HOA says political signs have to go; woman says no way
»Play Video
RIDGEFIELD, Wash. – A woman is taking a stand for the political signs in her yard after the homeowners association in her neighborhood told her to take them down until 45 days before the election.
Those are the HOA rules, but Lisa Schmidt may be winning her battle.
"I thought it was a good thing!" she said about being part of an HOA. "You know, I'm not for weeds growing up in the driveway," she said.
She just never thought signs growing up in the driveway would cause such a conflict with the Mt. Vista Home Owners Association.
"But I do want them to respect the way I feel as well," she said.
Schmidt got a letter in June saying a neighbor had complained, not about how many signs she had in her yard, but about the fact they're up months before the November election.
HOA rules only allow political signs 45 days ahead of time.
"It's commercially produced. It's political in nature," Schmidt said about the signs.
Still, the HOA threatened to fine her.
"Are they going to comment on the way I dress as I come out of my house? Are they going to tell me how many children I can have in my house?" Schmidt said.
Neighbor Scott Kindt says it's a matter of respect for the rules all the homeowners agreed to.
"That's pretty blatant there. That's been for a couple months now," he said about Schmidt's signs.
He moved to the neighborhood because of those rules.
"It keeps the look of the neighborhood up; it keeps the value of the neighborhood up," he said.
The law, however, is actually on Schmidt's side. State Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, met with Schmidt Friday. He helped pass the Washington law that allows people to display political signs on their property anytime during an election year. That includes signs in HOA neighborhoods.
"You know, you go in and there's a stack of paperwork and you're signing, you're just happy to be closing the deal and getting your own home, and you don't realize that you may be giving away some of your constitutional rights," Benton said.
Schmidt never meant to attract all the attention. She says it may be time to take her signs and change neighborhoods. But in the meantime, she says she's not taking down her signs.
She hired an attorney who's working with the homeowners association.
The HOA manager sent KATU News the following statement: "Our volunteer board just wants to do the right thing and will meet in August to review our rules and consider what's next. As neighbors, we are hoping for a resolution we can all live with."
So she likes some of the HOA rules but now not other others. When you signed off on those rules it meant abiding by all of the rules, not just the ones you like. And who needs campaign signs out almost a 1/2 year before an election. She's got some issues that she needs to work out. In the meantime, move to another neighborhood that doesn't have HOA rules or ones that your like.
 @peckishpete No it doesn't.  You need to learn what 'unconscionable' means in terms of contracts.  When she signed off on the rules, the rules that violated the law WERE UNENFORCEABLE by state law.  You can NOT enforce that, she did not agree to *anything* that was against a law that specifically legislates HOA rules.  Everyone acts like it's something she agreed to; under law, she did NOT.  If you do not understand this, you are never going to understand this issue.  The moment you open your mouth, and express "she agreed to the rules, she needs to stick to them", you are doing several things:
Â
1) You're letting everyone know that you know very little about law. Very little.
2) To anyone who does understand what the legal issue is, you are looking ....well, there's no nice way to put it, you're just looking like an idiot.
3) It's an extra 'special' bonus if you're proud of being wrong.  Nothing like being proud of one's ignorance.  It abounds on these boards.
Â
Nice job Brendan! I am suing my HOA for inventing the power to fine residents.
This is a governmental power....two states Supreme courts agree.
Hopefully mine will be next (Massachusetts).
These HOAs are repugnant private governances.
@brendan @peckishpete Brendan, I know The Law (WSBA #40551). You better be an attorney too before handing out legal opinon and advice or The Law will be something you have to worry about.
 @Martin D. Hash  Feel free to sue me for my opinions in a public discussion about an issue on the news --  I am not advising anyone as to what to do, except maybe folding something until it is all sharp corners then putting that something where the sun doesn't shine, horizontally.  Save your bluster for where it might actually mean something.  Essentially I am saying put up or stfu.  Defecate or get off the pot.  Take your pick.
@brendanHOA rules or regulations are TRUMPED by Federal, State and Local law and THEN HOA Covenants apply.
Documents governing the corporation support the operation of the association and are designed to complement each other. When an apparent inconsistency is identified, the inconsistency should be interpreted in such a way as to leave both provisions in effect and consistent with each other. If an inconsistency cannot be resolved, the highest priority document prevails. Any inconsistency with Federal, State, County, or City law is invalidated in favor of the law.
