Homeowner Told To Take Down Nativity From Lawn

[Bonnie]

Showdown Over Nativity Display: Homeowner Refuses to Take Down Display Despite Threat of Fines
Tue, Nov 29, 2005
http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=381

ANN ARBOR, MI. – Since moving into their new home three years ago, the Samona family of Novi, Michigan, has displayed a Nativity scene on their front lawn during each Christmas season. This year however, the management company of their subdivision sent them a letter demanding that they remove the Nativity scene. If they did not remove the display, the Samonas could be fined up to $100 a week until the display was removed.
Batoul Samona, the homeowner stated, “I have been displaying my nativity outside this house and my previous house for about 25 years without any problem until this year. My family will not remove the nativity from our front lawn under any circumstances.”

Batoul’s 16 year-old son Joseph was equally defiant, “This Nativity display is a family tradition which will not be abolished. My family strongly believes in celebrating the birth of Christ in this way.”

The Samona family contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which agreed to represent the family at no charge. The Law Center has already contacted the management company notifying them that the Center represents the Samonas in this matter.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “The action of the management company in demanding only that the nativity scene be removed when several other objects remained on the lawn is clear evidence that this was an attack on Christmas. We will vigorously defend the constitutional rights of the Samonas to express their religious message on their own property.” Scores of citizens have come to the Samona home to view the display and express their support as news of the showdown became public. One individual even called and offered to pay any fine imposed.

Edward White, trial counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, who was at the Samona home today commented, “We trust the management company will reconsider its decision and allow this family to continue to celebrate Christmas as they see fit on their private property. Their nativity display is beautiful and only adds to the beauty of the neighborhood.”

So who still thinks Christians are over reacting?????

 

[dmp]

So who still thinks Christians are over reacting?????

Nobody...Except those who have accepted with pride the blinders of 'lies'.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This is my old hood, I'll see if I can find out more about this...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/5428531/detail.html#

 

[The ClayTaurus]

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051129-045949-6888r

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/5428531/detail.html#

It's obviously unconstitutional. Where are the guardians of our national laws?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051129/LIFESTYLE04/511290380/1005/LIFESTYLE

Williams would not reveal the identity of the complaining homeowner but read a portion of the complaint: "Although I'm not offended by it, I take issue about advertising personal beliefs and interests by putting them on display whatever the belief or interest may be."

You've got me on board as saying this is bullshit.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

There is an easy solution to this. They submit for approval their display, the neighborhood association, fearful of backlash, approves it, and now they're display is completely legit.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/113005/loc_2005113002.shtml

 

[dilloduck]

There is an easy solution to this. They submit for approval their display, the neighborhood association, fearful of backlash, approves it, and now they're display is completely legit.

Why should they have to ask for permission to do something that is guaranteed to them in the US CONSTITUTION????

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Why should they have to ask for permission to do something that is guaranteed to them in the US CONSTITUTION????

Subdivisions where I'm from have Homeowner rules that you have to abide by. You pay fees to keep common areas maintained and the like, and a set of community standards are drafted and voted upon that anyone who moves into the subdivision must sign to. In my subdivision, for example, fences are not allowed. These kinds of rules are mainly to keep property value high, and continuity within the subdivision (no neon pink painted houses)

We also have rules about how early you can take your trash out, and how long a dumpster can sit in your driveway.

The rule that is being invoked (in a bullshit way) is designed to keep someone from putting 3000 bird fountains and pink flamingo lawn ornaments in their front lawn. The neighborhood wants tasteful landscaping and well-kept lawns, to keep up appearances.

 

[dilloduck]

Subdivisions where I'm from have Homeowner rules that you have to abide by. You pay fees to keep common areas maintained and the like, and a set of community standards are drafted and voted upon that anyone who moves into the subdivision must sign to. In my subdivision, for example, fences are not allowed. These kinds of rules are mainly to keep property value high, and continuity within the subdivision (no neon pink painted houses)

We also have rules about how early you can take your trash out, and how long a dumpster can sit in your drive way.

So---how does that apply to your right to practice your religion?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So---how does that apply to your right to practice your religion?

Be careful, don't lump me in as thinking they need to take their display down.


All I am saying is, their are standards in place to keep up appearances. Tons of plastic displays (independent of meaning or significance) is viewed as tacky by many. In this case, the decorations are temporary and for the holidays... the rule they are invoking is, in my opinion, more aimed at permanent lawn fixtures.

