pudge's Journal: Political Yard Signs and HOAs

Today I got a letter in the mail. It reads, in part:

Dear Homeowner(s),

You are in violation of one or more of the provisions of the protective covenants, conditions, and restrictions of [the homeowner's association].

Provision(s):

Section 2.11-Signs
"Except for permanent entrance signs and markers, street, directional, traffic control, and safety signs and such promotional signs as may be maintained by the Declarants or Declarant-approved agents, builder or contractors on a temporary basis during the Development Period, no signs or advertising devices of any character shall be posted or displayed in the Plat of Kackman Creek: provided, however, that one temporary real estate sign not exceeding 6 square feet in area may be erected upon any Lot or attached to any residence placed upon the market for sale or lease."

PLEASE CORRECT THIS VIOLATION(S) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS LETTER TO PREVENT FURTHER ACTION AND FINES."

Etc.

I have three signs up now, all just normal yard sign size. I have one each for my State Representatives running for re-election (Dan Kristiansen and Kirk Pearson), and one for Doug Roulstone, running for U.S. Congress. I was planning to add a Mike McGavick sign soon: he's running for U.S. Senate.

First thought: who would complain about this, for cyring out loud?

Second thought: huh, I have thirty days, plus a week before the first fines. The election is in 33 days. :-) I could just ignore it.

Third thought: I know some states protect homeowners from such things. I wonder what Washington State law says.

Too bad for the complainant that I know how to use Google and the Washington State lesiglature's site, because I found this:

RCW 64.38.034
Political yard signs -- Governing documents.

(1) The governing documents may not prohibit the outdoor display of political yard signs by an owner or resident on the owner's or resident's property before any primary or general election. The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs.

(2) This section applies retroactively to any governing documents in effect on July 24, 2005. Any provision in a governing document in effect on July 24, 2005, that is inconsistent with this section is void and unenforceable.

I replied back to the committee:

Today I was in receipt of a letter that notified me I am, supposedly, in violation of the CC&Rs because of my election signs.

This notification is in violation of Washington State Law. Please see RCW 64.38.034.

        http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.38.034

Regards,

--
Chris Nandor

I guess I'll put up that McGavick sign after all.

Two of each just to show em?

[robi2106]

I suppose that the party represented by those signs has nothing to do at all with the CC&R's enforcement officer's actions.....

right

jason

Re:

[pudge]

If they got a complaint from someone, then I'd say it's a good 75 percent chance it's political (although some people are simply offended by all political signs regardless of affiliation, or they are just hateful of infractions of the CC&Rs ... you know the type, "rule nazis"). But sometimes the committee members just roam the neighborhood looking for infractions, in which case it's most likely it's not political, and they just see it as doing their job.

Re:

[robi2106]

Good point on the "roaming" as that is necessary to confirm complaints abotu high weeds / grass / junk cars, etc.

jason

they can make you take them down if they want

[Bill Dog]

I've heard of HOA's that are eventually completely overtaken by frustrated under-achieving attorneys with too much time on their hands. So they just sue you. (As my business law prof said, "you can always sue; you may not win, but you can always sue.") It's your (the homeowners') money, so why not -- win or lose, they get some free experience litigating. If they're really devious, they'll "misplace" the letter notifying you of the fine they're (arbitrarily) leveling and when payment is due, and then when th

Re:

[pudge]

I've heard of HOA's that are eventually completely overtaken by frustrated under-achieving attorneys with too much time on their hands. So they just sue you.

They can try. They will lose.

What would happen is that I would craft a letter to the members of the HOA and show them that there is no possible way that they would win the lawsuit, and that their chosen leaders are just wasting their money. If they insist on pushing forward, then so be it. I won't back down (as readers of my journal know :-).

If they'

Re:

[pudge]

Oh, and I don't get what you mean by "they can make you take them down if they want." Do you mean only if I am unwilling to defend myself in court? Because if I stand up for my legal rights, there's simply no way they can make me take them down.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Yes, that is what I meant -- only if you're unwilling to go thru the time and hassle and potential expense (even if you represent yourself, I think it costs something to file court papers) to fight it. Which is the case for most people (unwilling, that is).

From your prior reply:
The letter of the law is terribly clear.

That will stop them from winning a case, but it won't stop them from bringing it on if they feel like pressing it. ("One can always sue.") Like a public school administrator who decides to blat

Re:

[FroMan]

Hmmm... And people wonder why I don't live in the city or subdivision. People suck. I'd rather them at as far a distance from me as possible.

