Subdivision Bans Wreath With Peace Sign

[Kor37 9]

Updated: 01:54 PM EST

IM This E-mail This

 

Subdivision Bans Wreath With Peace Sign

Homeowner Defies Board, Faces About $1000 in Fines

By ROBERT WELLER, AP

 

DENVER (Nov. 27) - A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

 

 

 

AP / Handout

Homeowners association president Bob Kearns ordered the five architectural control committee members to require the wreath's removal. When they refused, concluding it was merely a seasonal symbol, Kearns fired them.

 

 

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

 

"Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up," he said in a telephone interview Sunday.

 

Lisa Jensen said she wasn't thinking of the war when she hung the wreath. She said, "Peace is way bigger than not being at war. This is a spiritual thing."

 

Jensen, a past association president, calculates the fines will cost her about $1,000, and doubts they will be able to make her pay. But she said she's not going to take it down until after Christmas.

 

"Now that it has come to this I feel I can't get bullied," she said. "What if they don't like my Santa Claus."

 

The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and the board "will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive."

 

The subdivision's rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.

 

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.

 

 

This kind of thing burns me up. I detest homeowners associations. They have no right telling a homeowner what he can or cannot do with his property. Kudos to Ms. Jensen for standing up to these bullies.

[ARMS 0]

How rediculous.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I don't particularly like Homeowner's Associations but if you move into one knowing the rules and sign the agreement - then I'm not too sympathetic if you want to buck the rules.

 

However, I think the HO assn should have a special election and vote out their current president - he sounds like he has gotten a little of the "tin god" complex - since he fired the committe for not sharing his opinions. I also wonder if the bylaws allow him to fire the architectural board.

 

I tell you, positions of leadership in HO assn's are magnets for people with no lives. I would avoid living in one personally but some people like the protection - ie no boats, cars on blocks, rv's in disrepair etc creating neighborhood eyesores.

[trekz 7]

I don't particularly like Homeowner's Associations but if you move into one knowing the rules and sign the agreement - then I'm not too sympathetic if you want to buck the rules.

 

However, I think the HO assn should have a special election and vote out their current president - he sounds like he has gotten a little of the "tin god" complex - since he fired the committe for not sharing his opinions. I also wonder if the bylaws allow him to fire the architectural board.

 

I tell you, positions of leadership in HO assn's are magnets for people with no lives. I would avoid living in one personally but some people like the protection - ie no boats, cars on blocks, rv's in disrepair etc creating neighborhood eyesores.

I agree that one should expect rules to be followed. Yet as you TUH, point out, instead of following the rules and taking the advice of the architectural committe, this homeowner association President didn't like the committee's ruling so he fired the committee. Tin plated demi-god with delusions of granduer indeed! One pair of my cousins were officers in a homeowners association and the complaints, whines, and unreasonable expectations of some members were often ridiculous and unending.

 

The other point that annoys me about this is the concept that someone who calls for peace does not either support our troops or wish them safe. If there was peace, then more of our troops would be at home, and thus safe. How is that bad?

Edited November 28, 2006 by trekz

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

As to whether a homeowner's association president can fire the architectural control committee members it depends on if they were paid employees or elected volunteers or appointees. If they are paid or appointed then he is well within his authority to fire them. If not than he is probably stuck with them until the next election. It all depends on what the bylaws say.

 

That having been said, rules are rules. In joining the homeowner's association Jensen should have known what she was getting into - and presumably she did given that she is a past president of that same association.

 

I can see how the peace symbol can be interpreted as being anti-military, especially in time of war, given that the symbol itself became popular during Viet Nam as a war / troop protest. A dove or an olive branch or some other symbol that has the same meaning but without the nasty history should be used instead. These symbols have religious connotations but only for those who know their Bible pretty darn well, more than most. To many they simply symbolize peace without a religious message.

 

Would it surprise anyone to learn that Gerald Holtom, when he designed the peace symbol, deliberately designed it to resemble the anarchy symbol?

