accessable to passers-by (yard is fenced). Denied. Appealed. Denied.

Last month, I suggested/threatened to paint the street-facing front of my house as a giant American flag. Silence. I'm still thinking about it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the CCR's may grant the Board the power of denial all nice and legal. And I'm not a Medal of Honor winner. But it's a crappy way to treat a vet, in the OP's story.

I'm running for the board next spring.

-edit-

Quote:

---

Maybe to make a point, he should set up lots of little flag poles, with the Iranian Flag, North Korean Flag, USSR Flag etc, just out of badness

---

the rebel in me likes this idea. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

My house is in a community that has a homeowner's association. That association is also very concerned with aesthetic standards. The reason for this is that the entire street is very attractive because of the way it is designed. There is a uniformity of tree plantings and lighting that makes the entire area look and feel like a single community. It creates a very friendly feeling. The property value of each individual house is increased as a result of this. If the aesthetics of the street are broken up, then the property value of each house will go down.

Free-standing flagpoles are much more intrusive than flag holders that are attached to the sides of buildings. If someone put up a flagpole on my street, I would complain very quickly. That flagpole would be damaging the property value of my home.

It's worth noting that a Homeowner's association is comprised of representatives of the residents of that area. Thus, the ruling was made by his neighbors, who are the ones who would directly suffer from any decrease in property value as a result of his actions. So, we've got a situation where the majority of the elected representatives of his street feel that his actions risk damaging the property values of all the houses in the area. Yet he refuses to take it down. Medal of Honor or not, in that situation, he's just a jerk.

---

ok......no. I don't know much about real estate...but a single flagpole is not going to lower anybodies property values. why? because they aren't "aesthetically displeasing". I personally find those half-assed, 5 dollar little hanging flagpoles "aesthetically displeasing".


flag poles are not "intrusive". they are not ugly, they are not displeasing, they are not malicious. they are patriotic, and that does not lower home values. even if someone construed them as ugly:

A) they dont have to look at it

B)the value wouldn't drop down or anything, it could drop a few dollars and thats it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

ok......no. I don't know much about real estate...but a single flagpole is not going to lower anybodies property values. why? because they aren't "aesthetically displeasing". I personally find those half-assed, 5 dollar little hanging flagpoles "aesthetically displeasing".

flag poles are not "intrusive". they are not ugly, they are not displeasing, they are not malicious. they are patriotic, and that does not lower home values. even if someone construed them as ugly:

---

That's totally subjective. I live in a townhouse community, where the front yard of each house is no more than about 10' x 10'. A 20' flagpole would look horrendous there. The same 20' flagpole would look perfectly fine in front of a large house set back a good ways from the street. You can't just say that flagpoles always look fine, because they don't... or at least most people won't think they do. Obviously the HOA in this case doesn't think that one looks good, or they wouldn't have ruled against it specifically for aesthetic reasons.

Quote:

---

A) they dont have to look at it

---

On my street, I have to look at every other house every day I drive down there. If I close my eyes, I will crash my car.

Quote:

---

B)the value wouldn't drop down or anything, it could drop a few dollars and thats it.

---

A few dollars? We're talking about real estate prices here. A 'small' change in a house price is measured in the thousands of dollars. A quick google search shows that the house prices in that guys' community are in the $200k to $250k range. So, if that flag pole made prospective buyers dislike the community enough to drop their offer by half of one percent, that's still a drop of $1,000. That's not "a few dollars."