Homeowners’ associations in Kansas may not like political yard signs, but they can no longer prohibit them, thanks to a law introduced by state Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, and approved unanimously in May by the House and Senate. The law limits the signs’ size to less than 6 square feet and their display to 45 days before the election and two days afterward. But it protects a homeowner’s right to state his political preference on his lawn. “I think it’s good public policy to let people participate in politics, and this is one way people can do that,” Journey told the Topeka Capital-Journal. However, a First Amendment scholar doubts such laws’ legitimacy, because free speech constraints apply to governments, not homeowners’ and condominium associations.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- mrbill on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
98 Comments
Last I knew, your civil rights don’t stop anywhere. I don’t think a homeowner’s association should have any dictate on this nor religious displays.
They can ban all yard signs by designating the areas “freedom lawns”. That way it’s okay to deprive someone of their civil rights.
Last night, someone pulled my Karl Peterjohn political sign out of the yard but left my Sara Skelton political sign untouched. So I would have to assume the evil perpetrator was a moderate Republican out on political sign patrol.
Pffftttt….much ado about nothing but thats Phil Journey for you. Citizens don’t care about LEGALLY placed signs in homeowners yards but we’re sick of them being placed illegally and by the dozens in on seemingly every busy intersection in Wichita.
We would be doing a public service my being proactive and removing all the signs political and commercial that are illegally on public property —
if the candidates won’t police their own volunteers — I’ll be glad to help …..
Aren’t homeowner’s association’s rules, responsibilities, codes decided by the homeowners? Shouldn’t the majority rule? In neighborhoods where there is an association I don’t see the person holding the “minority” view being unable to afford a move to a neighborhood without that rule if it’s that important to them.
Seems reasonable to me that if a rule seems too restrictive to someone the first step would be a meeting of all involved. If the person holds the minority view and it’s really important then they move. Why would anyone want to take an unpopular view all the way to a new law and then live among the people who find that view unpopular? I doubt that troublemaker would forge close neighborhood ties.
How silly.
I agree with all of you who speak up about the signs placed illegally. I’ve made notes (cause my remember has shrunk over the years) of those signs and decided that will be a factor in how I vote! If the candidate can’t manage campaign workers and follow laws, I don’t think they will be a good representative in whatever job they’re running for.
I also can’t even imagine the nerve it would take to remove or damage a sign someone placed in their yard! But then I had trouble understanding how that very heavy, carefully hand painted KU Jayhawk rock in my front yard developed legs and walked off this spring.
I LIKE when cons advertise their political leanings.
THAT way, if I see someone breaking into their house or the place is on fire? I know quickly not to care.
I applaud Phil Journey on this bill.
First of all, I am wondering what the Hell the “First Amendment Scholar” is on about. Does the First Amendment apply to Homeowner’s Associations over individuals? How does passing this law impinge on Homeowner’s Associations First Amendment rights? To call this law unconstitutional would be, I think, to stand the first amendment on its head.
In terms of the objections to HOA’s outlawing yard signs in general, I am no legal expert but I thought court opinion on this was at best divided (and in fact, I thought the Federal Supreme Court had ruled against an HOA’s attempt to ban political signs, but that a New Jersey court ruled in favor of an HOA ban. I could be confused on this.
One thing I am not confused about is the outrageous power that HOAs and similar community associations have or potentially can exercise. The very existence of private governments like HOAs gives lie to that most precious of libertarian myths, that the threat of tyranny (in the US) comes from the public sector and elected governments.
