Subdivisions Cannot Restrict

Posted in the Carondelet Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 11 of11
Constitution Rules

Laguna Niguel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 5, 2013
 
A ruling in Jefferson County says subdivisions cannot limit the free speech of their residents by restricting the use of political signs in their subdivisions.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/peve...
DSH

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 5, 2013
 
If you ever have been in Tiara at the Abbey, you would understand why they were trying to limit signs. Unfortunately, it seems they went over the line odf reason in their covenants and restrictions.
Constitution Rules

Laguna Niguel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 6, 2013
 
There are many subdivisions and their trustees that try to restrict political signage like little dictators throwing their weight around. Tiara at the Abbey is only one and this suit won the fight for many whose expression of views have been suppressed for too long. Read your Constitution folks! You will find your rights are being trampled on right and left.
Read the United States Constitution here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...
Read the Missouri Constitution here:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/moconstn.htm

The leaders in our cities and towns have overstepped their bounds and have been trampling on "We the People."
Read these documents, learn their content and meaning and go to your local board of aldermen, council, school board or any other "official" meeting and let them know they have to follow the rules. Hold them accountable.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

And yet it isn't the trustees that came up with the indentures many of the times. It was the original builder. It is the trustees responsibility to enforce the indentures.

There are two sides to the coin though. The people that moved in usually are given a copy of the indentures and required to sign a document stating they have read and understand that they will have to live by them BEFORE they close on the house. So, if they decide to move in knowing what the indentures are then it is their CHOICE to give up their rights.
Constitution Rules

Laguna Niguel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 6, 2013
 
One can make rules, laws and ordinances that are not Constitutional, they shouldn't, but they have and do. Those unconstitutional rules, laws and ordinances should not be enforced and should be eradicated from the books. I don't care if they read and understand them or not, unconstitutional=unenforceable . Challenge unconstitutional rules, ordinances and laws, it is your duty as a citizen.
whatever

Imperial, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 6, 2013
 
ArnoldCC wrote:
And yet it isn't the trustees that came up with the indentures many of the times. It was the original builder. It is the trustees responsibility to enforce the indentures.
There are two sides to the coin though. The people that moved in usually are given a copy of the indentures and required to sign a document stating they have read and understand that they will have to live by them BEFORE they close on the house. So, if they decide to move in knowing what the indentures are then it is their CHOICE to give up their rights.
If its unconstitutional and will not stand up in court, why create a rule like that. What your subdivision may be having people sign is wrong. They can sign all day but if someone desides to contest it I don't think the trustees will have a leg to stand on.

My thought is, if people don't want to look at what their neighbors put in their yards, they should build on a piece of property where there are no neighbors around.

Pretty soon you won't be able to leave your house without checking into the local government agency. These laws, rules and regulations have gone to far.
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 7, 2013
 
What type of signs are rarely specified in subdivision indentures, but size and number, and how long they can stay up, are typical, especially in high end subdivisions like Tiara.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 7, 2013
 
Not necessarily true. Ours says that the only signs allowed are those approved by the trustees. It doesn't specify type or anything.

And in my opinion, if someone knew of the restrictions before they moved in then they have given up the right if they choose to live there knowing the restriction. If you were limited on the number of pets in the indentures and you went over that, then it is on you to fix the situation.
Ladue v Gilleo

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 7, 2013
 
City of Ladue v. Gilleo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Ladue_v....

The principle is no different than the FCCs OTARD regulations which legally prohibit subdivisions from placing regulations which make the receipt of satellite signals impossible, though many subdivisions attempt to include prohibitions on dishes in their indentures ignorant of the law.
huh

Imperial, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ArnoldCC wrote:
Not necessarily true. Ours says that the only signs allowed are those approved by the trustees. It doesn't specify type or anything.
And in my opinion, if someone knew of the restrictions before they moved in then they have given up the right if they choose to live there knowing the restriction. If you were limited on the number of pets in the indentures and you went over that, then it is on you to fix the situation.
I'm pretty sure what people are telling you is what ever your subdivision laws say are against the constitution, therefore, hold no ground. It was wrong of the person to include it,therefore, your subdivision might as well remove it because it doesn't mean anything legally. People have the right to put signs in their yards.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

huh wrote:
<quoted text>I'm pretty sure what people are telling you is what ever your subdivision laws say are against the constitution, therefore, hold no ground. It was wrong of the person to include it,therefore, your subdivision might as well remove it because it doesn't mean anything legally. People have the right to put signs in their yards.
That is false. If a sign contains hate speech then they can't or be subject to hate crime charges.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 11 of11
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Carondelet Discussions

Search the Carondelet Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
MO Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) 34 min REAL AMERICAN PATRIOT 95,090
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion 4 hr ween 110
How many churches does Arnold need? Sat Andrew 15
Chickens in arnold Sat Arnold Resident 20
Moss Wins $60,000 Fri Like Truthful Facts 33
Jefferson County Residents Break Laws They Didn... (Mar '11) Fri Doris Borgelt 41
Should Arnold Secede from Jefferson County Jul 11 run away 3
•••

Flood Warning for St Louis County was issued at July 13 at 9:18PM CDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Carondelet Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Carondelet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Carondelet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Carondelet
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••