COL Barfoot -Threads Merged

[Longrifle]

A veteran of three wars who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor is now facing an unlikely enemy — his neighbors.

Col. Van T. Barfoot, 90, has raised the Stars and Stripes every day at sunrise and lowered them every day at sunset since he served in the U.S. Army. But on Tuesday he received a letter from the law firm that represents his homeowners' association, ordering him to remove the flagpole from his Richmond, Va. yard by 5 p.m. on Friday or face "legal action."

Link

Spin it any way you want, to me it's not about a flagpole. It's about the flag.

[gryan1966]

"Col. Barfoot is free to display the American flag in conformity with the neighborhood rules and restrictions. We are hopeful that Col. Barfoot will comply."

Taken from the link

Since when does the Flag have to conform???

[Section8]

Here is a link to new report:
<!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> http://www.wtvr.com/news/

HOA of today have turned it complete control freaks. This is complete BS and I find it totally disrespectful to the entire nation. With the a senator involved this should get interesting.

Here is something interesting to read that relates to the subject:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RL30243.pdf

Last paragraph...

Quote:
Restrictions on Display of the Flag by
Real Estate Associations
The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 200556 prohibits a
condominium, cooperative, or real estate management association from adopting or
enforcing any policy or agreement that would restrict or prevent a member of the
association from displaying the flag in accordance with the Federal Flag Code on
residential property to which the member has a separate ownership interest.

[wowzers]

Why live in a neighborhood with HOA?

[Husker19D30]

I can't see the neighborhood association winning this one. Not in Virginia, anyway.

The man stood 75 yards away from a Panzer Mk VI and crippled it with a bazooka. No bunch of hippies in a home owner's association are gonna scare him.

[SOTB]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

Spin it any way you want, to me it's not about a flagpole. It's about the flag.

From the article:

Barfoot had sought permission to install the pole shortly after he moved into the community — a complex of townhouses where the grounds are community property — last June. The board denied his request in July.

I think the HA association was clear -- no flagpoles.

This is 2109 -- almost 2010. There is no reason -- at all -- where someone would move into a community with a HA and not expect that there would be rules to follow -- including rules they didn't like.

FROM THE INFO IN THE ARTICLE, I agree with the HA....

[Baildog]

I have to agree; he bought into an HA. When we were house-shopping a few years ago, one of our first questions was," is there a HA?" If so, we didn't even look at the house.
But once you buy knowing there is an HA, it's your own fault.

[wowzers]

Originally Posted by Baildog

But once you buy knowing there is an HA, it's your own fault.

Agreed

[Senior D]

I currently pay dues to a HOA. Never ever again.

The point at issue here has nothing to do with flying the flag or the flag itself, but rather this guy's flagpole. I think this could have been handled better by the HOA and why would you have a clause in the agreement prohibiting flagpoles? The HOA could have just looked the other way. Dumb. Unfortunately, I dont see this guy winning this one. I would sure love to thank him for his service though.

[OldSwabbie]

I would stand behind the Col.. but legally.. legally (damit) he is in the red zone. I cant stand HA's .. they are usually nothing but a bunch of old people with nothing better to do than make other people's lives miserable.

My father (Army, Korea war Vet) had a run in with a HA a number of years ago. The HA wasn't in existance when we built our house in 69 in the subdivision... Years later a HA came into being, but my father decided NOT to participate. He was painting the house one day when two old men walked up the driveway and asked him what he was doing (in a interogatory manner)... He was taken back a little but said "painting, what the hell does it look like I'm doing?". They commenced to telling him that he had not put in a request to the HA to change the color (he wasnt) of the trim and he must cease any further painting until it was approved. My Dad told me to go inside.. Damit - I would always miss all the good stuff as a kid.

My father was a good old Alabama boy, with a temper.. but, he was also an Aux Florida Highway patrolman so he had to watch himself...looking out the window I could hear him cussing them out .. the old men turned even whiter than they were before.. he started going after them and ended up chasing them back down the driveway with a paintbrush in his hand. He warned them that they would be SHOT the next time they set foot on HIS property.. that THIS was their warning after trespass... they tried some legal wrangling but lost their asses in court to him.

[dustyrebel]

If I understand the last sentence in Section8"s post, its states seperate ownership interest. If someone is part of HOA, aren't the grounds common property, or seen as such.
I would think that if the person in question hung his flag from his residence, and not from a flag pole on common property, the HOA really could say anything.

[Section8]

Originally Posted by dustyrebel

If I understand the last sentence in Section8"s post, its states seperate ownership interest. If someone is part of HOA, aren't the grounds common property, or seen as such.
I would think that if the person in question hung his flag from his residence, and not from a flag pole on common property, the HOA really could say anything.

Agreed, but within in the confines of a boundary that shows on a recorded survey is not considered common ground. If it was common ground than it would then be the HOA's responsibility to take of it through HOA dues.

[Hopeless Civilian]

Unfortunately I think the HA is right about this, but you know what? The people who are having a problem with Col. Barfoot's way of flying the Flag are petty and stupid. Really, what is it hurting if he does it that way. Ya think they would have bigger problems to worry about.

