[WarOnPrivacy]

> The older I get, the more I want to live in a strict HOA community though.

You'd love mine. Fabricated violations. Select residents targeted by obsessed board members. No political signage from one party.

Sidebar: Our HOA restrictions insure that every waterway that feeds from this neighborhood is hopelessly polluted. Lots of HOAs work to achieve that tho.

[pixl97]

>No political signage from one party.

Um, ya, if they are dumb enough to write that in the bylaws feel free take them both to state and federal court for civil rights violations.

[akudha]

I'd like to live in peace, keep to myself etc. Sure you can take them to court, spend time/money/energy fighting them - is that what you want to do with your resources though?

The older I get, the more careful I want to pick my fights. I'd rather spend some time and find a good HOA (or no HOA) than having to deal with petty people

[pixl97]

I believe most of us would like to live in peace, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

An HOA is not a static thing. You must be part of it and actively prevent it from becoming a thing worthy of hating.

[8note]

An opt out sounds better.

They should have to show they're up to snuff for your membership

[lostcolony]

If you can demonstrate a pattern of ignoring complaints about signage re: one party, and enforcement of signage for another, regardless of what is written in the bylaws, you probably have a solid case.

[WarOnPrivacy]

>> No political signage from one party.

> Um, ya, if they are dumb enough to write that in the bylaws

Written into the bylaws? I never considered that. Likely for a good reason.

Anyhoo, I'd say that fits better under 'selective enforcement'.

[jjeaff]

I think you would only have a case if that -wasn't- written into your bylaws and they were still doing it.

I don't think there is any law that keeps you from creating a private agreement that only signage from one party is allowed.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> I think you would only have a case if that -wasn't- written into your bylaws and they were still doing it.

> I don't think there is any law that keeps you from creating a private agreement that only signage from one party is allowed.

Okay the ongoing presumption here that enforcement is limited to bylaws is weird.

They simply wrote up homes w/ signs from one party and ignored those from the other party.

[pixl97]

Uuuhhh, again, that is a direct civil and voting rights violation. Please tell me that have that written in the bylaws. Lawyers would have a field day.

[klyrs]

This is super fascinating, and not at all clear-cut.

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...

It appears that a HOA is not the government, and you can give up your first amendment rights. Moreover, political opinions aren't protected -- this isn't discrimination, and isn't a civil rights violation to my understanding.

Can you cite a law or precedent supporting your claim that this is a voting rights violation? Genuinely curious

Rulings that establish HOAs as not standing for "government" is really interesting to me. Contrast to Marsh v. Alabama, where company towns were ruled to be standing in for government, so they couldn't forbid proselytizing. Very curious.

[jjeaff]

Is there a specific law forbidding the creation of a private agreement that stipulates as such?

I ask because I'm not sure. There are obviously some limitations to what a private contract can require, but i don't think this is one of those things.

[8note]

I agree with you on that, but it seems weird that these so called "inalienable" rights can be alienated

[giardini]

WarOnPrivacy says: "Sidebar: Our HOA restrictions insure that every waterway that feeds from this neighborhood is hopelessly polluted. Lots of HOAs work to achieve that tho."

How? What restrictions are you referring to?

[WarOnPrivacy]

The restrictions mandating rug-like lawns, which require heavy, continuous treatments of fertilizers and pesticides.