Monday, December 07, 2009

An update on the Barfoot flagpole situation

"It looks like this thing is growing legs . . . the law firm of Coates & Davenport have already gone into Damage Control Mode:

Statement from the Sussex Square Homeowners Association

Dec. 3, 2009

The Sussex Square Homeowners Association never intended its request that Col. Barfoot remove his flag pole as an affront to his patriotism.

This is not about the American flag. This is about a flag pole. And Col. Barfoot is not being forbidden from displaying an American flag.

With its request that he remove the flag pole, the association was discharging its duty to all the owners in the neighborhood. The association's position has merit and is supported by its Bylaws, Rules and Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants.

The association is optimistic that this matter can be resolved in a way that is mutually satisfactory to all parties and looks forward to Senator Mark Warner's involvement toward that end.

Anyone who wishes to offer comments may do so at
colbarfootsflagpole@gmail.com

Thank you,

Coates & Davenport
Richmond, Virginia




So I went back and checked the story, as it was originally reported to me:

In December 2009, the HomeOwners' Association (HOA) of Sussex Square, where 90-year-old Van T. Barfoot lives in Henrico County, Virginia, ordered him to remove the flagpole from which he flies the American flag. The HOA retained a lawyer to help enforce their order. The Association's bylaws do not forbid flagpoles, but the HOA ruled Barfoot should not be allowed to use his "for aesthetic reasons". Mr. Barfoot is contesting the order.


I don't want to come off sounding like a barracks lawyer, but it sounds to me like Colonel Barfoot has a pretty good case going for him."

3 comments:

John Ritchie said...

Help Col. Barfoot - sign this petition.

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/get-involved/online-petitions/petition-support-veteran-col-barfoot-american-flag.html

Sigivald said...

If their bylaws permit the Kreuzleiter (or whatever the title is) to nix outside "decorations" for "aesthetic reasons", he has no case, legally.

The HOA really should have backed down already, for practical reasons, if not moral ones.

But I'm assuming moral issues don't really motivate power-hungry apparatchiks very much...

Brick The Wine Guy said...

The HOA lost!