Oregon Apartment Complex Bans American Flag

[DBlair]

This bothers me on so many levels... just thought other CAPTalk members may find this to be of interest.


Management of an Oregon apartment complex bans American flags because "...the flags could be offensive because they live in a diverse community." Residents were told to take down their flags or face eviction.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/64059697.html


If you wish to make your voice heard:
Oaks Apartments
1440 Geary Cir SE
Albany, OR 97322
(541) 967-1284

[Spike]

Nasty letter sent!

Wow......

Where the crap do those apartment managers think they live?

[swamprat86]

Wow, I hope there are not any CAP members living there.  They won't be able to walk out of their door in BDU's.  The flag may offend someone.

Now that I think about it, would police, EMS and Fire members be allowed to respond in the complex since most have a flag on their uniforms or vehilces or would they have to take them off first?

[cnitas]

While I do not agree with the policy, it is an example of what makes the USA great...freedom.
 
The owner of the complex has the right to make those decisions about his property.  At the same time, the residents get to choose if they would like to live in that complex with such a silly policy.

The market will decide if this is a sustainable policy.

[DogCollar]

Now, I believe in accommodating and respecting persons from different cultures and backgrounds as much as anyone, but...seriously....this banning the flag is ridiculous and there is no justification for it.  Why, I bet even the ACLU would be on the side of the residents who wish to fly the flag...because a ban is probably unconstitutional on the grounds of free speech protection.

[Flying Pig]

While I do not agree with the policy, it is an example of what makes the USA great...freedom. 
The owner of the complex has the right to make those decisions about his property.  At the same time, the residents get to choose if they would like to live in that complex with such a silly policy.

The market will decide if this is a sustainable policy.

Im actually quite tired of hearing that line when it comes to scenarios like this.  The rule was made by someone who is ignorant and is more concerned about the feelings of foreigners or people who hate America than they are about Americans.  There is nothing American about it.

[isuhawkeye]

This is not the first, or the last time that this issue has come up in reguards to rental properties.  The simple fact is that the tenants sign leases with very specific verbage.  Many leases have provisions that restrict the display of virtually anythihng from windows, doors, or balconies. 

Its much easier for them to put blanket restrictions in place than it is to make a judgement call on what is appropriate and what is not. 

So in short, this generally does not affect the ability of responders, or uniformed personel from entering or leaving a complex. 

[DC]

I can't even articulate a sentence here to describe the idiocy of this.

This is taking political correctness to a ridiculous level.

[swamprat86]

So in short, this generally does not affect the ability of responders, or uniformed personel from entering or leaving a complex.

According to the article, it also applies to residents' vehicles as well as the physical property.  Since they are saying that vehicles on the property can not display the flag, I would wonder if the "offended" would apply it to them as well.  Although there may be verbage in the lease about displays on the buildings and grounds, I doubt there is anything in the lease covering vehicles, outside of ownership and parking requirements.

[Nathan]

I'm a hard person to offend, so patriotically, I'm pretty unfazed by this.

But I don't get the "diverse community" bit... Isn't it a diverse community of people in the United States? Is this hotel straddling a national border? The logic of the argument eludes me.

It's like saying that students living on a college campus can't put out their college flags because people walking by who are from a different college might get offended.

[Major Lord]

Actually, the ACLU has taken the position that the management company has the right to enforce the covenants, and restrictions, and ban flags or other non-compliant behaviors, decorations, etc. ( Count on the ACLU to be on whichever side is most detrimental to America) The tenants all signed an agreement to obey the CC&R's, and unless they can convince a judge that the contract is inapplicable, or unlawful, the tenants should keep their side of the contract up. If I were they, I would be reading the CC&R's to make sure that the landlord is obeying each and every obligation required by covenant and contract, and threatening to sue for the slightest infraction. Nothing prevents the tenants from protesting the actions of the landlord, so go for it! ( By the way, the FBI and Homeland Security people should be aware of which pinko-commie bedwetters are offended by the mere presence of the flag of the Republic-those are the bad guys......)

Major Lord

[flyerthom]

While I do not agree with the policy, it is an example of what makes the USA great...freedom.
 
The owner of the complex has the right to make those decisions about his property.  At the same time, the residents get to choose if they would like to live in that complex with such a silly policy.

The market will decide if this is a sustainable policy.

It does make for very interesting constitutional conundrum.

Free speech  vs property right vs privacy rights.  And of course renters vs land lords rights.

It will be fascinating to watch this if it goes through legal channels. Sentimentally this frosts my bananas just like many here. But these questions need to addressed through the proper channels.

[Cecil DP]

These rules don't only apply to rental properties, many homeowners who live in covenented communities or belong to "Home Owners Associations" may also be told not only not to fly the flag, but what color they can paint their house, and what time they can cut their lawns.

[capn_shad]

While I think the policy is idiotic, this is not a "free speech" issue unless the apartment complex in question is a government actor.  Basic constitutional law, folks... make sure you read the First Amendment (especially the part about Congress) before criticizing private actors as violating your free speech rights.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

[davedove]

The owner of the complex has the right to make those decisions about his property.

Exactly right, this is the property owners call.  I don't like the owner's position, but it's his right.  He gets to decide what can and cannot be placed on his property.

Now, if was owned by the residents, Public Law 109-243 would come into play, the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005.

Now, that only applies to flags placed on the property itself.  It would seem to me that things like flags flown on the bikes and such would be up to the owners of the vehicles.

[davedove]

These rules don't only apply to rental properties, many homeowners who live in covenented communities or belong to "Home Owners Associations" may also be told not only not to fly the flag, but what color they can paint their house, and what time they can cut their lawns.

This has been somewhat negated (but not totally) by the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005.  (see previous post)

[tarheel gumby]

Just for the record I think that the owners of the complex should be sent to live in a 3rd world country for about a year. That would show them just the flag means to a lot of people around the world.

[Spike]

Oh I missed the very last sentence in my rage....

We're told the ban includes sports flags and even flag stickers on cars

Which means banning all Flags under an "umbrella clause" keeps the management/ owners out of reach.

I don't understand the "stickers on cars" part though.  I thought we can slap whatever we want on our private property.

Seems like someone read the rental agreement carefully and thought what a great way to stir up trouble.  Most likely the guy with the motorcycle, since he was mentioned predominantly.

Now, I think they should ban flags JUST NOT US FLAGS!!!!!!!   

[flyerthom]

While this doesn't address OR directly, precedent in other states can impact decisions in other state courts. The original article is about regulating political signs in yards but the follow up gets into flag displays and condos and renters: 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=yard_signs

PL 109-243
Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005
http://www.glin.gov/view.action?glinID=186169

[cnitas]

While I do not agree with the policy, it is an example of what makes the USA great...freedom. 
The owner of the complex has the right to make those decisions about his property.  At the same time, the residents get to choose if they would like to live in that complex with such a silly policy.

The market will decide if this is a sustainable policy.

Im actually quite tired of hearing that line when it comes to scenarios like this.  The rule was made by someone who is ignorant and is more concerned about the feelings of foreigners or people who hate America than they are about Americans.  There is nothing American about it.

It does not matter why the rule was made.  It is the right of the owner to make policy on his property, even ignorant policy.   

You are free to buy an apartment building and mandate the flying of US flags from every balcony if you want to prove how American you are.