A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

It Political Sign Season Once Again--Texas Style

Started by GeorgerwilliamsW • 9 replies • 1798 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

GeorgerwilliamsW (Indiana)
Posts: 975
Posted:

    Coppell resident locks horns with homeowners association over Obama yard signs
    09:55 AM CDT on Wednesday, September 17, 2008
    By BRANDON FORMBY / The Dallas Morning News

    David Graupner thought the Aug. 13 postcard was an error.

    Surely, he figured, his Coppell homeowners association couldn’t force him to pull up his small yard signs supporting Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

    He didn’t know it at the time, but a 3-year-old state law prohibits associations from enforcing outright bans on reasonably sized political signs.

    “It just makes me mad,” Mr. Graupner said. “We should, as a community, be encouraging people to vote. We should be encouraging people to take part in the political process. That’s what a community is.”

    The 2005 law says that at the very least, residents in homeowners associations are allowed to display in their yards one political sign per candidate or ballot measure within 90 days of a related election.

    Associations can limit the number of signs and prohibit any that are larger than 4 feet by 6 feet but can’t ban them altogether.
Our association has wisely taken a hands-off approach. If residents want signs, then so be it. Let individual homeowners sue neighbors to enforce the covenants, rather than the association.
BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820
Posted:
wow.. one per candidate or ballot measure:

between city, school district, county, state, and federal candidates, i could see having over 200 signs in my yard on some years! we elect recorders, process servers, dog catchers, school board members, ambulance district auditors, water boards, library district chairmen, etc..

that could be fun! i could plaster my yard and create much mischief!
GeorgerwilliamsW (Indiana)
Posts: 975
Posted:
And what about the local PTA election, homeowners association board elections, and bridge club election to boot!
KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665
Posted:
http://law.onecle.com/texas/property/202.009.00.html

An HOA can take action if the sign is offensive, but not if it is simply in support of a ballot item. In the 18 years I have been in Texas the most signs I have seen in a single yard would probably be about 15 or so.

Overall, I like the balance that we have regarding the display of signs. I don't think that a political sign such as was at issue affects property values. In fact, I think that prohibiting political signs altogether actually does more harm to property values.
GeorgerwilliamsW (Indiana)
Posts: 975
Posted:
I agree with you, Kirk.

What about this problem, though. In Hoosierland there is no state law restricting enforcement of political sign restrictions as there is in Texas.

The covenants specifically say, no signs except for "for sale" signs. If the board chooses to do nothing about the political signs, can the board be accused of selective inforcement?

If there is one thing I have heard here, it is a rule is a rule. And rules must be enforced until the covenants are changed.

What say you?

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
Political signs,
Surely this issue must be handled on an individual consideration.

Some HOA's could absorb political signs and some condos don't. If the real property is involved I would suggest the answer is "No". If it is private propety the answer is probable "yes". The restriction would require the signs go up at a certain time and come down at a certain time.

I understand the signage can be a problem, but do we see this problem outside Associations? Not so much I would suggest, and the requirements to remove the signs or be fined after a period of time seems to work well in the "private" sector. Our POA does not allow signs of any kind, nor does our condo, yet we have a Voting center at our Local Community building. I expect legal challenges could be filed that takes exceptions one way or the other, but surely our rooted political beliefs could handle nearly all circumstances. I fail to see a problem with sign restriction in an association or "no" sign restrictions.

Much to do about nothing, I suspect. By the time a court appearance could be slated, the problem is gone.
GeorgerwilliamsW (Indiana)
Posts: 975
Posted:
I shall remember your response, Robert. See, I agree with your analysis. It is thoughtful and reasonable. (And it does make a big difference whether or not the association is a condo owners association, an attached townhouse development, or a neighborhood of single family detached homes.)

But the next time someone here talks about selective enforcement of covenants, or strict enforcement, I shall recall your opinion.

For me, a reasonable interpretation of an absolute covenant restriction is part of the job ob a board of directors. For others, even the slightest deviation from the strictest interpretation of a covenant restriction means the board loses credibility and power and the neighborhood goes down the tubes.

It is, indeed, a tempest in a tea pot. But so are many community association issues to an objective, outside, observer.

But we must not forget the Twin Rivers teapot tempest:
    On July 26, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its much awaited and highly anticipated decision in Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association. The Supreme Court found that community associations could lawfully impose reasonable restrictions on its members – such as restricting the posting of political signs – and that such restrictions do not violate the New Jersey Constitution’s protections regarding freedom of expression and equal protection. (Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association, 383 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2006)

http://www.caionline.org/govt/news/twin_rivers_decision.pdf
and
http://www.caionline.org/govt/news/twin_rivers_decision.cfm

Most likely, it was the Twin Rivers case that sparked the Texas law.

