campaign sign removal

[Andy A]

why yes he does....

How would I know for sure. Unfortunately, I've never met him. While I'm all for freedom of expression and all the other various and sundry freedoms, SJ is right about the HOA covenants and restrictions. The Homeowners put them in place.

 

[InletBchDweller]

How would I know for sure. Unfortunately, I've never met him. While I'm all for freedom of expression and all the other various and sundry freedoms, SJ is right about the HOA covenants and restrictions. The Homeowners put them in place.

I am sorry you have not met him, he is a very likeable guy and my daughter thinks he is the bees knees..
HOA cov and rest can be quite a hassle. He is correct though. I am on the Board for 3 /30-A developments( i must be insane). We deal with illegal signage all the time, not just election signs. Owners have copies of the rules they just try to buck the systems which makes our life (the BOD) harder and more work.

 

[tsutcli]

Here's the real scoop about Seabreeze. Last year the HOA President announced at two Board meetings, including the annual Board meeting that the sign ordinance would not be enforced. She had no right to make that statement but she did, not once but twice. However, this year our current Board of Directors is attempting to enforce this sign ordinance in spite of the fact that some signs in the neighborhood have been allowed to remain for as long as 8 years without enforcement! The truth of the matter is that the covenants in Seabreeze are not enforced for everyone and some covenants are not enforced at all.
A letter was drafted and mailed by the HOA Board to a few owners about political signs recently. The HOA Board was then notified by one owner that the sign covenant was no longer enforceable due to "past practice" by the Board. Even knowing that, there is one Board member who continues to remove signs within the neighborhood.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Sounds like an HOA issue. Thanks for the inside scoop.

 

[InletBchDweller]

Wow, tsutcli, sounds like some issues there. I am guessing legal is not involved in any bod meetings. We keep attorneys on retainers and they attend every BOD meeting that we have. What is nice is that they can guide us on what we can and can not do so that some disgruntled homeowner can come and sue us b/c we changed something illegally.

Thanks for filling us in. IMO, even though it was stated by the President of was it a motion that was voted on and passed? Sounds like your CAM has his/her work cut out for them. Best of luck to you..

 

[scooterbug44]

People who make important voting decisions in this manner ("I won't vote for that candidate simply because I don't want to see his sign") prove themselves to be small minded people, and no doubt members of a small group (one of the usual, and inescapeable, negative 10 percentile that tends to populate every group). So, yes, you ARE missing something: these types of people waste a valuable voting right and "cut off their noses to spite their faces". Think about it. Are YOU a member of that group?

YES!

Seriously, it may seem like a minor reason to vote for/against someone, but it is symptomatic of the bigger issues.

Not electing a law enforcement candidate who can't follow the law when placing signs or a county commissioner candidate who blankets 'scenic' highways or posts signs on private property isn't being short sighted, it's reading the 'signs'. ;-)

 

[BeachSiO2]

People who make important voting decisions in this manner ("I won't vote for that candidate simply because I don't want to see his sign") prove themselves to be small minded people, and no doubt members of a small group (one of the usual, and inescapeable, negative 10 percentile that tends to populate every group). So, yes, you ARE missing something: these types of people waste a valuable voting right and "cut off their noses to spite their faces". Think about it. Are YOU a member of that group?

No, I don't decide for or against someone based on a sign. But my decisions are often affected by the way that people who support said candidates conduct themselves in campaign actions on behalf of a candidate. That being said, the point I was making and question I was asking is slightly different. For clarification, I will break it down into pieces.

Typically signs are installed to 1. increase awareness of a candidate, and 2. to try and encourage others to vote for said candidate. So, how does installing a sign on a street within a subdivision that has C&R's against signs really further either of these?

If it is an internal street within Seabreeze then it is only seen by a handful of neighbors and thus will not truly increase awareness for a substantial amount of people. Secondly, if it is installed in a location where the people that are seeing it are likely not a fan of signs in their neighborhood since they agreed to C&R's, how will that assist the candidate in getting more votes. I would argue that it may do the opposite and hurt the candidate.

 

[wrobert]

I wonder how many Dish Network dishes are breaking the rules?

I thought that there were specific FCC regulations that protectd dishes from regulation by HOAs.

 

[idlewind]

I thought that there were specific FCC regulations that protectd dishes from regulation by HOAs.

Good question, someone know the answer?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Their C&Rs also call for NO aerial antenna on a mast, so that one may also be challenged. I don't know how legal most C&Rs are. I do recall reading a Court ruling which said that posting a US flag on a pole was a right protected by the Constitution -- Freedom of speech. I could see something similar being said about those signs, but to fight it, someone has to go to Court.