This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
The death of freedom to fly the American Flag..
Published on June 9, 2004 By ShadowWar In Politics
This is the story of Richard Oulton, an American, a veteran, and a victim of the Ameircan Communist..the Leftys.

Richard Oulton put up a flag pole in his yard, and flew the American Flag and a purple heart flag. For those of you armchair libs, thats a medal you get for being wounded in time of war. Mr. Oulton was awared that medal while he was a member of the "Walking Dead Marines", the 1st BN, 9th Marine Regiment in Vietnam. His unit started out with 800 marines and lost 605 during the war. This unit suffered the highest casulty rate of any unit in the war. He has every right to be proud, and fly those flags, he earned it with his own blood.

In Richmond, Va., Richard Oulton's homeowner's association demanded his flagpole come down. But he said no way.

"To take it down now would be a total dishonor and an insult to everyone that has ever stood for the flag. If that flag comes down now, the next place it will fly will be over my coffin," Oulton said.

He's been raising the flag ever since he was a medic in Vietnam and flew the stars and stripes over his bunker. "I'm just trying to express my patriotism, my love for my country," he said.

Oulton is an attorney. When he moved into the Florida community he says he checked to see if there were any restrictions on flying the flag.

"There was no reference to flags or flagpoles anyplace," Oulton said.

So he put up a big flagpole next to the big home he built, on three lots. His neighbors say they don't object.

They say it's nice, it matches the house, and say it's an asset to the community.
(DID you get that, the neighbors had NO PROBLEM with the pole or the Flags, in fact they liked it!!))

Objection to Flagpole

But the homeowner's association board said the flagpole's too big.

"We had no idea someone would erect a flagpole that large when the guidelines were written," said Birdie Knuckols, former member of the association board.

Since the association guidelines did not mention flagpoles — the board instead ruled it was an unapproved structure. Later they adopted rules allowing flagpoles — but only small ones, no larger than 6 feet — and required them to be attached to the house.

"It's not an issue of patriotism. All we are asking Mr. Oulton to do is show his patriotism within the guidelines that everyone else in the community is willing to live by," Knuckols said.

Planned communities can set these rules because they're private, and many homeowners love the rules because they like the way the regulations make their communities look nice and uniform. They say this raises property values.

But sometimes the people on the boards of the homeowners' associations are very controlling. And the law is on their side. So, in 1999 the board took its complaint about Oulton's flagpole to court, and won. While he appealed, he was allowed to keep the flagpole up.

Oulton said, "I don't understand what the problem is. It's a property right that I have to fly this flag. It's a free speech right that I have to fly this flag."

He dedicated the flagpole to the Marine unit he served with in Vietnam, a unit dubbed the walking dead because three-quarters of its members were killed.

"I had a lot of guys die in my arms and once I put that plaque out there and said this flag will always fly because I owe it to my boys, my walking dead Marines … I owe it to my boys," Oulton said.

But it won't fly anymore. He took it down in March. All that remains is a hole in the ground, a broken plaque and mementos left by visiting veterans.

Oulton lost his case in local court, and then higher courts rejected his appeals. The presiding judge told Oulton, "You agreed not to erect a structure without prior approval. That's it. No more, no less. You violated that agreement." After a four-year battle, Oulton has lost his flag, and $150,000 to the association in legal fees.

Is this not a perfect example of the way in which the freaks, and deviants in this country take away our freedoms one at a time? Is this not a crime! Think about it, the neighbors LIKED the pole and flags, but some idiot with to much time on his hands and to little brain decided that he didn't like it, can this truely have been an American who felt that way? Does this not make your blood boil that they would go so far as to force him to remove them?? I can tell you where I would have told them to put the flag pole. Then they would have had to come take it down by force.

