Jan 11, 2009

HB 1085 - Political Signs

SYNOPSIS: Display of political signs. Prohibits a homeowners association from adopting or enforcing certain restrictive covenants concerning the display of political signs.

SUPPORT: It's a matter of free speech. Sure, we all find political yard signs annoying, but it doesn't stop supporters from wanting signs come election time and candidates providing them. Having conforming mailboxes or not allowing a chainlink fence in a neighborhood is one thing (of course, having bought into that neighborhood knowing the rules), but disallowing a season yard sign to show your support of a candidate goes too far.

STATUS: Authored by Rep. Fry, referred to Committee on Local Government.

4 comments:

Patriot Paul said...

The opposition's argument reflects a matter of degree and very subjective. Libertarians have no right to deny neighbors to form an association of restrictive behavior whether its a gated community or what is permitted in their yard.

Mike Kole said...

The First Amendment always applies- no matter what a group of your neighbors convenes to 'decide'.

On the other hand, if you buy property that carries a restrictive covenant, you agreed to it by said purchase.

Scott Tibbs said...

Sorry, disagree here. It is the homeowner's responsibility to confirm if there are any restrictions on use of property when the property is purchased. It is freedom of contract, and even if we think it is ludicrous state government should not interfere.

Sean Shepard said...

I'm going to agree with Mr. Kole on this.

By Paul's logic whatever the majority decides is what should be the rule. This is called the "Tyranny of the Masses (or majority)".

If 51% of the people in your neighborhood decide your house should be purple or that you should have to sell it and move because they don't like the way you comb your hair.

At the same time, if there is an existing rule and the people voluntarily moved to an area after being presented with a list of those restrictions, than I can agree with Scott Tibbs on this. Although, part of me wants to oppose the idea that Homeowners Associations should have quasi-governmental power to usurp property rights.

Ultimately, I think harm to others (physical or financial) should have be to proven to require enforcement of anything like this. There must be a victim.

Site Meter