Of course, the popular argument is: “Well, you knew what you were getting into when you signed the papers and bought your house.” This, however, is generally so much bullsh*t. Here’s way:
Yes, new homeowners are informed that there is an HOA and that there are covenents, but this is often at the time the papers are signed UNLESS the homeowner asks first. What they are not told is what kind of sweeping power that HOAs potentially can wield (powers that would not be tolerated in a city government). This is because HOAs are set up by developers and their lawyers and real estate agents. They do it to protect their “property values”, but also to protect their powers to do what they want even as homeowners move in and presumably take over the running of the HOA (for example, developers having multiple votes for each property they own to homeowners’ single vote for their property). When the developer and builders move out, the potential for mischief can increase. This is because boilerplate bylaws for homeowner’s associations give sweeping power to their boards. They can set the length of their terms, they can control who votes in elections, and they do control how closely covenents are enforced (and the covenents are initially created by developers and builders and their real estate agents based on “this sounds good to protect the values”-what this means is that some violation, somehow, can be found for just about anyone-so that if a board consisting of one group of neighbors decides they don’t like another group, they can find violations, harrass them, even put liens on their homes, and most certainly prevent them from participating in HOA votes that could theoretically turn out the board). Bylaws generally only specify in very broad terms how many serve on the board or the kind of vote hat is required to elect them. This allows for the most petty kind of intervention. What is really frightening is if a HOA starts to run out of money (it can become like a small town speed trap-the fine fairy starts to really start coming out).
I personally believe that state and local governments in particular have been negligent in overseeing Homeowners’ Associations, and I welcome Journey’s common sense law to prevent HOAs from keeping people from expressing their political views on their own property (even though I know that Journey is a right winger who is protecting the vast right wing noise machine’s ability to further spam the community with yard signs, it really does benefit all of us).
BTW, in the interest of full disclosure: I live in a HOA that has not had the kind of problems I discussed above, but I make sure I fully participate in it. There are people who are perfectly happy with their HOAs. But, there are some real horror stories out there as well, and one can see the seeds of those horror stories in the broad powers boilerplate bylaws give to their boards.
It should also be noted:
Cities and towns are more and more encouraging and even requiring HOAs for new developments, because HOAs take over enforcement of property issues that cities and towns have previously been responsible for. This allows for growth without commensurate increases in enforcement costs.
Linda, the idea that HOAs are issues only for the well off is becoming less and less applicable. Like I said, there are municipalities that are encouraging or even requiring new developments to have HOAs. In some areas of the country, it is becoming impossible for someone to buy a new home without moving into a HOA.
Thanks for the input and good info, Agnatha. Another area I should have stayed out of due to my total lack of information and being poorly informed. I didn’t know, and that shouldn’t be an excuse. ;-)
Guess more people will need to ask well in advance!
Agnatha I also live in a ‘covenant community’ and this is on a large sign as you drive in. Covenants are given to a prospective homeowner if they want a copy. I agree with this yard sign provision. We have homeowners who complained about signs because they didn’t like the person being promoted.
The most notorious case was the seniors only communitty in Florida that fined a homeowner an outrageous amount because he insisted on flying an American flag they thought was too large but they did also outlawed pink flamingos in front yards. We have a beautiful community without privacy fences. The main reason we moved here. You also won’t see any broken down cars parked on the street. HOA’s have their place. Our bylaws also clearly state how the board is elected and any new powers have to be voted in by a majority of homeowners.
BJ
Some day you might need a doctor.
That doctor will, most likely, be a Republican.
That doctor WILL care about you.
Because, that Republican Doctor is a much better person than you.
Linda
Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what to do for lunch.
Rights can not be abolished by majority rule, at least that is not supposed to happen in this country.
Also, a HOA can vote to change the rules, at any time, and such a new rule will be binding, after the purchase of your home.
I once toured the corporate headquarters of a large, West Coast storage company, Shurgard Storage.
The tour guide, taking us through some nice, resort type property, bragged about the political contributions the company gave to HOA candidates.
Why? Because the storage firm liked to build large storage sheds for boats.
The HOA’s generally liked to pass rules prohibiting members from parking their boats or yachts on thier own property.
The Hilltop neighborhood, at least that part close to Oliver Street, has a Home Owners Association. Obviously the rules are not very restrictive, but they do have rules, just the same.
“Franklin” fantasizes –
“Some day you might need a doctor.
That doctor will, most likely, be a Republican.”
Don’t count on it.
Not anymore.
Monkey
The point, of course, is that decent people try to do the right thing, for other people in need, or in an emergency, regardless of politics.
And so, “Franklin” –
The only “decent” people are Republicans?
What a poisoned mindset you have.
When did I say that Monkey?
You are a dishonest worm.
BJ said he would let the houses of Republicans burn down or get robbed, and he would not care.
I responded that his political opponents were not as cold, heartless and politically motivated — that we would still help him.