Another small part of American Freedom and the right to express your love of this Country died that day.
The like shows you pictures of this case and a little more in-depth info. I mistakingly said the ACLU was involved inthis case, they were not to my knowledge (now I know this) but this is just the type of thing thye would do. But this was just done by local idiots and leftys.. They must have had troubled childhoods and blame the USA for all the welfare checks they are forced to get.
Comments (Page 6)
9 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last
on Jun 11, 2004

I wouldn't personally trust a neighboorhood association if you paid me..But I hate people as a whole and would rather live far away from the nearest residence if at all possible..hehe


Yeah, me too.  This article and ensuing thread has reinforced my decison to want to have a homstead miles from anywhere...where I make my own rules (whithin reason) and if Lonseome and I want to have a 50ft high flagpole and display the Jolly Roger from it we damn well can.


This was initially about contractural law.  Somewhere down the line someone decided to make it a patriotism issue.

on Jun 11, 2004

The Homeowners Association could get around the Law because they did not specifically forbid flagpoles, they allowed ones smaller than 6 feet.  Further, it's very tricky legally speaking to apply a law retroactively, so if the Association made their rules about flagpoles before the state passed the law saying they couldn't forbid flagpoles, then most judeges would agree that the Association is in the right.


Cheers

on Jun 11, 2004

Helix:

1) As I have said in this thread, if the members of the association want to change the rules they can. It happens all the time. Please read my responses before cherry picking one.

2) People have the freedom to associate. I live in an association and most people in them know what a structure is. The rule of thumb is if it's not alive and it's permanent, it's a structure. The flagpole isn't some tree. It's a 25 foot pole anchored in the ground with cement.

3) The freedom of association issue is dear to me. Like I said, in America you have the constitutional right to associate with like minded people and build your own communities. The people in the association can change the rules later on by a simple majority vote.  Apparently the majority of this man's neighbors didn't think a 25 foot flagpole was okay.

4) It's not up to you to judge whether an association's rules are acceptable or not. If you think those of us who live in associations are timid creatures afraid of the outside world, I'm quite sure that I've traveled more than most of you ever will in your lives.  And few would call me timid or sensitive or afraid of the outside world. Pretty much all upper scale neighborhoods these days are associations.  My house isn't worth as much as this guy's but it's probably worth around $800,000 and yea, I do mind if the neighbor across the street decides to put out pink flamingos or build a big old fence.

Check out this article for why associations exist: http://www.joespc.com/carlos/redneck.htm

 

on Jun 11, 2004

Helix: Partially.  But there's another issue bieng intermixed here.  It annoys me that a state would pass a law, based purely on political considerations, to force associations to allow huge flag poles. I consider that a violation of a basic American right - freedom to associate.

The association could allow flag poles of any size if the majority of the poeple in the association wanted it. I had already written a lengthy post on this in this thread that gave explicit examples.

on Jun 11, 2004
All I was meerly saying, Draginol..was that if enough people in the homestead wanted to change it, they could..


Apparently they haven't, so this is a moot point.

VES
on Jun 11, 2004

It annoys me that a state would pass a law, based purely on political considerations, to force associations to allow huge flag poles.

I think that the law that was made stated that the rules have to be in the bylaws specifically to be enforced.  Meaning that they have to state if you can have a flag or not, not simply claim that it is a structure.  So, it's basically just making them clarify their contracts when it comes to what is permitted with a flag.

It gets sticky, thought, when it comes to flags no matter where you are.  It wasn't too long ago that a business in Plymouth Michigan put up a Huge flag (we're talking a 20' wide flag0.  Plymouth told the business that they had to take it down.  They didn't, so Plymouth took them to court and lost.  Most of the time, courts side in favor of the American Flag unless there is a specific ordinance or law that prohibits them. 

I think the State law was basically just settling how associations had to handle that situation.

on Jun 11, 2004
OK I have been convinced.

I have now, after reading all the comments and factual data provided by the thread, changed my mind. The association was correct, the flagpole was the issue not the flag. And it was based on the composition of the flagpole(size). The association was right in requesting the structure come down and be replaced or removed entirly. The Judge was correct in his application of the law.

Thank you to a group of clear and well thought writers. You all did a great job of discussing this.

More controversy to come though..
on Jun 11, 2004
"It annoys me that a state would pass a law, based purely on political considerations, to force associations to allow huge flag poles."