 

[Avatar4321]

Subdivisions where I'm from have Homeowner rules that you have to abide by. You pay fees to keep common areas maintained and the like, and a set of community standards are drafted and voted upon that anyone who moves into the subdivision must sign to. In my subdivision, for example, fences are not allowed. These kinds of rules are mainly to keep property value high, and continuity within the subdivision (no neon pink painted houses)

We also have rules about how early you can take your trash out, and how long a dumpster can sit in your driveway.

The rule that is being invoked (in a bullshit way) is designed to keep someone from putting 3000 bird fountains and pink flamingo lawn ornaments in their front lawn. The neighborhood wants tasteful landscaping and well-kept lawns, to keep up appearances.

If i remember correctly though, they would only be bound by covenants on the property that existed or they should have known existed at the time of purchase.

I highly doubt such a covenant exists in this instance. And if it did I doubt they had any reason to know of it if they have put it up several years in a row without complaint.

Of course I may be remembering the law wrong. or Michigan might have some nuances I don't know about.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

If i remember correctly though, they would only be bound by covenants on the property that existed or they should have known existed at the time of purchase.

I highly doubt such a covenant exists in this instance. And if it did I doubt they had any reason to know of it if they have put it up several years in a row without complaint.

Of course I may be remembering the law wrong. or Michigan might have some nuances I don't know about.

As I said, in this case, these rules are being improperly used by some idiot.

But, in neighborhoods such as these, you don't have the right to put whatever you want up in your yard. When you move in, you sign to these neighborhood association rules. You might not look at them through all the other paperwork you're signing, but you do sign them. They also serve to prohibit door to door solicitation and other such community improvement things.

The rules are designed to keep the appearance of the neighborhood at a high level... in this case, they are being bastardized to promote someone's whacked worldview (or they were, until the subdivision retracted their threat).

 

[dilloduck]

If i remember correctly though, they would only be bound by covenants on the property that existed or they should have known existed at the time of purchase.

I highly doubt such a covenant exists in this instance. And if it did I doubt they had any reason to know of it if they have put it up several years in a row without complaint.

Of course I may be remembering the law wrong. or Michigan might have some nuances I don't know about.

Even IF there is a covenant, it is very blatantly unconstitutional if any judge worth a damn rules on it.

 

[GotZoom]

I am a member of the Architectural Review Committee for my HOA. Our rules state that anything that the homeowner wants to do to "change" the appearance of their property, either permanently or temporarily, i.e., paint, landscaping, pool, deck, patio, fence, storage shed, removing trees, etc., must be approved by the ARC.

We don't enforce this for people who put up yard displays for holidays. We have had giant blow up snowmen, Santas, hearts (valentines day), scarecrows and ghosts - the list goes on and on.

Now, if someone did complain to us, we would simply tell the homeowner to write a quick letter, date is before the things went up in the yard, we would stamp approved, and say that we were notified before the things were put in the yard.

I am suspecting that the previous years, no one complained about what the family put in the yard. This year they did.

The HOA obviously doesn't have the cojones to tell the "complaintant" to stuff it.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Even IF there is a covenant, it is very blatantly unconstitutional if any judge worth a damn rules on it.

If you move into one of these subdivisions, you can't just put anything you want up on your own property and then claim constitutional authority for it. It's the main reason many people have moved further away from Detroit to escape these kinds of neighborhoods.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The community association said that a neighbor had complained specifically about the nativity scene, on the grounds that people should not advertise their beliefs in their front yards.

Another complaint from another twisted and mean-spirited lost soul....
these are the kinds of people who make up the Left.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I am a member of the Architectural Review Committee for my HOA. Our rules state that anything that the homeowner wants to do to "change" the appearance of their property, either permanently or temporarily, i.e., paint, landscaping, pool, deck, patio, fence, storage shed, removing trees, etc., must be approved by the ARC.

We don't enforce this for people who put up yard displays for holidays. We have had giant blow up snowmen, Santas, hearts (valentines day), scarecrows and ghosts - the list goes on and on.

Now, if someone did complain to us, we would simply tell the homeowner to write a quick letter, date is before the things went up in the yard, we would stamp approved, and say that we were notified before the things were put in the yard.

I am suspecting that the previous years, no one complained about what the family put in the yard. This year they did.

The HOA obviously doesn't have the cojones to tell the "complaintant" to stuff it.

We also have no idea what other neighborhood politics are in play here. This family may (or may not) have pissed off people in another way, and as revenge they screwed up trying to get them to take down their display. There is always more to the story than what makes the newspaper... I can tell you all day long about the politics of living in a subdivision with these rules and how everyone uses them against the neighbors they don't like.