Edited November 28, 2006 by Lt. Van Roy

[Kor37 9]

UPDATE:

 

Homeowners Association OKs Peace Wreath

By ROBERT WELLER, AP

 

DENVER (Nov. 28) - A subdivision has withdrawn its threat of $25 daily fines against a homeowner who put a Christmas wreath shaped like a peace sign on the front of her home.

 

 

 

AP / Handout

Bill Trimarco and Lisa Jensen stand next to their Christmas peace wreath at their home near Pagosa Springs, Colo. A homeowners association apologized for asking Jensen to remove the wreath and threatening $25 daily fines.

 

Homeowner Lisa Jensen told The Associated Press on Monday that the board of directors of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association had apologized, called the incident a misunderstanding and had withdrawn its request for the wreath's removal.

 

Jensen was ordered to take the wreath down when some residents in her 200-home subdivision saw it as a protest of the Iraq war. Bob Kearns, president of the board, also said some saw it as a symbol of Satan.

 

The homeowners' association demanded Jensen remove the wreath from her house, saying it doesn't allow flags or signs that are considered divisive.

 

None of the three members of the board in the scenic town 270 miles southwest of Denver was available for comment late Monday. Kearns and colleague Jeff Heitz both had their phone numbers changed to unlisted numbers Monday. Tammy Spezze, the third board member, did not return a call seeking comment.

 

Jensen, a past association president, said she was overwhelmed with hundreds of calls of support and offers to help her pay the $1,000 fine that would be due if she kept the wreath up until after Christmas.

 

"We would like to thank everyone who has contacted us with moral support and offers of financial support. We are grateful to hundreds of complete strangers who felt so moved by this story they contacted us," she said.

 

"It seems whenever someone tries to say 'Peace on Earth' it is met with so much resistance," she said. "The incredible amount of support we have received over the last couple of days really is proof to us of how many people believe in peace and

 

A happy ending to a stupid situation. Please note that the head of the association did not make the call as he should have. I'm glad he had to change his phone number!

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Would it surprise anyone to learn that Gerald Holtom, when he designed the peace symbol, deliberately designed it to resemble the anarchy symbol?

 

Yes, because peace and anarchy are opposites. He also used the semophore symbols for N and D to make the design - because he was commissioned by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

 

It's funny all the other "legends" surrounding its supposed origins.

 

However, I have to agree if it is seen as an anti-war symbol it is offensive to those with family members serving in the military and not really a "peace" symbol at all.

 

I think a white dove would have been appropriate on a Christmas Wreath.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Would it surprise anyone to learn that Gerald Holtom, when he designed the peace symbol, deliberately designed it to resemble the anarchy symbol?

 

Yes, because peace and anarchy are opposites.

 

There are those, some of whom are STF moderators, who would disagree with you on that. I said what I said to drive the point home that those promoting the "peace" sign at first probably had a hidden (subversive) agenda, but when you think about it if there is no government there is also no milirary, no nuclear weapons, no one to declare war, no taxes or infrastructure to support a war, no taxes period, etc.

 

I'm not saying I support anarchy but I think it would be more accurate to say that "peace" and "violence" are opposites.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

A total absence of order is chaotic - IMO chaos is not peaceful. For example: how peaceful would driving on the freeways be if there were no "rules" - it's stressful now even with "rules".

 

I have to disagree that there would be no war - it would just be on a smaller scare - neighbor against neighbor - tribe against tribe. Watch two kids with one toy and tell me life would be peaceful if there wasn't someone there to impose "order".

[trekz 7]

A total absence of order is chaotic - IMO chaos is not peaceful. For example: how peaceful would driving on the freeways be if there were no "rules" - it's stressful now even with "rules".

 

I have to disagree that there would be no war - it would just be on a smaller scare - neighbor against neighbor - tribe against tribe. Watch two kids with one toy and tell me life would be peaceful if there wasn't someone there to impose "order".