[SOTB]

Originally Posted by Hopeless Civilian

Ya think they would have bigger problems to worry about.

I think someone's home is something to be quite worried about.

HAs, like them or not, exist because people realized that it sucks ass to drop a shitload of money down for your dream, only to have your neighbor park his fridge on the lawn, throw up a ratty chainlink fence, and paint his house the fuchsia color he has always dreamed of. Some HAs have become fucking stupid -- I agree. Others are quite reasonable and serve their purpose.

I love when people "demand" to be allowed to do something in the name of patriotism. What a great concept. If you contest them, you are not a patriot. You become a scumsucker that hates the US.

What a crock....

[Section8]

everyone has an opinion..........and every law is subject to interpritation.

[Longrifle]

I have no problem with a HA prohibiting flagpoles and flags, of any kind whatsoever, except when it comes to the US flag.

Without the prohibition, there would/could be flags of all descriptions, national origins, sizes and shapes flapping in the breeze. A general prohibition is the best way to prevent a forest of stupidity from destroying the beauty of a neighborhood.

However, one exception should be made to any HA rule regarding flags and/or poles, and that is with regard to the US flag. Limit height to some arbitrary measurement above the nearest structure if need be, but no one should ever be restricted in the way they choose to properly display our flag.

If it is truly a symbol of our nation, how can it be restricted? Does any HA have the right to restrict what Federal laws apply within its borders as well? Flags in the breeze are acceptable unless they say it isn't?

I don't see the Colonel as violating a HA restriction. I see him raising a valid question: Should any HA have the right to tell anyone the US flag has no right to fly over US soil just because they say so?

If burning the flag disrespectfully is considered "freedom of speech," why isn't flying the flag respectfully considered the same and protected as well?

[Husker19D30]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

If burning the flag disrespectfully is considered "freedom of speech," why isn't flying the flag respectfully considered the same and protected as well?

This is what it comes down to for me. There would seem to be a first amendment issue here.

[Spinner]

Is he allowed to fly the flag in some other fashion?

Flagpoles aren't the only way US flags are authorized to be displayed.

My mom just moved to a retirment village, a condo as opposed to one of the stand alone villas the also have. This is the first time in her adult life that she's lived at a place where she has to abide by their rules.

They don't seem that restrictive, but when I mentioned that when it came time to wash her screens I thought I'd just bring over a power washer and do it there, she told me that's something that probably couldn't be done. So, we'll have to bring the screens over to somebody's house to do them, or else pay the HA $5 a shot to wash them.

The hell with that. Paying to have them washed, that is.

[Decon]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

If burning the flag disrespectfully is considered "freedom of speech," why isn't flying the flag respectfully considered the same and protected as well?

Originally Posted by Husker19D30

This is what it comes down to for me. There would seem to be a first amendment issue here.

I'm sure they wouldn't let him burn one in his yard either.

I do kinda like the idea of a law protecting a persons right to display the US flag. However, I don't enjoy new laws telling us what we can or can not do on private property. Oh what the hell, he has a MOH. Let him do whatever he wants!

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Husker19D30

This is what it comes down to for me. There would seem to be a first amendment issue here.

The first amendment states that the govt shall pass no law prohibiting or infringing upon free speech. This is not what is happening here, and is therefore not a first amendment issue.

This gentleman entered into a legally binding civil contract when he purchsed his home and signed on the dotted line with the HOA. It was a choice that he made. If the contract said "no flag poles," then he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. It's that simple.

I don't like HOAs, which is why I didn't buy a home in a neighborhood that had one.

[AJG]

Originally Posted by Husker19D30

This is what it comes down to for me. There would seem to be a first amendment issue here.

There's not a First Amendment issue here. First, nobody is telling he can't do anything that he didn't agree to when he purchased the house. Second, the First Amendment prohibits state action which restricts freedom of speech, it has no bearing on what a homeowners' association which a person voluntarily joined can require of its members.

Originally Posted by Longrifle

If burning the flag disrespectfully is considered "freedom of speech," why isn't flying the flag respectfully considered the same and protected as well?

There is an argument for the lawyer if I ever saw one.

"Your honor, I understand the purpose of the HOA and am sure they serve a wonderful purpose. However, we are talking about restricting the first amendment rights of a man who risked his life for our nation."

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

There is an argument for the lawyer if I ever saw one.

"Your honor, I understand the purpose of the HOA and am sure they serve a wonderful purpose. However, we are talking about restricting the first amendment rights of a man who risked his life for our nation."

We are still confusing issues here. The indivudual entered into a private agreeement with the HOA that allows the HOA to pursue legal action against him if he violates the codes and stupulations that he agreed to.

I have a legal right to burn a flag.....which means that the govt cannot come after me (legally) if I do so. However, if I have signed a contract with a HOA stating that I will not burn anything on my property, and then burn a flag in my front yard, the HOA can still take legal action for violation of the agreement. That's not a first amendment violation.