I guess my issue with that statement is why shouldn't a state be allowed to do so? At what level of authority in a democracy stands the guy that looks at the appointed representitves of the public and says "Nah, I'm not gonna let you do that." I have ridiculous amounts of social engineering shoved down my throat yearly. Are flagpoles really the line in the sand?

The only power the neighborhood had was the contract. Congress has the power to regulate contract law to their heart's content.
on Jun 11, 2004
Nevermind
on Jun 11, 2004
As Karma said, I understood the law to say they just had to specifically list it in their rules, not that they had to allow it. Doesn't seem anyone lost any freedoms there.
on Jun 11, 2004

Bakerstreet: Because one of the tenents of the constitution is the right of people to associate. A neighborhood association is fairly self-contained. As long as they don't pass any rules that violate the constitution, they should be have considerable (not infinite) leeway. The whole point of an association is for like minded people who have a specific vision of what they want their neighborhood to be like to be able to get together and live in a community.

The biggest reason I moved into an association is my dislike of fences. I just don't like them. I'm not alone though and for people like me who don't like fences were able to move somewhere where fences aren't allowed. If someone wants to have a fence, they can move somewhere else.  I'd be pissed off, however, if the state passed a law explicitly allowing people to have fences no matter what.  What about the rights of people like me? We chose to move somewhere that didn't allow fences. It was a "big deal" for us. And our association isn't hurting anyone by having that rule.

I've dealt with guys like this flag pole guy. More ego than sense. If his cause was really righteous, he would have been able to win over the majority of his neighbors at the next association meeting and get his flag pole allowed. You'd be surprised what a little persuasion can do.  Heck, I got the last association to allow me to raise tadpoles into frogs and toads and let them go in the neighborhood pond. There was a rule against letting any animals go in the pond but with a little effort I got them to modify the rule to allow frogs and toads. 

This guy could have simply tried to convince them to allow his flag pole. He either didn't bother to try or he tried and failed.

on Jun 11, 2004
I appreciate your stance, Brad, but for the last hundred years the concept of private association has been strenuously tried, and time and again people have been told that they have to amend what they will and won't allow.

It is interesting. On the one hand you are stressing that people in a chartered community should have to abide by the bylaws and decisions of the majority, and then you are troubled that the chartered community might have to acquiesce to the will of the larger community?

If so, what would prevent me and my neighbors from forming a neighborhood association and thumbing our nose at the local Historical Preservation Society when they get around to my neighborhood? When I am told that I can't update my house, and my pre-existing neighborhood association's charter says that the original decoration is an eye sore, who trumps who?
on Jun 13, 2004
My two cents on this is that the neighborhood has no problem with it. His neighbors liked it and wanted it there. They pay fees to the association. The association is supposed to represent the neighborhood and its residents. The fact is that some buttplug on the board didn't like the sign and swayed the association over the fact. The flagpole is not that big of an eyesore, especially considering how BIG the house is. I think its a lot more unattractive to have a flagpole hanging off your garage, flag rubbing against the house, than a 30' proper flagpole paying tribute to our country. Is this a "leftist" issue. No. Its just ignorance period. That's the real issue. Someone with power doesn't like it, so they go about rectifying the matter...NOT taking into consideration the neighborhood for which he represent's wishes.
on Jun 13, 2004
Thanks to Kingbee for the timeline. Clearly all the articles that have been written on the subject are sympathetic to the Oultons' plight. I see now that the association was within its rights at the time to make him take the flagpole down, and the law was not in force in time to prevent it.

However, I still believe, based on the photos and the quotes, that Oulton's flagpole and flags were erected and raised from patriotism, and the Association's stance in wanting it removed was anti-patriotic. Anyone who would equate a purple heart flag to Barney the Dinosaur clearly has an axe of some sort to grind. Furthermore, it's clear from the photo that I linked to that the flagpole was not as tall as the house; it was not as tall as the surrounding trees; it was well inside his property line; and it was close enough to the surrounding trees to blend in decently.
on Jun 13, 2004

His neighbors liked it and wanted it there.

If his neighbors liked it, like the claim says, they would have simply modified the rules. In associations it only takes a simple majority to add/modify a rule. Standard procedure.

9 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last