Apartment Residents Told To Take Down...

Apartment Residents Told To Take Down U.S. Flags

There are 65 comments on the www.katu.com story from Oct 13, 2009, titled Apartment Residents Told To Take Down U.S. Flags. In it, www.katu.com reports that:

ALBANY, Ore. - At the Oaks Apartments in Albany , the management can fly their own flag advertising one and two bedroom apartments - but residents have been told they can't fly any flags at all.

...Clausen learned on Wednesday that American flags and others such as Mexican flags and college team flags were no longer allowed on vehicles parked at the complex.

He was told the rule applies to flag decals as well.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.katu.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
PooPoo Platter

Hinsdale, IL

#1 Oct 13, 2009
yawn!
Darkwater

United States

#2 Oct 13, 2009
1st Amendment Freedom of Speech. Sorry Management you should get sued! And you will lose! What A holes

Since: Dec 07

Clermont, Florida

#4 Oct 13, 2009
"Bring the crosses down! Bring the flags down!"

What's next with these folks and their extremely leftist views? Maybe I shouldn't even ask...
JRobert

United States

#5 Oct 13, 2009
Can't show the American flag in America because it might offend others? As a poster at the end of the story said, this is the result of a "multicultural" America. We're being told, more and more frequently (even by the President and his wife) that we can't be proud of our country.

Naturally, the ACLU said they weren't interested. But if NAMBLA members wanted to fly the flag, I bet they'd jump right in.
x-nutmegger

Phoenix, AZ

#6 Oct 13, 2009
Marxist-Lite runs amuck.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Oct 13, 2009
Dismayed wrote:
"Bring the crosses down! Bring the flags down!"
What's next with these folks and their extremely leftist views? Maybe I shouldn't even ask...
So let me get this straight. You're in favor of forcing all taxpayers to support a religous display on PUBLIC property (the cross in Mojave), but are against a PRIVATE property owner from exercising control over their own property?

Seems you've got it bassackwards.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Oct 13, 2009
JRobert wrote:
Can't show the American flag in America because it might offend others? As a poster at the end of the story said, this is the result of a "multicultural" America. We're being told, more and more frequently (even by the President and his wife) that we can't be proud of our country.
Naturally, the ACLU said they weren't interested. But if NAMBLA members wanted to fly the flag, I bet they'd jump right in.
A private property owner has every right to restrict what is displayed on their own property. Especially since in this case they weren't banning JUST the U.S. flag, but ALL flags. You people really need to actually read the constitution once in a while.
Aint that something

Chesapeake, VA

#9 Oct 13, 2009
Just some more socialist reggin bullshit.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#10 Oct 13, 2009
Somebody needs to post contact info ASAP.
x-nutmegger

Phoenix, AZ

#13 Oct 13, 2009
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
A private property owner has every right to restrict what is displayed on their own property. Especially since in this case they weren't banning JUST the U.S. flag, but ALL flags. You people really need to actually read the constitution once in a while.
The American flag isn't just ALL FLAGS to many of us.

I don't know the historic casualty count defending the Halloween flag , do you ?
JRobert

United States

#14 Oct 14, 2009
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
A private property owner has every right to restrict what is displayed on their own property. Especially since in this case they weren't banning JUST the U.S. flag, but ALL flags. You people really need to actually read the constitution once in a while.
A little slow in the area of reading comprehension, are ya? Where did I say anything about the rights of the property owner?
Solid Citizen

Westminster, MD

#15 Oct 14, 2009
Public law 109-243 /HR 42
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO DISPLAY THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES.

A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.

Expressly public law since July 24,2006 and presumably consitutionally protected since December 15, 1791
Stupified

Albemarle, NC

#16 Oct 14, 2009
You can take my flags from me cold dead hand! I have three flags! Try to take them from me, bitches!
Stupified

Albemarle, NC

#17 Oct 14, 2009
my

Since: Dec 07

Clermont, Florida

#18 Oct 14, 2009
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me get this straight. You're in favor of forcing all taxpayers to support a religous display on PUBLIC property (the cross in Mojave), but are against a PRIVATE property owner from exercising control over their own property?
Seems you've got it bassackwards.....
Hi Sheeple...seems we run into each other regularly.

If these folks are paying RENT, they should have the right to fly an American flag. Now, if the landlord is paying them for staying there, I guess I could agree with him.
x-nutmegger

Phoenix, AZ

#19 Oct 14, 2009
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me get this straight. You're in favor of forcing all taxpayers to support a religous display on PUBLIC property (the cross in Mojave), but are against a PRIVATE property owner from exercising control over their own property?
Seems you've got it bassackwards.....
Try again. The gov't was going to swap that piece of property for a nearby 6 times larger piece of property and the cross land would become a private trust for a veterans org.

Veterans of WWI erected that cross as a tribute to those of their generation that died in France in 1917-8.

Seventy years later the lefty-lib-Marxist-Lite crowd wants to undo it.

The cross was maintained at NO CHARGE to the public tax payer. Any charge was absorbed 50-60 years ago.

But hey ! The lefty-lib-Marxist-Lite brigade doesn't give a flying phouc about a past generations sacrifice for America.

I suppose the next demand of the Lefty-lib-Marxist-Lite brigade will be to remove every cross , Star of David and Crescent from every military cemetery in the U.S. Of course the expense will be born by the U.S. taxpayer as mandated by the Lefty-Lib-Marxist-Lite Brigade.

Typical Camel's nose under the tent move.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Oct 14, 2009
x-nutmegger wrote:
<quoted text>
The American flag isn't just ALL FLAGS to many of us.
I don't know the historic casualty count defending the Halloween flag , do you ?
That has nothing to do with it. This was on PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner can set any type of rules they want so long as the rules are applied equally to all.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21 Oct 14, 2009
JRobert wrote:
<quoted text>
A little slow in the area of reading comprehension, are ya? Where did I say anything about the rights of the property owner?
That's the point. You're bitching about this when the case revolves around a private property owners rights.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Oct 14, 2009
Solid Citizen wrote:
Public law 109-243 /HR 42
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO DISPLAY THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES.
A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.
Expressly public law since July 24,2006 and presumably consitutionally protected since December 15, 1791
This is an apartment complex, clearly NOT covered in the statute cited since it is not an "association" nor do the residents have a "separate ownership interest". They are renting, not buying.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#23 Oct 14, 2009
Stupified wrote:
You can take my flags from me cold dead hand! I have three flags! Try to take them from me, bitches!
Ooooh, so scary!!!

Practicing for halloween are we??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Albany Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
New Linn County Arrests and mugshot (Feb '14) Sep '16 Larry 4
New Linn arrests and mugshots (Mar '14) Sep '16 Jacob 2
Charles meal Bergman Sep '16 Curious 1
Cannery Mall (Aug '15) Sep '16 MarcoG42 3
Moving to Corvallis to attend OSU. Rent/job adv... Aug '16 Joseph 1
Samantha Fenn (Apr '16) Jun '16 Bill 2
Professional Tree Service for Salem surrounding... (Jan '16) Jan '16 KaleMick 1

Albany Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Albany Mortgages