• If only there was a word for this type of behavior…
• What is a Man?
• Hope for the Future
• A Dedication
• Atlas Blogged
• US Automakers: Rising to the Challenger?
• Global Warming and Eating Storm Crows
• Yet Another Republican Not Voting for McCain
• ReadableLaws
• Music Genome Project
• Another Great Goal
• Rick Nash, Simply Amazing
• Sports Quotables This Week
• A New Law or Smarter Parents?
• Professional Grade Football

• February 2008
• January 2008
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005

« Why Privatize? | Main | Bronchitis »

Can Preferences Trump Rights?

The New Jersey Supreme Court is hearing a case on what limits a homeowners association can place on the free speech of residents. It ought to be a great topic of conversation, since it pits two cherished values against one another. Should one civil liberty trump another?

The plaintiffs bring several issues to the court, but the main one is regarding restrictions on the display of political signs in the community. An NPR story reports that this issue sprang up from one of the plaintiffs trying to put up a political sign on her property, in support of her run for a seat on the Twin Rivers homeowners association. She lost the initial suit, due to the prevailing wisdom that this is a private contractual matter, and she knew about the covenants of the community when she chose to live there. But the case has continued, because

the plaintiffs contend the association should be treated like any other government entity, because it can issue fines and place liens against homes.

In other words, plaintiffs argue that a municipal government would not be allowed to violate the rights of citizens as outlined in the state constitution, and a homeowners association ought not to either. The appeals court was unanimous on this point. Personally, I disagree – I side with the conventional wisdom, and the sanctity of the private contract these homeowners have entered into. This is something homebuyers need to consider ahead of time. I am disappointed – but not surprised – to see the ACLU siding with the plaintiffs.

The Court’s opinion is not expected for several months, but it may be very important to the future of these associations. For one thing, over 50 million Americans live in these types of communities – 1 in 6 Americans, as NPR points out. I was astounded by that number, until I realized the number of urban homes – specifically, condominiums – and retirement communities this must include. If the plaintiffs prevail, the freedom of individuals to contractually promote a particular sense of aesthetics will be denied, in favor of the notion that a citizen’s preferred avenue of expressing themselves does in fact trump other liberties. That would be a terrible shame.

For those interested, the New Jersey Law Blog includes a link to the webcast of the arguments.