[Maker]

[QUOTE=Bill14564;2475763]What are the many deed restrictions which violate the 1st amendment? .../QUOTE]

Here is one example...

SCOTUS Reed vs Town of Gilbert AZ ruled that signs (and all equivalents) are rights protected by the First Amendment for freedom of speech.

Nothing can permanently take that right away. If someone gives up a constitutionally protected right - such as signing a deed restriction - that person can reclaim that right anytime they want. That's all previously established constitutional law.

The deed restriction against signs is therefore unconstitutional, and totally invalid.

If you put up a yard sale sign, and someone enters your land and removes that sign, the theft of your property means they have committed a crime.
If ARC sends you a violation, they are violating the law and guilty of attempting to infringe on a constitutional right.

Some wonder what's the big deal? Why should CDD or ARC trample on your constitutional rights?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Maker

Here is one example...

SCOTUS Reed vs Town of Gilbert AZ ruled that signs (and all equivalents) are rights protected by the First Amendment for freedom of speech.

Nothing can permanently take that right away. If someone gives up a constitutionally protected right - such as signing a deed restriction - that person can reclaim that right anytime they want. That's all previously established constitutional law.

The deed restriction against signs is therefore unconstitutional, and totally invalid.

If you put up a yard sale sign, and someone enters your land and removes that sign, the theft of your property means they have committed a crime.
If ARC sends you a violation, they are violating the law and guilty of attempting to infringe on a constitutional right.

Some wonder what's the big deal? Why should CDD or ARC trample on your constitutional rights?

The Reed decision was based on different rules for different signs. We don't have that, we have no signs of any type.

The Reed decision considered restrictions imposed by a municipality. We don't have that, we have an agreement/contract signed before purchasing.

The Reed decision dealt with signs. We have a restriction about signs but that isn't what CDD8 was dealing with, they were dealing with a lawn ornament.

The Reed decisions says nothing about being able to renege on an agreement/contract to "reclaim" a right.

You wrote that there are many deed restrictions that violate the 1st amendment. You haven't shown that the restriction against lawn ornaments does and you haven't mentioned any others.

Neither the CDD nor the ARC are trampling on our constitutional rights. We have a right to enter into agreements and we did that when we purchased the home with the knowledge of the deed restrictions. We have a right to expect that agreement to be honored by both sides: the CDD, with authority granted by the Developer, is honoring it's side of the agreement, we must honor our side as well.

[Maker]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The Reed decision was based on different rules for different signs. We don't have that, we have no signs of any type.

The Reed decision considered restrictions imposed by a municipality. We don't have that, we have an agreement/contract signed before purchasing.

The Reed decision dealt with signs. We have a restriction about signs but that isn't what CDD8 was dealing with, they were dealing with a lawn ornament.

The Reed decisions says nothing about being able to renege on an agreement/contract to "reclaim" a right.

You wrote that there are many deed restrictions that violate the 1st amendment. You haven't shown that the restriction against lawn ornaments does and you haven't mentioned any others.

Neither the CDD nor the ARC are trampling on our constitutional rights. We have a right to enter into agreements and we did that when we purchased the home with the knowledge of the deed restrictions. We have a right to expect that agreement to be honored by both sides: the CDD, with authority granted by the Developer, is honoring it's side of the agreement, we must honor our side as well.

Reed decision uses the word "sign". That means more than just a bunch of words on cardboard. It also includes non-written signs, such as symbols such as arrows, 8 sided red signs (stop), all sorts of road signs, business emblems such as the the yellow "M" for McD.
Signs include anything that conveys a message, words or no words. If you are a NY Yankees fan and put up a Yankees plaque, it is a sign covered by Reed. A cross is even more undebatably a sign too because it conveys a clear message. Reed does not distinguish between all types of signs. The common confusion arises when people think the definition of a sign is only words on a cardboard. Pictures, symbols, arrows, shapes, that convey a message of any sort, are signs under their definition. Lawn ornaments fall within that definition.

One very key element is prohibiting taking the content of a sign into consideration. The justices said there cannot be rules based upon the content of a sign. Therefore a cross is equal to a snowman. Both convey a message, albeit one may be more obvious than the other, but that doesn't matter.

Reed also covered other aspects of signs. No limits on quantity. No arbitrary size limits. No restrictions of any sort on content. No location restrictions.
They did agree that signs which cause a safety issue can be limited - their example was a sign blocking vehicle view of an upcoming traffic control device.
They also said rules regarding good construction practices are ok for overall safety, as long as they apply across the board equally. Such as electrical wiring, mechanical stability, etc.