campaign sign removal

**beach_umbrella** · 07-31-2008, 09:45 PM

What's this I hear about the Seabreeze community over by Camp Creek Lake? Supposedly the homeowners Board directors have been running around the neighborhood pulling candidate signs out of the ground and removing them

. Don't they realize these campaign signs are TEMPORARY signs? Doesn't this kind of action violate the "American Way" which has been in place since the American Revolution created our freedom?
Shame on you ignorant Board people in Seabreeze!

**ShallowsNole** · 07-31-2008, 10:05 PM

I'm not an expert and I did not sleep at Holiday Inn Express last night, but...unless they are pulling them up out of private citizen's yards, I'm pretty sure a subdivision's homeowners association has the right to pull up anything they don't want in their subdivision. Especially if they maintain their own streets.

**ckhagen** · 07-31-2008, 10:06 PM

Many HOAs also bar political signs from private yards...

**Smiling JOe** · 07-31-2008, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Stripes

What's this I hear about the Seabreeze community over by Camp Creek Lake? Supposedly the homeowners Board directors have been running around the neighborhood pulling candidate signs out of the ground and removing them

. Don't they realize these campaign signs are TEMPORARY signs? Doesn't this kind of action violate the "American Way" which has been in place since the American Revolution created our freedom?
Shame on you ignorant Board people in Seabreeze!

That is some of the best news I've seen lately.

I've been wanting to run over all of the damn signs, illegally place along our roadways and in our State Parks. The signs are trash!

**BeachSiO2** · 08-01-2008, 07:44 AM

In my community/subdivision in SC, no signs of any kind are allowed in the yards. We even had to remove one that we had placed saying that we support a new charter school. I REALLY like the non-cluttered areas.

**Jdarg** · 08-01-2008, 08:25 AM

Campaign signs are a campaign season necessity. If one candidate puts out signs, then all candidates have to to make sure their name stays on peoples minds and tongues too.

Since the signs are considered so awful, how do y'all think candidates should advertise and get their name out? I will be needing to find good places to place Obama signs soon, so give me some alternative ideas for sign placement! I am looking for constructive, useful ideas here BTW.

**Alicia Leonard** · 08-01-2008, 08:34 AM

I personally, really take note of those placed in private yards. It makes me think about the candidate because someone else felt strong enough to make a statement on their private property.

**Hop** · 08-01-2008, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by jdarg

Campaign signs are a campaign season necessity. If one candidate puts out signs, then all candidates have to to make sure their name stays on peoples minds and tongues too.

Since the signs are considered so awful, how do y'all think candidates should advertise and get their name out? I will be needing to find good places to place Obama signs soon, so give me some alternative ideas for sign placement! I am looking for constructive, useful ideas here BTW.

jd...you think we need obama signs..for him to "stay in our minds"? I'm with SJ...i feel bombarded and visually violated at every corner.

**Smiling JOe** · 08-01-2008, 10:41 AM

If the Sheriff and Code Enforcement removed all illegally placed signs in a timely manner, candidates wouldn't feel the need to keep up with their competition's signs. I have no problem with people campaigning by placing signs in their yards, but this thought that it is election season, and they always do it (place the signs illegally), bothers the hell out of me. There is enough free internet promotion that there is no need for all of this extra clutter. Let the newspapers cover the candidates' stories, bios, and issue positions. Let candidates buy ads in the newspapers, on the TV and on the radio. If you are going to make a freaking rule about the placement of signs, then enforce the rule. It isn't so darn difficult.

I even noticed that one particular candidate's signs were either picked up, mowed around, and replaced, or either, freshly installed immediately after the grass was mowed on 283.

I feel the same way about the few businesses who pop up their illegally placed signs, trying to get customers into their store. Do some research before taking on the lease. There is a reason why people pay premiums for great store locations. If you need illegally placed signs to draw in customers, there is a good chance that you chose the wrong location to lease for that particular business.

**beach_umbrella** · 08-01-2008, 12:27 PM

I'm told that Walton County owns the streets in Seabreeze and that the Owners Association Board members are pulling up the signs from private property. My understanding is that only two homeowners have stood their ground and intend to maintain those temporary campaign signs until after the final election day of August 26th

.
Whatever happened to America first, and Grandma's apple pie? Too many misguided busybodies roaming the neighborhoods I think, and they are definitely a threat to the 'American way'.

**BeachSiO2** · 08-01-2008, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Stripes

I'm told that Walton County owns the streets in Seabreeze and that the Owners Association Board members are pulling up the signs from private property. My understanding is that only two homeowners have stood their ground and intend to maintain those temporary campaign signs until after the final election day of August 26th

.
Whatever happened to America first, and Grandma's apple pie? Too many misguided busybodies roaming the neighborhoods I think, and they are definitely a threat to the 'American way'.

I don't see where owning the streets has anything do do with covenants and restrictions? If they have covenants and restrictions in the deeds to the property within the subdivision that state no campaign signs are allowed in the yards, wouldn't that make it illegal to have them?