I used the case of Medical Doctors as an example. Yes, true, there are liberal MD’s out there.
I would imagine that most LIBERAL MD’s would not let my conservatism get in the way of helping ME!
JR/BJ is one sick puppy.
He admits his twisted pathology frequently, on this Blog.
But, he is a liberal, and you libs accept his hatred, since he is on your side.
I have made the case, several times on this Blog, that I do not care about political views when I find someone that needs my help.
The same is true of most of us.
Sane people do not think like BJ/JR thinks.
By the way, political door to door canvassing is also protected, by Kansas law.
You can legally ignore “no soliciting” signs if you are doing political work.
This has been true for a long time.
Franklin
Posted July 27, 2008 at 11:03 am | Permalink
BJ
Some day you might need a doctor.
That doctor will, most likely, be a Republican.
That doctor WILL care about you.
Because, that Republican Doctor is a much better person than you.
_____
We get your point that Republicans are better simply because they ARE Republicans. That may be your viewpoint but others may have a different viewpoint. All I know is that when it comes to doctors, they will most likely call 911 for BJ and then go on to their golf game. After all, the malpractice liability would come into play at that point.
“Franklin” chimes in with –
“You can legally ignore “no soliciting” signs if you are doing political work.”
Yeah.
That’s the sure way of winning a political campaign: soliciting a household that posts “No Soliciting.”
“IT’S LEGAL!!!!
Poor ol’ “Franklin” merely reveals his alienation from the Real World and common sense.
“This has been true for a long time.”
Franklin
Posted July 27, 2008 at 11:54 am | Permalink
By the way, political door to door canvassing is also protected, by Kansas law.
You can legally ignore “no soliciting” signs if you are doing political work.
This has been true for a long time
_____
I would think that a sincere political worker would respect the homeowner’s wishes and not bother him/her when there is a sign posted for no soliciting. Just because it is legal, does not make it a wise thing to do. Maybe this is why so much political hate is so prevalent nowadays. One thing would be sure, that homeowner would always remember the political hack’s name that sent that particular buffoon to bother them, and I can just guess as to what names that buffoon is being called after they leave.
“You can legally ignore “no soliciting” signs if you are doing political work.
This has been true for a long time.”
And my water hose is still hooked up. Come on back paulie!
mom
On “malpractice liability” we do have a “Good
Samaritan” law.
In other words, it would be difficult for anyone to bring a lawsuit against someone who helped in an emergency.
Monkey
I was speaking about “no soliciting” signs in “covenenant” neighborhoods.
Is that not the theme of this thread?
Also, Apartment complexes also, frequently, have “no soliciting” signs posted.
BJ
You are dellusional.
You never squirted me with the hose, in the first place.
And, if you had, you would have gone to jail.
Where you belong.
The point, of course, is that “political speech” should almost always be protected at the very highest level of the law.
Funny how the Dems, on this Blog, now want to attack me for stating the current state of Kansas law, on political speech.
However, Labor Union organizers want to eliminate the “secret ballot” for organizational votes, and Labor Union leaders wish to be exempt from the same canvassing and trespassing laws as political workers.
“Our bylaws also clearly state how the board is elected and any new powers have to be voted in by a majority of homeowners.”
That’s good. From my understanding however most bylaws, and I can say with certainty including ours, spend more time on defining the very broad powers of the Board rather than specifying how the Board is selected. Yes, Boards have to be voted in by the membership, but the Board can make decisions about what qualifies a member to vote (for example, no outstanding association membership fees-which I agree with- or “non-compliance with covenants”-which I do NOT agree with). We have a very nice, responsive board in our HOA right now who want to be good neighbors, but the vulnerabilities for abuse are always there. There are always people in a neighborhood who are, to put it kindly, anal. Or they are chronically angry. And if those people take over a HOA board, they can make life miserable for anyone they want to make life miserable for.
“The most notorious case was the seniors only communitty in Florida that fined a homeowner an outrageous amount because he insisted on flying an American flag they thought was too large but they did also outlawed pink flamingos in front yards.”