I strongly AGREE with TUH here. The driving sexample is well taken in Chicago and Illinois. Even with rules and police, driving can be awful in Chicago streets, & expressways. Those with fast cars or motorcycles weave in and out, endangering the lives of others. Too many pedestrians get killed each year because of impaired or thoughtless, agressive drivers. Then there's the whole road rage possibilities with no police!

 

I also agree with the idea of neighbor or tribal warfare. Just as there are militias in Iraq, imagine for example the Baptist, Methodist and Catholic militias all vying for power and control of a town. Of course with no taxes for good raods or standards for communication they might not be able to get around that well so warfare could be more local. I'll take some govenment, thank you.

[master_q 0]

Contract:

 

All that matters is the contractual agreements. There is nothing wrong with a homeowners association. I belong to one. They take care of the private park, the private roads, and keep order in what my neighbors can and cannot do with their property outside (e.g., no trash in front yard). It is voluntary. They also provide for some security.

 

Anarchism:

 

As far as this topic goes...it depends on how you define what "anarchism" is. There are different definitions of this term. And, in the context of political-ideological description, it seems to me that "anarchism" is defined very differently akin to how people define "liberalism," "conservatism" or "libertarianism".

 

After doing a Wikipedia search, here is some stuff that I found..............

 

According to Wikipedia, the most accepted definition in terms of a political-ideological description refers to communists (despite the fact that they reject the state). I will get to this anarchism that Wikipedia seemed to have embraced the most. (Some Forms: Anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, patformism, etc. As Wikipedia reports most anarchists reject private property. They believe in some form of collective, state like, agent.) There is also something called Anarcha-feminism! Devoted to crazy feminazi (to use a Rush Limbaugh term) anarchists. There is also anarcho-primitivism, green anarchism, and more.

 

Does anarchy mean chaos? For example....Take this statement: Iraq is in anarchy. Meaning "Iraq is in chaos"... More often then not, most define it this way.

 

Does anarchy mean no rules? For example...People can do whatever they please. There are no laws or rules. (Everyone can do anything.)

 

Does anarchy mean a form of communism?

For example...Noam Chomsky is fan of "anarchy" (anarcho-syndicalism). The symbol probably came from this form of anarchism. (Probably.) This form of anarchism would be where unions would democratically replace government function and private property would be abolished. Thus, it would not be "chaotic" in the sense of no rules. The profit-and-loss system would also be abolished under this definition of anarchism.

Wikipedia had similar forms of anarchy philosophies defined. (As I noted.)

 

Does anarchy mean the absence of coercion --- the "anarchy" of capitalism?

Here is also another form that Wikipeida notes of. For example...a voluntary society with law and order being "privatized". Think of a small anarcho community of Amish people. This is a close example of a private law society. Many "anarchists" would label it as "anarchy" in action. Noam Chomsky, in his view, calls this form of anarchism "tyrannical" because capitalist institutions, on a profit-and-loss system, would replace all government functions...he did not say that it is "chaotic" with no rules or laws. Just like the more anarcho communist ideas, there would be rules and laws.

 

 

As you can see it depends on how one defines anarchy. One can not be, necessarily, applied to the other. Example-----A supporter of anarcho-syndicalism, something Chomsky is a sympathizer with, would not call Iraq "in anarchy". By definition it would not be in "anarchy". (The question of would Chomsky or e.g. David Friedman anarchism "work," is another question outside of this topic. But these specific forms of anarchy do support institutions for law and order.)

Edited November 30, 2006 by master_q

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Just to add to the points Master Q made:

 

Anarchists are not necessarily against governance, just government.

 

Regardless of what form of anarchy an anarchist finds him/herself favoring, one thing that pretty much all anarchists are in agreement on is that contracts must be enforced - if not by public means than by private means. If you look at how the first societies formed there was often a judicial "branch" that was set up to enforce these contracts privately long before there were legislative bodies to write laws and executive branches to enforce laws.

 

(Gosh, I think Stringham is starting to rub off on me.)

Edited November 30, 2006 by Lt. Van Roy