**Smiling JOe** · 08-01-2008, 01:12 PM

Reading the C&Rs right now. Did you know the HOA regulates the number of dogs and cats you can own in that subdivision? Did you know they call for no satellite dishes? I wonder how many Dish Network dishes are breaking the rules?

Section 17 (Signs) - notes that signs are not permitted, with the exception of a sign noting the occupant's name, or an
"approved" sign, advertising the property for sale.

If the streets are owned by the County and the signs are on the right of way, the signs are illegally placed.

Next...

Doesn't this kind of action violate the "American Way" which has been in place since the American Revolution created our freedom?
Shame on you ignorant Board people in Seabreeze!

Many people choose to live in a residential neighborhood which has very strict C&Rs. Other people choose to avoid them like the Plague. The American Way is having the choice to buy or rent in a neighborhood which you can afford, which meets your criteria. It has nothing to do with being able to do anything you want to do on your property. Before you buy or rent, you should take time to learn about the C&Rs, if any exist. If you are a homeowner in Seabreeze and are the one with the problem with the HOA, tell all of your neighbors to vote to amend section 17.

**beach_umbrella** · 08-01-2008, 01:46 PM

The streets are owned by the County; The 'right of way' is merely a utility easement and is owned by the homeowner.

**BeachSiO2** · 08-01-2008, 02:18 PM

Here's a question that came to me. Why would you want to install a sign on a piece of property in a subdivision that by the own subdivisions covenants and restrictions is not allowed? Do you think that the sign will encourage people to vote for your candidate? Unless it is on one of the houses on 30-A it seems like it would only be seen by people that do not want to see signs. It appears that this would lead some people to vote against your preferred candidate instead of for them.

I just think there are better ways to reach your neighbors than by putting up a sign with someone's name on it in a neighborhood that has covenants and restrictions against such signs. Am I missing something? Note that I do not know who your candidate is so I am not saying you shouldn't support them, but it is likely that you are doing more harm than good.

Then again, that could be your goal altogether.

**beachmouse** · 08-01-2008, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Smiling JOe

Reading the C&Rs right now. Did you know the HOA regulates the number of dogs and cats you can own in that subdivision? Did you know they call for no satellite dishes? I wonder how many Dish Network dishes are breaking the rules?

The original deed restrictions for my subdivision limit yard signs, the number of pets, and tv antenna size. (satellite dishes weren't an issues back then) However, there is thankfully no HOA, and no interest in forming one, and the original developer who could legally say something about those issues doesn't really care what you do as long as it's not something that would be visible from the golf course.

As for Dish network, there's a longtime federal telecom rule that says you've got a right to put one on a single family home (and certain ways of legally placing one on a condo, apartment, or townhome) no matter what the HOA tries to claim.

**Smiling JOe** · 08-01-2008, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Stripes

The streets are owned by the County; The 'right of way' is merely a utility easement and is owned by the homeowner.

What part of Section 17 of the C&Rs regarding signs was unclear to you?

**beach_umbrella** · 08-01-2008, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by BeachSiO2

Here's a question that came to me. Why would you want to install a sign on a piece of property in a subdivision that by the own subdivisions covenants and restrictions is not allowed? Do you think that the sign will encourage people to vote for your candidate? Unless it is on one of the houses on 30-A it seems like it would only be seen by people that do not want to see signs. It appears that this would lead some people to vote against your preferred candidate instead of for them.

I just think there are better ways to reach your neighbors than by putting up a sign with someone's name on it in a neighborhood that has covenants and restrictions against such signs. Am I missing something? Note that I do not know who your candidate is so I am not saying you shouldn't support them, but it is likely that you are doing more harm than good.

Then again, that could be your goal altogether.

People who make important voting decisions in this manner ("I won't vote for that candidate simply because I don't want to see his sign") prove themselves to be small minded people, and no doubt members of a small group (one of the usual, and inescapeable, negative 10 percentile that tends to populate every group). So, yes, you ARE missing something: these types of people waste a valuable voting right and "cut off their noses to spite their faces". Think about it. Are YOU a member of that group?

**Smiling JOe** · 08-02-2008, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Stripes

What's this I hear about the Seabreeze community over by Camp Creek Lake? Supposedly the homeowners Board directors have been running around the neighborhood pulling candidate signs out of the ground and removing them

. Don't they realize these campaign signs are TEMPORARY signs? Doesn't this kind of action violate the "American Way" which has been in place since the American Revolution created our freedom?
Shame on you ignorant Board people in Seabreeze!

Stripes, it is apparent that you want these people to have freedom of expression, but these people chose to buy into a community, knowing the rules. They are public record, as I have shown above in my link. Would you like the HOA of Seabreeze to change their C&Rs, or did you just want to make the comment that you don't think people should protect their interests by having C&Rs? From what I read in the C&Rs, the HOA Board in Seabreeze isn't "ignorant" regarding the signs.

**graytonbeachguy** · 08-02-2008, 06:59 PM

You can be such a crank, Smiling Joe. Do you every really smile?

**InletBchDweller** · 08-02-2008, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by graytonbeachguy

You can be such a crank, Smiling Joe. Do you every really smile?

why yes he does....