We bought a nice peice of land a few years back and built on it. Our western neighbor has 40+ acres he wants to sell as a subdivision, but has a 8 acre chunk between us and his place which I would really like to buy before he tries to put in the subdivision. Anyways, since we have a corner lot he has a big'ole sign (like full sheet of plywood) on the corner. I am

Re:

[RailGunner]

I live in the suburbs, but I made sure there was no HOA before I moved into the neighborhood.

I am kinda waiting for a candidate I like and I plan on spray painting over it and putting up a sign for that candidate. Sadly there has been no one I am terribley psyched about area.

When's Ted Nugent running for Michigan Governor again? ;)

Re:

[FroMan]

Rumor has it he was going to go for gov in 2010. Though this year we have Devos running. Which if he wins (please God) then Ted wouldn't have much chance against him. If our current gov wins reelection then I think Ted would have a good chance.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

HOA's are unavoidable, here at least, if you want to live in newish homes, and near civilization. Overall they're probably better than not, as all it takes is one a-hole on the block to ruin the whole neighborhood. The problem is the same as with politicians -- the HOA board is pretty much self-selecting -- only people who have the time and energy and gumption to run and hold a seat do so, and they tend to be the kind of people who seek power because they really want to use it. CC&R's need to be really

Re:

[pudge]

I am really not worried. They would lose, and lose bad, and if they pressed it, I would make sure everyone knew it, and then that would stop it, but it will never get that far anyway, because even if they were going to press it, which is extremely unlikely, by the time they did my signs will be down anyway. Of course, there's always next year ...

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[pudge]

I would just make use of the "within 30 days of this notice" loophole, as it's easier than going to court. Put up your signs 28 days before the election, take 'em down on the day. That gives you two days grace, at least, and avoids lawyers.

It's 37 days, because they give me first notice at 30 days, and it's seven days before second notice, which is the first fine.

Do take them down on the day of the election. I'm not sure a court wouldn't side with a homeowners association that punishes a resident for puttin

Actually I'm more or less on their side

[jdavidb]

If people want to have a contract together to form a community (voluntarily) that prohibits political signage, I think they have that right, and I think the state is wrong to prevent them. Of course, I'd never join such a community.

I hate homeowner's agreements/associations and would most likely never be a part of one, but I view them as having more legitimate authority to say what goes and what doesn't since they are voluntary agreements. It's like the soldiers that have been called up for additional t

Re:

[pudge]

If people want to have a contract together to form a community (voluntarily) that prohibits political signage, I think they have that right, and I think the state is wrong to prevent them.

Perhaps. But the law does say they can't.

What about banning American flags? (There's also a specific legal exemption for those.)

Now, of course, I'm sure the law actually predates your homeowner's agreement and/or that specific regulation, so technically you didn't agree to that restriction.

No. It was passed just over a

Re:

[jdavidb]

Perhaps. But the law does say they can't.

Yeah, but I'm discussing what I think the law should do (or in this case, should not).

What about banning American flags?

Thought through this one a few years back when Sean Hannity was talking a lot about just such a situation, and I finally concluded that, yes, I think folks should even have the right to ban that. And I imagine such a community would attract its little niche following and the rest of normal folks would shy away from it.

There's also a sp

Re:

[pudge]

Really I think ideally such things should be worked out within the associations. I'm assuming you guys get to vote on this.

Not anymore, as state law preempts. :-)

But yes. Apart from state law, we could address it. I'd draft a bylaw change, etc.

Re:

[multimed]

If people want to have a contract together to form a community (voluntarily) that prohibits political signage, I think they have that right, and I think the state is wrong to prevent them. Of course, I'd never join such a community.

I don't disagree on that point persay - as long as by voluntary you mean free to join or not as opposed free to buy the house or not. The previous owner of my house agreed to the restrictive covenant established by the developer - I did not. Such restrictions should not pass

Re:

[jdavidb]

The previous owner of my house agreed to the restrictive covenant established by the developer - I did not. Such restrictions should not pass from one owner to the next. If I buy a house, then it is mine and no one else should be able to tell me what I can and can't do - within the current laws.

Yeah, I've never really been clear on the mechanism for homeowner's agreements. The only thing I can see is this: the original owner of the property makes the decision that the future residents will all have a m

Did you actually sign an HOA covenant or agreement

[cascadefx]

After the tornado in our area, some members of the neighborhood that were rebuilding wanted to rewrite and start enforcing a covenant that was in effect for the first builders. Part of the problem was that it was only in force for the first developer and subsequent additions to the neighborhood didn't have the covenant tacked on. Also the covenant required that 80% of the owners agree to make any changes. The majority of the people in attendance at the meetings that were covered by the original agreement