It's no different than accepting a private sector job where there are codes of conduct that I must stipulate to in order to get hired....I may have freedom of speech, but if I choose to hand out pro life literature to every customer that comes through my KMart checkout lane, my employer can still fire can fire me...... Well, I have a right to burn a flag.....but if I enter into a binding agreement that says I won't burn anything on my property, then I can still get sued by the HOA....

In both cases, the govt isn;t taking any action against me...a private entity is based upon authority that I gave them by entering into a binding agreement...

This may suck, but it isn;t a violation of freedom of speech.

[Local]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

There is an argument for the lawyer if I ever saw one.

"Your honor, I understand the purpose of the HOA and am sure they serve a wonderful purpose. However, we are talking about restricting the first amendment rights of a man who risked his life for our nation."

Private contracts != Government action.

While the government may not be able to restrict certain rights... you sure as all hell can sign them away in a private contract.

From initial very tired read it doesn't sound like he has much leg to stand on "legally." On the other hand the HOA is human and if enough media attention gets involved including as someone mentioned a senator they could very quickly vote to amend the agreement and make an exception.

plus most contracts these days have a clause that says "just because we choose not to enforce our rights in this case doesn't mean we give up the option to enforce these rights in other cases / in the future"

aka if you enter into a contract to pay x amount on y date, but end up paying it late on z date 3 times in a row and the lender doesn't call the loan and accelerate / ask for damages... doesn't mean they can't do it on the 4th time, or to your neighbor that does the same thing.

- Local

[P38]

Originally Posted by SOTB

I think someone's home is something to be quite worried about.

HAs, like them or not, exist because people realized that it sucks ass to drop a shitload of money down for your dream, only to have your neighbor park his fridge on the lawn, throw up a ratty chainlink fence, and paint his house the fuchsia color he has always dreamed of. Some HAs have become fucking stupid -- I agree. Others are quite reasonable and serve their purpose.

I love when people "demand" to be allowed to do something in the name of patriotism. What a great concept. If you contest them, you are not a patriot. You become a scumsucker that hates the US.

What a crock....

+1

I have a home owners association and I like it. Out of over 300 homes, I'm one of only about a dozen people who actually show up at the meetings. I go because I want to ensure that small minded neighborhood Nazis don't get control of it. My HOA has tried to be lenient on some things, but as soon as you allow one person to do their own thing with a flagpole, another thinks that justifies building a brick religious monument in their front yard. Literally, and it was a fricking shrine.

When I look at some of the neighboring subdivisions, I can see that they look like crap due to a weak HOA, or lack of rules. That impacts their appeal, and value. On the other hand, you can get an out of control HOA and I see the results of that as well. In this case, I don't think they were unreasonable. While they may not have specified flag poles, I'm sure their subdivision rules had a generic statement just like mine does and he decided it was a loop hole.

From what I read of the article, he can display the flag just like I can any day of the week. In my case it has to be on a bracket attached to my house. From the wording of the article I suspect that he has the same situation. Is that less 'American' or less 'Patriotic'? I don't think so.

I resent people making personal issues 'Patriotic' issues to win their way.

[ZAT]

As much as I dislike HOA's I doubt that the guy has much to stand on. He obviously knew he couldn't erect the pole or he wouldn't have asked in the first place.

We don't need more laws we need more common sense and no amount of legislation is going to help there. In fact it is usually counter productive

[Magyc]

just a side note, but I think it's pretty damn cool that the CMOH citation from back in '44 uses the terminology "mop up" in reference to his Nazi killing skills. I think of that term more of a modern day term(and definitely not "official/citation" language)

BARFOOT, VAN T.

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Carano, Italy, 23 May 1944. Entered service at: Carthage, Miss. Birth: Edinburg, Miss. G.O. No.: 79, 4 October 1944. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.

[Ralphie]

While on an emotional level, I sympathize with the Col, the bottom line is, rules are rules. No one if forcibly squelching his speech--he willingly and knowingly signed a binding agreement; though I personally consider the HOA to be a bunch of dicks, they are completely within their legal rights.

Making an exception for one person begets making an exception for all.

[Tyr]

I'm on our HOA board and I completely agree with SOTB and P38. We are not HOA Nazi's but it does serve the neighborhood well. It's important to have something established. I don't want the value of my house going down because someone setup an auto repair shop out of their garage or they have 8 cars for a family of 4 parking in the yard, on the street etc.

[Old_Starlight]

I've read with interest a few threads where folk in the US have had flag issues. They have cropped up here in Australia as well, but it's usually the local council and in one memorable episode a few years ago, the complaints were fueled by immigrants feeling offended by the ANF (Australian National Flag) being flown in "their" street.

However, if a VC recipient wanted to fly a flag, I don't think any local authority would have the guts to protest. After all, Her Majesty's own Palace Guard is bound to obey the orders of a VC survivor regardless of the worn rank....what's a local council going to do?

Whilst I disagree with people using "patriotism" as a vehicle to get their own way, I do personally feel that if you survived a CMOH or a VC award, then you've earnt a little leeway.

Not that my opinion in this matter is worth diddly.