"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until the
end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a $100-a-day
fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
they are using a trademarked name?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366



I live about 20 miles south of this homeowner. I have been in developments
in Florida since 1982. In one place I was a board member for more than a
dozen years.

So when I give you my thoughts on the subject I am not just blowing smoke.

The Florida statutes has one section on Corporations Not for Profit. Under
Section 617.0808 Removal of directors.

"Any member of the board of directors may be removed From office with or
without cause by vote or agreement in writing by a majority of all votes of
the membership." It goes on from there and those really interested can find
it all on line.

So my take on this situation is that 1) things are not all that bad if he
cannot muster enough votes and 2) As he was once a board member and the
president, no less, he was negligent not being conversant with applicable
law.

I am not now involved with the HOA where I live. My wife contends that
involvement is grounds for divorce.

Charlie

The gas lamp is ridiculous. I'd go all electric and remove gas
service.rather than pay for lamp

On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:14:19 -0700, "hollenback"
wrote:

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
they are using a trademarked name?

Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
by this HOA?

A casinos in Las Vegas is currently having a dispute; regarding
similar names.

________

It's a hard-won reputation for value, one the Plaza's owners want to
protect when the company that owns the posh Plaza in New York City
opens a $5 billion version of their butler-hosting, tea-providing
hotel on the Strip.

That's why Tamares Las Vegas Properties filed a complaint Thursday in
Clark County District Court to block Elad Group of New York from using
the Plaza name in Sin City.

_________


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366




--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

I don't have a copy of the convenant, but according to the news article
the phrasing is "a ban on any commercial use of the property name" then
immediately following there's a statement that the guy is violating this
by "trying to see an idea". Frankly that's a rather long stretch.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:29:21 -0700, wrote:

The gas lamp is ridiculous. I'd go all electric and remove gas
service.rather than pay for lamp

A link to the real lamp fire (s) ....

http://hamptonsnbc.com/Gas_Leaks___Fires.html




On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:40:01 GMT, (John Cochran)
wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

I don't have a copy of the convenant, but according to the news article
the phrasing is "a ban on any commercial use of the property name" then
immediately following there's a statement that the guy is violating this
by "trying to see an idea". Frankly that's a rather long stretch.

Owner web site disclamier.*

*
Copyright 2007. Hamptons NBC- Sarasota, Florida. All rights reserved.

Hamptons Neighbors for a Better Community (“HamptonsNBC”) is not
affiliated with and in no way represents “The Hamptons of Sarasota
Community Association, Inc,” or its Board of Directors or any of its
committees or organizational entities or contractors.

http://hamptonsnbc.com/


--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:14:19 -0700, "hollenback"
wrote:

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
they are using a trademarked name?

Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
by this HOA?


They could trademark a logo, for instance. Also although they use
the Hamptons as short hand, they might have a longer name the guy is
using. Also, aren't the Hamptons in NY a town and not a subdivision.
That might make a difference.

The HOA doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.

s

another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

what trademark? His site is hamptonsnbc. not "the hamptons" or other such
thing.

s


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:48:46 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:14:19 -0700, "hollenback"
wrote:

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
they are using a trademarked name?

Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
by this HOA?


They could trademark a logo, for instance. Also although they use
the Hamptons as short hand, they might have a longer name the guy is
using. Also, aren't the Hamptons in NY a town and not a subdivision.
That might make a difference.

INAL. I tried to do a TM search and found about 500 just using
"hamptons"

Many years ago the Miami Herald (IIRC) published a story about an
upset client of a law firm. He discovered the law firm did not have a
trademark for the firm, so he registered it. Supposedly, they paid
dearly to get it back.



--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:56:28 -0500, "Steve Barker LT"
wrote:

what trademark? His site is hamptonsnbc. not "the hamptons" or other such
thing.

s

Paris Hilton TM 'ed "That's Hot" or some such. Now I'm afraid to pick
up a frying pan. Moms can't tell the children - that's hot! :-)





"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

If you want to see reDICKulous, check out what mr. nissan has had to go
through.

http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php



s


"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:48:46 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:14:19 -0700, "hollenback"
wrote:

Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York
because
they are using a trademarked name?

Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
by this HOA?


They could trademark a logo, for instance. Also although they use
the Hamptons as short hand, they might have a longer name the guy is
using. Also, aren't the Hamptons in NY a town and not a subdivision.
That might make a difference.

INAL. I tried to do a TM search and found about 500 just using
"hamptons"

Many years ago the Miami Herald (IIRC) published a story about an
upset client of a law firm. He discovered the law firm did not have a
trademark for the firm, so he registered it. Supposedly, they paid
dearly to get it back.



--
Oren

Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even
when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

"John Cochran" wrote in message
...
I don't have a copy of the convenant, but according to the news article
the phrasing is "a ban on any commercial use of the property name" then
immediately following there's a statement that the guy is violating this
by "trying to see an idea". Frankly that's a rather long stretch.

"a ban on any commercial use of the property name"
"trying to sell an idea"

How much profit does he expect to get selling his idea?
How much revenue does he expect to get selling his idea?

If no profit and no revenue, how can this be considered commercial use?

I don't know all the laws - maybe the HOA can write into the covenant
something about residents not being allowed to say unkind things about the
HOA on their website. But it appears that the best argument they were able
to come up with was the one about commercial use.

He might be able to go to his insurance company with the fire issue and try
to get them to cancel his policy or raise the premiums because of the risk.
Presumably when they do this to him, they and other companies will follow
suit and do the same for everyone else in the community. That might be
legally possible but it doesn't do anything to move things closer to a
harmonious state.

The real issue is what the members of the HOA want. When he bought the
house, he must have known there was an HOA, and he should have known that
HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules they
want within whatever restrictions the law applies. If the members are well
informed about the dangers of the gas lights and a majority of them agree to
keep them and no law is being violated, then the HOA can keep that rule in
place. If he believes the members are not properly informed or are just
being apathetic, then he can start his website or use other legal means to
keep them informed and interested. If he decides to go off on a crusade and
find legal means or get an insurance company to take action (and apparently
he has not done this), this is probably legal, but then he really is
"stirring the pot" and would make life a lot better for everyone, including
himself, if he just moved. But given that a simple move, including selling a
house and buying another, can cost tens of thousands of dollars, it's not
such a simple solution.

I would really like to know how such a moronic idea as putting gas lights in
front of every house ever got implemented, much less written into the HOA
bylaws. I kind of imagine that during the construction phase, someone
happened to watch a movie about olde England that showed houses with gas
lights, and they thought that was so romantic and decided their community
had to have that too. Now they don't want to accept the realization that it
was a stupid idea, so they're using the HOA to block any reconsideration.

"Steve Barker LT" wrote in message
...
The HOA doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.

I would tend to agree. The web site should have "fair use" of the name.

Frankly, the game isn't worth the candle. He should contact the attorney
who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site. It's
just not hard to burn up several $1000 in legal bills is a ****ing contest
with a HoA. I believe the story mentioned a $10k figure.

s

another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.



Governments LOVE HoA just because the HoA's can do things governments can't.

They tend to be run by folks without much in the way of common sense.

When we were in the house search and ended up with us being where we are the
FIRST criteria we told the agent was NO Home Owners Association of the type
that can actually impose rules. Neighborhood associations are OK, of
course.

I lived for 9 years in Columbia, MD which is layers upon layers of HOA's.

My take: Let the buyer beware. Simple and short.
You are required to be provided notice and documentation that you are moving
into a HOA property and house. You agree to the arrangement (and property
lien documents) when you purchase the land and house. Period. You are
assumed to be an adult at the time of purchase.

I have no tears to shed for anyone who purchases into an HOA, and later
decides they don't like the HOA because it is a bunch of busy bodies. Why
do you think the states allowed HOA's in the first place. So the states
could concentrate all the busy bodies together and then they would leave the
rest of us alone.

I am totally in favor of HOA's. I like not having busy bodies bothering me
where I live.

Phil



"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:14:31 -0400, "John Gilmer"
wrote:

He should contact the attorney
who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site.

Against the smart advice of his attorney? (see site) The owner hasn't
done anything wrong....

He should not contact anybody, but let his attorney do that!