HOA rules, for the most part, are unenforceable primarily because it costs too much to defend them legally. However, the violator WILL BE penalized passive-aggressively by her neighbors. Perhaps she is sociopathic enough that she doesn't care? Perhaps being a pariah means nothing to her? Society has other ways of enforcing its mores & values than just the law. She considered moving to someplace else: as an attorney, I would agree.
Martin you are putz....or worse maybe an attorney who specializes in HOA bullying.
Sickening...
MOVE???
Not me! I am slapping down the thing that is ruining my community...the HOA
Little, by little our freedom of speech is being taken away, whether by a HOA, or the govt. 'They' don't want any of us expressing our opinions any more. If it was an eyesore all the time that would be one thing, or unsightly handmade sign, but as long as they are candidate authorized signs, she is guaranteed the right by the constitution, which BTW, Obama is trying to destroy!!!
 @Phil Hostynek It's been an eyesore since June. Is that long enough to qualify as "one thing"? 45 days prior to the election is what she agreed to when she signed the papers.
 @ADigbySellers And the law gave her additional rights that over-ride the HOA.  End of issue.
 @Ed Your first sentence was very good. "Reasonable" restrictions can be made to sign display, e.g. one post-it sized sign per house would obviously be "unreasonable".
Â
Unfortunately your second sentence tells me that you are not grasping the concept of "Supremacy" in law; State law above Local, Federal above State, Constitution above Federal (and might I add, Natural above Political as stated in our Declaration of Independence). State law provides for a one year period of diplay thus negating the 45 days rule in the HOA restrictions. If there is no severability clause in the HOA rule (not likely, no HOA is that dumb) then the whole sign rule becomes invalid.
 @brendan RCW's state: The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs. If it provides a limit of 45 days as the HOA is stating then that's the rule that needs to be followed.
In this case she should comply with the HOA rules...she'll have 45 days for the world to see her signs.
Â
 @RightFromOregon No, in this case the HOA learned very quickly that THEY had to comply with the law and back down. The homeowner did nothing wrong legally or within the terms of the HOA to which she belongs and signed onto. You may not like it personally and are free to express yourself but the HOA is not free to express anything outside the law and by-laws to which it is bound.
Â
Nothing to see here folks, everybody can go home now, lets move along.
 @Billj3cub RCW 64.38.034: The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs. So there IS latitude for the HOA to apply restrictions; period.
@Ed
Your first sentence was very good. "Reasonable" restrictions can be made to sign display, e.g. one post-it sized sign per house would obviously be "unreasonable". 2 common sized signs per house "might" be considered reasonable. Holding a cotillion might not make the "reasonable" muster.
Â
Unfortunately your second sentence tells me that you may not be grasping the concept of "Supremacy" in law; State law above Local, Federal above State, Constitution above Federal (and might I add, Natural above Political as stated in our Declaration of Independence). State law provides for a one year period of display thus negating the 45 days rule in the HOA restrictions. If there is no severability clause in the HOA rule (not likely, no HOA is that dumb) then the whole sign rule becomes invalid. Uh, period.
As an ultra-conservative resident of Mt Vista, I probably agree with her on most politcal matters. I wholeheartedly agree with her right to display politcal signs - 45 days prior to the election.
Â
She loses me with the "didn't mean to draw attention" comment when her yard is full of politcal signs and then inviting KATU over when she doesn't get her way. Taking the litigation route is over the top, down right unneighborly and shows a wee bit of a whiny Liberal point of view, don't you think?
Â
Although she might have the law on her side, she signed the same HOA agreement as every other Mt Vista resident. Apparently she wasn't paying attention or just doesn't care. This also seems a bit like a Liberal "victim" mentality.
Â
The elephant in the room is that the other 400+ residents of Mt Vista think enough of their community to not force feed their opinions on others through litigation. And they manage to avoid making their front yard look like a late October intersection - in June!
Â
Gotta go out now and put up my Christmas lights and Festivus pole. Heck, I might even start working on that old junk car in my front yard. It's OK, it has a "Bush - Cheney 2004"Â window sticker prominently displayed so it really won't bother anybody. It's my right, you know.