**Andy A** · 08-02-2008, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by InletBchDweller

why yes he does....

How would I know for sure. Unfortunately, I've never met him. While I'm all for freedom of expression and all the other various and sundry freedoms, SJ is right about the HOA covenants and restrictions. The Homeowners put them in place.

**InletBchDweller** · 08-03-2008, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Andy A.

How would I know for sure. Unfortunately, I've never met him. While I'm all for freedom of expression and all the other various and sundry freedoms, SJ is right about the HOA covenants and restrictions. The Homeowners put them in place.

I am sorry you have not met him, he is a very likeable guy and my daughter thinks he is the bees knees..

HOA cov and rest can be quite a hassle. He is correct though. I am on the Board for 3 /30-A developments( i must be insane

). We deal with illegal signage all the time, not just election signs. Owners have copies of the rules they just try to buck the systems which makes our life (the BOD) harder and more work.

**tsutcli** · 08-03-2008, 07:02 AM

Here's the real scoop about Seabreeze. Last year the HOA President announced at two Board meetings, including the annual Board meeting that the sign ordinance would not be enforced. She had no right to make that statement but she did, not once but twice. However, this year our current Board of Directors is attempting to enforce this sign ordinance in spite of the fact that some signs in the neighborhood have been allowed to remain for as long as 8 years without enforcement! The truth of the matter is that the covenants in Seabreeze are not enforced for everyone and some covenants are not enforced at all.
A letter was drafted and mailed by the HOA Board to a few owners about political signs recently. The HOA Board was then notified by one owner that the sign covenant was no longer enforceable due to "past practice" by the Board. Even knowing that, there is one Board member who continues to remove signs within the neighborhood.

**Smiling JOe** · 08-03-2008, 08:58 AM

Sounds like an HOA issue. Thanks for the inside scoop.

**InletBchDweller** · 08-03-2008, 10:48 AM

Wow, tsutcli, sounds like some issues there. I am guessing legal is not involved in any bod meetings. We keep attorneys on retainers and they attend every BOD meeting that we have. What is nice is that they can guide us on what we can and can not do so that some disgruntled homeowner can come and sue us b/c we changed something illegally.

Thanks for filling us in. IMO, even though it was stated by the President of was it a motion that was voted on and passed? Sounds like your CAM has his/her work cut out for them. Best of luck to you..

**scooterbug44** · 08-04-2008, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Stripes

People who make important voting decisions in this manner ("I won't vote for that candidate simply because I don't want to see his sign") prove themselves to be small minded people, and no doubt members of a small group (one of the usual, and inescapeable, negative 10 percentile that tends to populate every group). So, yes, you ARE missing something: these types of people waste a valuable voting right and "cut off their noses to spite their faces". Think about it. Are YOU a member of that group?

YES!

Seriously, it may seem like a minor reason to vote for/against someone, but it is symptomatic of the bigger issues.

Not electing a law enforcement candidate who can't follow the law when placing signs or a county commissioner candidate who blankets 'scenic' highways or posts signs on private property isn't being short sighted, it's reading the 'signs'.

**BeachSiO2** · 08-04-2008, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Stripes

People who make important voting decisions in this manner ("I won't vote for that candidate simply because I don't want to see his sign") prove themselves to be small minded people, and no doubt members of a small group (one of the usual, and inescapeable, negative 10 percentile that tends to populate every group). So, yes, you ARE missing something: these types of people waste a valuable voting right and "cut off their noses to spite their faces". Think about it. Are YOU a member of that group?

No, I don't decide for or against someone based on a sign. But my decisions are often affected by the way that people who support said candidates conduct themselves in campaign actions on behalf of a candidate. That being said, the point I was making and question I was asking is slightly different. For clarification, I will break it down into pieces.

Typically signs are installed to 1. increase awareness of a candidate, and 2. to try and encourage others to vote for said candidate. So, how does installing a sign on a street within a subdivision that has C&R's against signs really further either of these?

If it is an internal street within Seabreeze then it is only seen by a handful of neighbors and thus will not truly increase awareness for a substantial amount of people. Secondly, if it is installed in a location where the people that are seeing it are likely not a fan of signs in their neighborhood since they agreed to C&R's, how will that assist the candidate in getting more votes. I would argue that it may do the opposite and hurt the candidate.

**wrobert** · 08-05-2008, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Smiling JOe

I wonder how many Dish Network dishes are breaking the rules?

I thought that there were specific FCC regulations that protectd dishes from regulation by HOAs.

**idlewind** · 08-05-2008, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by wrobert

I thought that there were specific FCC regulations that protectd dishes from regulation by HOAs.

Good question, someone know the answer?

**Smiling JOe** · 08-05-2008, 05:54 PM

Their C&Rs also call for NO aerial antenna on a mast, so that one may also be challenged. I don't know how legal most C&Rs are. I do recall reading a Court ruling which said that posting a US flag on a pole was a right protected by the Constitution -- Freedom of speech. I could see something similar being said about those signs, but to fight it, someone has to go to Court.