--
Oren

"If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me."

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:19:19 -0400, "Phil-In-Mich."
wrote:

I am totally in favor of HOA's. I like not having busy bodies bothering me
where I live.

Coming soon to an area near you, "busy bodies".


--
Oren

"If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me."

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:56:28 -0500, "Steve Barker LT"
wrote:

what trademark? His site is hamptonsnbc. not "the hamptons" or other
such
thing.

s

Paris Hilton TM 'ed "That's Hot" or some such. Now I'm afraid to pick
up a frying pan. Moms can't tell the children - that's hot! :-)


You can trademark an otherwise generic word in certain context. Many of us
use trademarked names for noncommercial purposes all the time. It can be
a Ford Owner Club, or Star Trek Fan Club. Using the work Hamptons is not
necessarily an infringement.

Google give over 4,610,000 hits for the word Hamptons and is it used by
Hamptons Vodka, Nuke the Hamptons, and many others. I'd never live where
there was an HOA though.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

"Phil-In-Mich." wrote in message
...
I lived for 9 years in Columbia, MD which is layers upon layers of HOA's.

My take: Let the buyer beware. Simple and short.
You are required to be provided notice and documentation that you are
moving into a HOA property and house. You agree to the arrangement (and
property lien documents) when you purchase the land and house. Period.
You are assumed to be an adult at the time of purchase.

I have no tears to shed for anyone who purchases into an HOA, and later
decides they don't like the HOA because it is a bunch of busy bodies.


While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:



While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.

I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
$100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

The HOA is ridiculous in its claim on trademark infringement. There have to
be thousands of "Hamptons" type names around. The original, IIRC, describes
a geographical area in New England.

Zaki's position on the gas lights is spot on. We do field investigations
for HOA reserve audit studies. Gas lights are about as inefficient a way
you can go to light an area that there is. Plus, they run 24/7 and that
costs a lot. And that doesn't include the replacement cost of parts, and
whole lights that are destroyed by various means.

And then, there's the safety issue gas. Anyone with a room temperature
IQ has to agree that it is dangerous.

All the HOA stuff historically started in Florida, where retirees went, and
the HOA situation evolved.

I hope Zaki countersues for infringement on his freedom of speech.

Trouble is, the lawyers are the ones who profit. People have won all sorts
of judgments against HOAs, but they are costly.

Steve

"Nick Danger" wrote

The real issue is what the members of the HOA want. When he bought the
house, he must have known there was an HOA, and he should have known that
HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules
they want within whatever restrictions the law applies.

Say what? They are about as totalitarian as you can get. The boards are
full of people who have too much time on their hands, and have no idea how
things work. People who do know how things work either don't have the time,
or can't get the committee government to implement basic common sense logic.

Like reassessing costly dangerous lighting situations.


Steve

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:58:36 -0500, HeyBub wrote:


"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until the
end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a $100-a-day
fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."

good! Maybe they'll stop you from being such a scumbag spammer.

In ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.

I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.

Another amendment, I believe the 14th, extends these restrictions to the
states - and it has been understood that this includes all lower lwvels of
government.

And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)

- Don Klipstein )

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:



While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no
right to stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this
country.

I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the
first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does.

ALL of the Constitution is a limitation *on government*.
NOT any limit on the People.

Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.


Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.

As people are so quick to say;"no right is absolute".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:28:46 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote Re HOA demands resident's web site come down:

And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)

Precisely. Watch what happens to a HOA that tries to include racial
restrictions.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right
to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.

I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.

Another amendment, I believe the 14th, extends these restrictions to the
states - and it has been understood that this includes all lower lwvels of
government.

Yeah. Although my point (which I missed rather badly from the looks of
things) is that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private entities.



And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)

That would probably be state-specific depending on how they are
set-up, assuming that what you read wasn't later overturned.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
Even in the public areas, absent a state law to the contrary, there
is no right of assembly, you have no right of free speech in that they
can toss your behind for leafleting, etc. Even under this theory, it
is a long stretch to suggest that the HOA is public.

In article ,
Caesar Romano wrote:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:28:46 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote Re HOA demands resident's web site come down:

And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)

Precisely. Watch what happens to a HOA that tries to include racial
restrictions.