Â
@ADigbySellers  Picking and choosing which laws you want to abide with and those that you don't is a "LIberal victim mentality." I'd have a hard time counting the number of people who break the laws on the freeway and who have Bush and Romney bumper stickers. Are they Liberal victims as well?
 @ADigbySellers Wow Digby, I think I hear some bitterness hear. Let me help to clear up a few things:
Â
The homeowner did nothing wrong legally or within the terms of the HOA to which she belongs and signed onto.
Â
The HOA learned very quickly that they were wrong and had to comply with the law and back down.
Â
No, you cannot put a junk car in your front lawn within city limits, HOA or no HOA.
Â
Christmas lights and Festivus Pole; you will have to check the HOA terms that you signed onto when you bought your house. No HOA? Well, your neighbor is free to decorate all he wants, anytime he wants and there is nothing you can do about it. In that case, I hope you enjoy your "freedom".
 @ADigbySellers Dude, there is nothing liberal about victim mentality.  Conservatives whine all the time same as liberals.  This is a case in point.  Americans like to play the victim card.  I'm about to start whining.  You are victimizing me.
 @ADigbySellers wait, wait. You concede that her position is legal, but SHE is the one trying to force her opinion on others? At what point in this country of ours did standing up for your legal rights become forcing your opinion on others?
Â
If you don't like the law, there are provisions for changing them. But since the courts probably won't help the HOA enforce the rule, I wonder what you think appropriate action for the HOA would be that wouldn't qualify as them trying to force their opinion on her?
Â
What it boils down to is this: if the other 400+ residents want to abide by the rule, then fine. Nothing says they HAVE to have signs in their yard. But nothing in the law says she can't- in fact,the law specifically allows her to, if she chooses. It is HER choice. I don't see anyone forceing anything on anyone in that scenario. Everyone gets to do what they CHOOSE to do, and nobody's opinions are forced on anyone.
Fair enough regarding the law but don't think for a minute that she is doing this for any noble cause. Who do you think notified KATU? It is a calculated political maneuver by someone to put the spotlight on her and KATU got played.
Â
Look her up online. She has political ambitions so don't be surprised when she runs for a position using this story as fodder to illustrate her struggle in "preserving rights for all of us".
Â
As a Mt Vista resident I also CHOOSE to be annoyed by her litigious nature (her right), her flippin' ugly yard (also her right) but support her consideration of moving elsewhere.
Ha! You own these facist morons!
 @ADigbySellers It doesn't have to be a for a noble cause, it is her rights and that alone is enough reason to stand up for it.
Â
The litmus test is if you support her staying right where she is.  It's her property, andshe's acting legally.  Maybe all the other residents of the HOA that don't like it, should be the ones moving somewhere where the HOA can enforce it.  Like Iran or Pakistan.  No pesky constitutions to get in the way of the HOA :)
@ADigbySellers .......good comments
 @Rob C  @ADigbySellers Likewise to you! I'm surprised by the "HOA=Nazi" mentality here but this is Portland after all....
 @ADigbySellers NAZIS were Socialists after all who wanted to control the masses.
Bottom line is this...if HOA rules on deed restrictions goes against the constitution it's not legal...I don't care if it's in the deed restrictions if it's against the constitution it can't be enforced....case in point my HOA says I can't lock my gate but I do...under the constitution I have the right to protect my property...if they want to pay for anything that happens to my property and to compensate me for my losses then I'll take it off....bottom line is they won't ,so let's go to court if need be if you are going to take away my constitutional rights.
I am amazed at the comments here. Having been the past board member and president of our 250+ home HOA I can understand peoples feelings but simply put; she is right and is following all the rules, the HOA is wrong and needs to change their rules to reflect state law or risk a law suit that they will lose. State law always trumps HOA by-laws and rules. End of story.
Where they are both right is being cordial and civil to one another which is more than I can say for most of the commentators here.
Tough room.
 @Billj3cub Another good post.  Glad to see someone else understand the issue, instead of letting emotions color how they think it *should* go.
@brendan ......let me get this straight: if someone agrees with your opinion then they "understand the issue". If someone doesn't agree with you then they don't or can't? WOW !
No, you did not get it straight. The law is on her side; she is right regardless of what Rob, Brendan or Bill think. The HOA is wrong and know it (at least now they do). HOAs have limits, thank God, and this is one of them.
Yes I "understand the issue" because I HAD to. That was my job as a HOA board member and president. In the end, my opinion did not matter, I had to follow the law and the law was very clear for me then as it is in this case now. The tricky part was to find as amicable a solution as possible within the balance of power of the HOA and the individual's rights. It appears to me that the homeowner and the board are doing a good job at being "amicable", and a tough job it is. I applaud them.
I have to agree with the neighbor-Â It's way to early to put up with these fanatics and their signs.
 @Clay Law says it's never too early.  Law wins.
This comment has been deleted
 @archangels007 Some people may be in favor of HOA's but oftentimes it's due to what is financially available that fits ones needs to buy into a mini-government type HOA. Just because you move in doesn't mean for a minute as you arrogantly would suggest that it leads to people being lemmings. The fact remains, more developments are being 'forced' to create an HOA to even exist and therefore buyers must comply. If society didn't have such restrictive growth management and UN Agenda 21 ideology pushing us into smaller living arrangements then perhaps we could have the freedom to live where we want.
Â
When you get off your high horse of ignorance, then perhaps you can understand the real world.
Wow, don't call the cops if you need them. That would be like surrendering your freedom and having someone do the dirty work for you. Oh wait, you accept govermental organizations but not associations that have rules. How convenient!
Â
No fines for THOSE measurements in Mt Vista although there are a few little pink houses that are just not the right shade of pink. We have our big guns working on that.
Â
It's called an association and we share a common interest  - maintaining our neighborhood and protecting property values. We are protecting ourselves from any non-lemming human debris moving in and trashing the place. Or residents having lemmings that bark all night. You wouldn't want that to happen to you, would you? The association acts on your behalf if you should find yourself facing this unpleasantness. And they do barbeques...
Â
The only thing I am afraid of giving up and saying "whatever" to where and how I live. So i joined an association of others that feel the same way as I do.
Â
I always say "live and let live" untill someone starts costing me money by their behaviour or if I just don't like them for any reason.
@archangels007 ?.........thank you for your holier than thou diatribe and name calling because people may have a different opinion then you. You must be very very special.
This comment has been deleted
@archangels007 .....but you can!!! You're sure pretty full of yourself. Ya might want to think about dialing back that ego.
If her signs were for candidates from the left, you wouldn't have heard a "peep" from anyone.
 @Billy Batts You know, oddly enough I never even noticed what signs they were for -- because to me, it was immaterial who she was promoting.  But I'm sure it affects a lot of *other* people's opinions, sadly.
HOA are a great idea - in theory. However, you end up in power-plays, personal agendas, and favoritism that all come into play once they've been in effect for any extent of time. I'm so grateful to live in a neighborhood without a HOA, and all the neighbors are kind and clean and take care of their properties without being TOLD to do so by a HOA. Â
Â
 @Justanother1 Wait, without an HOA, you're not living in a 3rd world ghetto?  GASP! To hear everyone here tell it, you probably have hundreds of old junkers overgrown with grass, shopping carts abandoned at every driveway, roflmao.
@brendan @Justanother1 If you (or she) doesnt want to live in an HOA controlled community, then dont buy there. I am not a fan of HOA's but when I got ready to buy the home I am in, it was in an HOA community. I read the entire HOA bylaws BEFORE I signed up to buy it. My realtor said I am the first person to do so.
@scared_citizen Your not the first, but one of the few. I read mine also, so did my mom when when she moved into that area in 1981.
I don't like some of the rules of my HOA, but I signed the papers and will abide. Lisa is selfish, inconsiderate and has a sense of entitlement. Evidently she is much more important than her neighbors.
 @Phoenixx And evidently her neighbors are above the law.
The law, however, is actually on Schmidt's side. State Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, met with Schmidt Friday. He helped pass the Washington law that allows people to display political signs on their property anytime during an election year. That includes signs in HOA neighborhoods.
Â
End of issue.
Â
Change the law if you don't like it, Benton did.
@brendan If she couldnt abide by the HOA rules, why did she sign the agreement to do so? Is it because she didnt read them first? Doesn't that make he culpable?
 @scared_citizen  She is not because stopping political views/expression on one's own property is "unconscionable", and makes any agreement null and void.  I hope they have a severance clause in there, or they're screwed.