There are more notorious cases, in my opinion. I recommend the book Privatopia by Evan McKenzie for an even handed but sobering look at HOAs. Yes, a HOA can decide an American flag is too large but what if someone wanted to fly an Irish or Mexican flag in honor of their heritage, or for that matter an “Eco flag”, or a KSU or KU or WSU or Nebraska flag. If the restriction on American flags is unreasonable, then it is unreasonable no matter which flag is being flown.
As for copies of covenants being given to prospective homeowners if they are asked for, I believe that is a legal requirement. Also, I know of several instances where real estate agents who, when having customers confronted by unrealistic covenants (particularly relating to landscaping) are told “the HOA is very hands off”. That may be true at the time, but that can change immediately with the next meeting of the HOA. And again, many if not most homebuyers have no idea that when they move into a covenanted and HOA community that they could have a lien put on their house because someone has decided that their fence is 1/2 inch too high and a $25.00 fine.
BTW, okobserver, I am aware of the flag case (it is notorious) and agree that it is a horror story.
Now, if we could just get a law banning signs for candidates outside the districts they’re actually running in…
Why would someone advertise they’re a complete moron like that?
I something about “majority rule” upthread…typical ignorance. WE ARE NO DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try Democratic Republic.
99% of the people have no right to tell the 1% what to do.
No wait…sorry… we’re actually a oligarchy or maybe a plutocracy. So maybe we ought to be thankful that these folks will be given the liberty to put up signs of their chosen puppet.
Praise Jesus.
“You are dellusional.
You never squirted me with the hose, in the first place.
And, if you had, you would have gone to jail.”
Still spelling challenged there Paulie.
Well. It’s not a word. But come on back by and I’ll be delugeinal.
As in I will hose you down again.
What an idiot you are. People do not go to jail for defending their property with a water hose.
They DO get sent to jail for aggravated assault in parks and having children lay down in front of cars.
Somehow I get the feeling that this law is less about homeowner’s rights to express their political orientation than it is about politician’s rights to advertize.
Lawn signs are a great way to be supportive! Everyone should be able to speak their mind with a yard sign!
Freedom of self expression or expressing ones opinions I seem to recall is one of all Americans protected constitutional rights. BUT I could be wrong, it may just be that that particular freedom is only allowed when it supports and/or agrees with the morale majority of the U.S. Anyone else remember when during the Kerryu/Bush election was happening and people across Kansas were having their personal vehicles vandalized by those opposed to said persons political choices by ripping off bumper stickers in support of John Kerry??
letter red look you mail sea apple english clean you
powte xfvthgu nioua yojuzq diryu kztfdb ahumds
fyumb wkxnufz
hwqd twylac
cbizsrv lrib pctq
sbztr bepzaok bdoh
zjqsdc xetkvm wixsm
doeqb peistxv rkmid
phwynz ghfd uqndrk
vfepb flaj vcqtn rntjha
rbtwife
wkejxvr qusc jfgc
fqnu mlcpqwb
xkuypcj gcfnqu vthzox pnqdwyh
hvzd iuwsjq ramy
uimav kjyg fjvnkbp
rdtc qyoal wcdfqng
mfvjhw
vcdkxz ipkyqo ypvz zaevt
bkhaolu cofx ugklte
dxsab ejqcz jzqpd sptxv
ovudjp
yoib rvfxbel qhnel
bsavwf
bsavwf
ksvidy riok
fmvp szyt hpusz
tyihr yxqpm ekjnpmo
cuzpev khdeup
iraszo
bylein
keaj dpleyb omrhka czqri
nsrwlk uapkfc lzgkces
uqgo redak
zhwtp wylrof
gmbw ydmouxs
qhetpil vynot obhdc
hzfqg elmg
roiy bivh
feumh ahjtcm
pyvtqg nksvp htwke
mrzf umijye
ijuex rypsxuv
fvhs bkdxoj kjvh vwuzo
keufrj okjx vgjupif
xvoemgi gutmh
vwtepd zbcxpne
gextqd
yfzouk
fcti trfwq
fdox
yadngv
ovghuj qoyjr
jrvip
gcamh asmb
I loved reading your story!
vkosnyg ogha olas
mhrxgy
dcelnz swyu izgpfwm gblv
hywmbtn pratih ljifv
fkho fspyk