But that isn't constitutional. That is related to the Civil
Right Act. You don't have to be remotely conceived as a level of
government to run afoul of that.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:57:08 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:

HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules
they want within whatever restrictions the law applies.

Say what? They are about as totalitarian as you can get. The boards are
full of people who have too much time on their hands, and have no idea how
things work. People who do know how things work either don't have the
time,
or can't get the committee government to implement basic common sense
logic.

You can usually throw the bums out. All it takes is to round up a gang
of people who are as ****ed as you about the current officers and mob
the annual meeting.
All it takes is a little shoe leather and knocking on doors. It is
somewhat like hearding cats but it can be done. I did it at my HOA. We
ended up gertting the votes to let the deed restrictions die a
peaceful death after they expired. We still have an HOA chartered
under article 617 but we don't have the 720 deed restricted (liens,
fines etc) community.
Most HOA deed restrictions DO expire if the members don't show up to
vote against renewal. They were running our community on about a 17%
turnout at the annual meeting. We had 66% at the last meeting and the
vote reflected that. It went two to one against the the establishment.

What you did was admirable. It is difficult to find enough owners who are
residing there, find enough interested people, and find enough people who
are willing to miss a TV program or two. I've had all sorts of experiences
with HOAs on all levels, and it is quite a demonstration of the governing
process, from the good to the bad.

Most people are unaware of even their CC&Rs, let alone how the laws and
rules actually do work.

Steve

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


You should include this part you snipped;
Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.



Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
Even in the public areas, absent a state law to the contrary, there
is no right of assembly, you have no right of free speech in that they
can toss your behind for leafleting, etc. Even under this theory, it
is a long stretch to suggest that the HOA is public.


I didn't claim any HOA was "open to the public".I was referring to a MALL.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:



While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.


I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.

Given that most Florida HOAs purport to exercise quasi governmental
functions,
and do so under authority provided them by state law, theres a real good
argment that a Florida HOA is subject to the First Amendment and cannot
restrict whats on that web site.

Your mall analogy is not at all applicable.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


You should include this part you snipped;
Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.



Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
Even in the public areas, absent a state law to the contrary, there
is no right of assembly, you have no right of free speech in that they
can toss your behind for leafleting, etc. Even under this theory, it
is a long stretch to suggest that the HOA is public.


I didn't claim any HOA was "open to the public".I was referring to a MALL.

Okay, thread drift gets a little confusing to me at intervals. But
then life gets a little confusing to me at intervals... But as I
said, absent state laws to the contrary the Supremes have said that even
the public spaces in malls are private property and no constitutional
protections extend there to.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Caesar Romano wrote:


On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:28:46 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote Re HOA demands resident's web site come down:


And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)

Precisely. Watch what happens to a HOA that tries to include racial
restrictions.


But that isn't constitutional. That is related to the Civil
Right Act. You don't have to be remotely conceived as a level of
government to run afoul of that.

Wrong.

In article ,
jJim McLaughlin wrote:


Given that most Florida HOAs purport to exercise quasi governmental
functions,
and do so under authority provided them by state law, theres a real good
argment that a Florida HOA is subject to the First Amendment and cannot
restrict whats on that web site.
Looks like we'll see unless the dude chickens out. If that is
how it works out then it means the HOA is NOT a private entity.


Your mall analogy is not at all applicable.

It is until the decision is made on whether or not the HOA is a
private entity. If it is indeed a private entity, then it is not
beholden to the First Amendment.

In article ,
jJim McLaughlin wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Caesar Romano wrote:


On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:28:46 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote Re HOA demands resident's web site come down:


And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)

Precisely. Watch what happens to a HOA that tries to include racial
restrictions.


But that isn't constitutional. That is related to the Civil
Right Act. You don't have to be remotely conceived as a level of
government to run afoul of that.

Wrong.

Right, although it might be some other law. After I sent this, I
thought it was more likely Fair Housing Act or something similar.

Actually I was both right and wrong. From HUD's website:
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as
amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of
dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race,
color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including
children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians,
pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of
18), and handicap (disability).

On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

What trademark?