Publications
Exterior Uniformity Part of Condo Living
A recent letter to a nationally syndicated advice column piqued my interest about the issue of "rights in conflict." In the words of Mr. Spock from a well known movie, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." The writer was complaining that an association was picking on an 80 year old World War II veteran for installing a flagpole and flying the American flag without the permission of the board. A number of owners complained and the board voted to direct the owner to have it removed. The writer’s letter was sympathetic yet the columnist did not really address the issues raised by the letter.
The writer stated that: "All of the condos are exactly alike – boring..." while ignoring the fact that people who invest in these types of communities do so with the knowledge that there will be uniformity with respect to the exterior appearance of the dwelling units, as this is the type of community that they desire to live in. There is a certain communal aspect to condominium and homeowners’ associations that encourages people to seek out this type of living situation. Obviously, the author of the letter was unhappy with the type of community they had moved into and probably should have opted for one with looser exterior architectural controls.
Condominium and homeowners’ associations around the country invest hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in upkeep and maintenance, in order to preserve their property values, and make their homes attractive places to live. Owners that choose to ignore the rules and initiate exterior changes without consulting the board of directors, are a constant problem for these types of communities.
It is unfortunate that a retired colonel chose to use the American flag as a dividing point within his community. The author writes that the colonel moved into the community and promptly installed a flag pole of proper size without consulting his neighbors or the governing body of the community. Notwithstanding the fact that the colonel’s motives were admirable and his patriotism commendable, one of the reasons that he fought was to preserve the rights of individuals to think and live how they choose and in a community such as this, the collective will of the majority governs how people want their community to appear and to be viewed. Rather than merely just appealing to sentimentality, there seems to be a more rational way to resolve this. Obviously, there is no right answer for the association being viewed by outsiders as to imposing an absolute prohibition on flags, as I am sure many readers might find offensive. On the other hand, for millions of community association residents, the concept of an owner being able to do whatever he pleased with the exterior of his lot is also offensive.
Periodically these types of disputes pop up in the newspaper because the media always has a field day with associations they perceive to be acting "goofy," even though a board is acting within the bounds of the law and trying to preserve the rights of its members. The best way for people in these types of scenarios to resolve their differences is through some form of mediation, where I am certain a compromise can be reached. Most boards of directors if approached with a reasonable compromise, as opposed to an emotional appeal to their patriotism, probably would permit some type of modification to the rules for the entire association for the installation and flying of flags. Although this might not allow for a full size flag pole embedded in concrete, at least those who have a desire to express their patriotism through the flying of the flag can do so, while the association would not be faced with an exterior modification that many residents find offensive, and opens the door to an epidemic of above ground pools, fences, full-size satellite dishes, etc., which would severely impact association governance and possibly have an adverse impact on property values.
For those who live in condominiums and homeowners’ associations, there has to be a point where the rules are enforced for those who have made the commitment to live in a community, otherwise the board of directors exposes each member individually to potential liability for failing or refusing to enforce the rules which people relied upon. However, I must reiterate that in these types of situations and there are other communities who have also wrestled with the flag waving issue, certainly a compromise can be reached so that the right to fly the flag versus the right of the association to maintain architectural control remains unimpaired.
Obviously, communication, conciliation, negotiation and mediation is preferable to litigation in the instance of any dispute. Serious conflicts can be avoided if people are willing to talk to each other.