And you are correct: since fines are not allowed in Hoosierland, by the time the issue could get to court, it is moot.
KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665
Posted:
The truth of the matter is that at some level selective enforcement always takes place. Ask a police officer if he writes a ticket every time he has the chance. Then ask him why not? You will probably hear something about spending a 12 hour shift writing nothing but tickets.

If I were in your position I would start by writing a policy statement to allow for say one sign per candidate or issue with a maximum of five in a yard. Note that this is Board policy, and that a resident could take legal action. Chances are that this will be met with acceptance. If so, then start the process to amend the rules to make sure a future Board doesn't go the other way.

As a note, I would re-write the covenant to put the restriction in the by-laws. Typically a covenant requires 2/3 or 67 percent approval, while a by-law change can be achieved any time there is a quorum of the owners. And this is something that might change with time.

As for signs, I would say that if you have condos, you could allow for them in windows, and or balconies. I doubt you would ever see the fear that the building looks like a giant sign. Again, if you allow for rules to be changed at an annual (or special) meeting you can react more easily to the ebb and flow of what is really a problem.

Covenants should be more aimed at things that won't change like not allowing a car dealership in the neighborhood.
GeorgerwilliamsW (Indiana)
Posts: 975
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By KirkW1 on 09/18/2008 5:59 AM
The truth of the matter is that at some level selective enforcement always takes place. Ask a police officer if he writes a ticket every time he has the chance. Then ask him why not? You will probably hear something about spending a 12 hour shift writing nothing but tickets.

If I were in your position I would start by writing a policy statement to allow for say one sign per candidate or issue with a maximum of five in a yard. Note that this is Board policy, and that a resident could take legal action. Chances are that this will be met with acceptance. If so, then start the process to amend the rules to make sure a future Board doesn't go the other way.

As a note, I would re-write the covenant to put the restriction in the by-laws. Typically a covenant requires 2/3 or 67 percent approval, while a by-law change can be achieved any time there is a quorum of the owners. And this is something that might change with time.

Covenants should be more aimed at things that won't change like not allowing a car dealership in the neighborhood.
The fact that covenants are in reality selectively enforced, seems to be missed by many people here. (Remember our conversation about writing speeding tickets?)

The policy idea is a good one, of course. In the past no homeowner has actually gone so far with signs as to hit some sort of reasonable limit. The most I have ever seen in any yard is three.

But the problem of rewriting covenants is what I recently learned--they can't be amended for the initial period after development. So, in our case we are stuck with an unenforceable "no sign" covenant for at least four more years.

Were I king of the association, I would take the stand that the association is not the "covenant police." There is no obligation in our declaration for the association to enforce the covenants, only a right to do so. Every homeowner has an equal right along with the association to effect compliance.

"If the signs bother you, then you have the right to take the offender to court to seek an injunction. The association board has chosen not to take enforcement action."

And as for the content of the declaration of covenants, I will say again that in my research they are some of the poorest examples of legal profession output. Half the restrictions are unenforceable. To often they are cut and paste jobs.

Just wait until more states pass green laws that invalidate clothes lines and solar panels.
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
George and Kirk,
Thanks for your response and both replies have serious questions and thoughful considerations. I have to say my observation from posts on this site and others, is the problem for concern is not the occasional lapse of judgement or the occasional dictatorial decree by a board, or the plain occassional just plain wrong decision handed down. We all live with those. It is the wrong intent or by not knowing your documents, or the occassional Manager or Management Company that is hell bent on creating a fiefdom for personal gain or satisfaction.

I also echo loud and clear the statement about the green laws that are building in legislative bodies through the country. It won't be too bad for full timers in associations but it is likely to cost those renting some money to insue they comply with the requirements of these new laws. I rather like windmills and being on the ocean we could generate significan energy. We recently put up a wiFi antenna and cut some non productive trees down. I was against cutting the trees but honestly, they have been gone a couple months and no one notices they are gone and the same with the EiFi antenna, the eye don't see it any more. Nineteen years ago, we have two large palmetto trees just off our balconey, had to cut one down, never give it a thought now. But, let someone mention cutting trees and I am out front screaming and yelling and I have saved some nice trees that I appreciate to this day, and some I didn't and regret to this day.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement