Last week I got a letter in the mail. Basically, someone probably complained to my homeowner's association, and they complained to me, because our HOA agreement prohibits "signs or advertising devices of any character," with a few exceptions (none of which includes political signs).
I have four normal yard signs up in my yard, for Doug Roulstone, and Mike McGavick, and my state reps, Dan Kristiansen, and Kirk Pearson.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the relevant Washington State law.
RCW 64.38.034
Political yard signs -- Governing documents.(1) The governing documents may not prohibit the outdoor display of political yard signs by an owner or resident on the owner's or resident's property before any primary or general election. The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs.
(2) This section applies retroactively to any governing documents in effect on July 24, 2005. Any provision in a governing document in effect on July 24, 2005, that is inconsistent with this section is void and unenforceable.
I won't be taking my signs down. Please pass this message on to anyone who might have yard signs up, and lives in an HOA. Washington State law protects our right to do it.
You may disagree with the state law, believing HOAs should be able to prohibit political yard signs. It's a private contract, and so on. But that doesn't change the fact that it is state law.
Update I should note, for the extra-curious, this became law with the passage of SB 6064 in 2005.
Posted by pudge at October 12, 2006
10:38 AM | Email This
We live in a lake community now with a community club, but no HOA, and it works just fine. I find the people friendlier too.
Posted by: Palouse on October 12, 2006 11:28 AMI just printed out the entire RCW chapter 64.38 and gave it to my CC&R committee.
We have never allowed these signs in the community before. I believe because we are a private community we are exempt from this, however, I have forwarded this to the attorney for verification that I am correct. As soon as I have an answer I will contact you by email. Thanks.
At least they were nice, but I cant wait to hear what their attorney says about this.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on October 12, 2006 03:37 PMI happened to come across Mike Riley District 47 Senate candidate putting up signs on my way home. I stopped to find out if they had any McGavick or Reichert signs (they didn't... they were kindly repairing the ones that had been knocked down) but got to meet Mike and get a great big 4x6' Riley sign which I promptly and prominently displayed IN MY YARD as soon as I got home!
Posted by: Cheryl on October 12, 2006 04:22 PMRCW 64.38.034
Political yard signs -- Governing documents.
(The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 12, 2006 04:26 PMHowever, by my reading, the CC&Rs themselves must be explicit. They would have to add an explicit size or quantity restriction to the rules. So if there's no such restriction now, they can't tell you the sign is too big. They'd have to add it to the rules first.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, but I think they'd be hard-pressed to come up with an alternative interpretation of the law.
He then said I was prohibited by covenants from political signs. I replied that I have the RCW that says otherwise.
He informed me that our covenants are not covered by that RCW because they was written prior to the RCW. I replied that the RCW made provision for that and he was wrong.
He told me he was 'turning over to the board'. I said that was fine.
This is not only WA state law, this is a free speech issue.
However, my only consideration is that I would not want to taint candidate Riley by taking this fight to the "next level" (the press)
My son who is awaiting his Bar exam results from a different western state (and who absolutely despises this state because of the Seattle 'mindset') suggested I get a poster board, print the RCW on it and mount it next to the political sign.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 12, 2006 07:06 PMFurther note: worst case (in my case anyway) they cannot begin to take action against me until 30 days, and I got the first notice just over 30 days from the election. By the time they would be "allowed" to (illegally) fine me (37 days) the election will be over.
However I dug up our CCR's (1988) and it says:
"No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot except entry signs identifying the neighborhood, one professional sign of not more than one square foot, one sign of not more than five (5) square feet advertising the property for sale or rent, and signs used for the Declarant or bulider of a residence on the Lot to advertize and identify the property during the period of construction and sale of the first improvements on a Lot."
The supplemental handbook (2004) addresses it thusly:
"No sign of any kind shall be displayed on any Lot except:
* entry signs identifying the neighborhood.
* one professional sign of not more than one square foot.
* one sign of not more than five (5) square feet advertising the property for sale or rent.
* one sign of not more than five (5) square feet identifying a contractor (e.g painter) may be placed on the Lot during the period of work.
The Board reserves the right to allow certain other signs upon request. Examples:
* Discretely displayed security/alarm signs
* Briefly (not greater than one week) posted signs or banners announcing special events (e.g births, birthdays)."
Ironically, the original CCR's were drawn up by the same attorney that subsequently represented us in an employment case... we were totally unaware of his involvement with the builder/HOA at the time he represented us.
Further, saying you can have only one sign, when there's lots of races you may want to have signs for, is likely not a "reasonable" rule, as it would probably be considered a de facto prohibition, which the law makes illegal.
But that is the point: what IS "reasonable?"
Since our particular covenants DO prohibit political sings under the guise of prohibiting ALL signs (with specific noted exceptions), and therefore, by that definition of prohibition cannot have nor does have "reasonable rules and regulations" in place regarding them, the HO gestapo has no voice within the current restraints of the law.
They either need to amend the covenants with specific rules FOR political signs or just back off.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 12, 2006 11:27 PMI find it interesting that HOA's can actually be immune, or supercede RCW's. How wide is this "power"?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 13, 2006 07:57 AMUnfortunately, in my "neighborhood", there is a law that supersedes CC&R's and RCW's - the law of physics: 5 (yards signs) divided by 1 (2000 pound automobile) equals 1 (mess that I have to clean up).
Fortunately all they destroyed were the signs and not my property. The lingering question is - which one of my "neighbors" did it?
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 14, 2006 09:29 AM7. Solicitors – No soliciting shall be permitted within Clearwood. The preceding sentence shall be interpreted and applied as follows:
a. To prohibit all commercial soliciting (by members or non-members) seeking to promote sale of commercial products or services.
b. To prohibit soliciting by non-members within Clearwood for donations or sales of items on behalf of any non-profit charitable, religious, community welfare or similar organizations.
c. To not prohibit soliciting of donations or the sale of items by members on behalf of non-profit charitable, religious, or limited to Heart Fund, Cancer Fund and recognized fund raising activities by groups such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Lions, Kiwanis, or the local volunteer fire department.
They claim that the first sentence that says no soliciting is allowed covers it, but correct me if I am wrong does it not go on to say that the following sentences define solicitation. If so I do not see how they can bar it, because we were not selling anything for monetary value and we asked for no donations. I have asked my state rep if there are any rules regarding campaign literature in regards to HOA. DOes anyone know if there are? For the time being we have stopped our door drops in the community.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on October 16, 2006 11:26 AMAs to solicitation, there's nothing in there that prohibits what you are doing. It's not commercial soliciting, and you are not a non-member, so it is not prohibited. You are abosolutely correct that the first sentence is interpreted according to what follows it. Period, end of story.
Also, their rules on solicitation are not enforceable against non-members anyway, unless there's a private road involved that they can prohibit access to, or something.
Also, I don't know if it would be legal to prohibit solicitation in the community by anyone, member or not (again, unless they can prohibit access to the roadways). But the main point is that they do NOT prohibit the solicitation you are doing.
Though again, IANAL. :-) But it sure sounds like they are making up the rules as they go along, and that's breaking the law.
Here's our response:
October 16, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
We respectfully suggest the board keep abreast of current law before attempting to intimidate homeowners and residents with void and unenforceable CCR's.
As you will find in the enclosed documents, Washington State enacted legislation signed into law by the Governor in April 2005 that specifically addresses Homeowners Associations. RCW 64.38.034 very specifically addresses political yard signs:
"(1) The governing documents may not prohibit the outdoor display of political yard signs by an owner or resident on the owner's or resident's property before any primary or general election. The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs."
Furthermore, part 2 very specifically states that:
"(2) This section applies retroactively to any governing documents in effect on July 24, 2005. Any provision in a governing document in effect on July 24, 2005, that is inconsistent with this section is void and unenforceable."
Homeowners associations, no matter how strident their board members, cannot be immune to the RCW's, nor can they supercede them.
In as much as ******** governing documents are dated 1988 and therefore were in effect July 24, 2005 and in as much as you have specified by notice that they, the CCR's, do indeed prohibit yard signs, that part of the document has become void under this law and, as the law specifically states "unenforceable".
We believe it is incumbent upon you, the board members to update the CCR's to be in accordance with current law and further, to advise all residents of their full right within the law to exercise their political voices.
As long as this Washington law remains in effect, we will exercise our political voice with the use of yard signs. We respectfully, and within the confines of the law, refuse to remove them.
Still no response from my HOA. They may be checking with legal counsel before responding.
I hope they respond eventually. No response at all would be rude.
Posted by: pudge on October 16, 2006 04:03 PM