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?
He might have a case, and that's fine. But that's for the courts of law, not of emotive public opinion.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind. Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
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.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind. Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
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.
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.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind. Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
The rules are clear. He broke them. Simple. Whether he would allow someone else to do something is not relevant.
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:
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.
except that he is a total patriot, thats why he served in 3 wars and has a real flagpole.
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.
Flagpoles aren't forbidden in the agreement, the board made the ruling.
From another article on the OP link website:
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.
"Justice is the firm and continuous desire to render to everyone
that which is his due." - Justinian I
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
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.
Originally Posted by Whacker
In short, cry me a river.
That's probably what he thinks when people start complaining about their property value
Last edited by Sasaki Kojiro; 12-03-2009 at 18:55.
Out too long in the midnight sea. Oh what's becoming of me?
Posts
3,404
Re: MoH winner to be sued for Flagpole
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.
Bookmarks