Sometimes the problem isn’t that we are “overlawyered” but rather that we are “overregulated” —
Cromwell [Connecticut] can be a hostile environment for those looking to break into night crawler vending — particularly if they advertise with a yard sign.
A worm business that Joe [Cadieux] has operated since he was 10 was shut down two weeks ago when Cromwell’s planning and zoning commission issued a cease-and-desist order because the teenager’s sign violated local zoning regulations.
“It’s ridiculous,” said the middle school student, who made $5 to $10 a month selling worms collected from his front yard, where they are plentiful after spring rainstorms.
So on the one hand we have a disgraceful new federal law guaranteeing a homeowner’s “right” to display an American flag on his property, despite any pre-existing homeowner association rules to the contrary (i.e., abridging the ability of private parties to enter into private contracts — which is what homeowner associations are), yet we cannot seem to find a right for a kid to do what kids do in their front yards.
Lovely.
Would the quality of life of Cromwell plunge precipitously if a “de minimis” exception were crafted for small signs by minors on their own property? Are the local politicians of Cromwell so busy with the rest of their packed agenda that they can’t revise the guidelines of their planning and zoning commission so that its members stop being worms petty jerks?
And can someone explain to me why judges are supposed to “defer” to politicians and bureaucrats like these?
6 Comments
Since the Feds long ago overrode the very same Homeowner Association rules to allow satellite TV dishes, may we assume that TV ranks ahead of the flag?
Seriously, where was all this righteous indignation when the TV dishes were mandated? Is it that your anti US bias surfaces when the issue is the United Sates flag?
[Kip replies: Anti-U.S. bias?]
My suggestion to young Joe is this:
Put up a sign twice as big that says “Free nightcrawlers — and if you agree that the Planning Commission stinks, make a donation to my political campaign.”
What strikes me as absurd is the lame attempt to distinguish Joe’s “business” from the lemonade stand.
I predict a reversal of fortune in this tale.
Kip, I think the “anti-US bias” comment stems from your description of the new federal law guaranteeing a right to display a US flag. To the average person, the law sounds perfectly OK, and by your calling it “disgraceful”, you sound anti-American. If you expound on why you feel it’s disgraceful, that might help clarify.
I always thought that believing in property rights and the freedom of private parties to enter into private contracts was part and parcel of being “pro-U.S.”
Silly me.
Kip, I agree, but then it follows that the law with regard to satellite dishes, is equally ‘disgraceful.’ You didn’t mention the dish law, and thus the accusation of anti-US bias. You’re a lawyer, so people expect you to do a little research into precedents before calling a law disgraceful (which it is.)
[Kip replies: This is a casual blawg post. It is neither an appellate brief nor a law review article. And the flag-on-lawns law is very current news.
I think your expectations are a bit unreasonable.]
Home Owners Associations should have procedures to amend the restrictions. Deed restrictions without accompanying associations which are very common are impossible to amend without considerable expense so property owners have asked the Feds to intervene to allow flying the US flag. This is no different than many issues that are truly local where the Feds have taken action because it is easier to lobby the Feds than thousands of state and local governments.