| HOME | TODAY'S ANTHEM VIEW |
| Campaign Signs Restricted in Sun City Elections |
TO LEAVE A COMMENT, CLICK HERE
Board Delivers Blow to Personal Property Rights, Saying "NO" to Some Political Signs more dirty tricks or good governance
In an incredible display of partisan politics, Mike Dixon led the Board’s majority in a vote on 27 March to deny the right of homeowners to display more than one campaign sign on their property. Were that insult and assault on personal liberty and property rights not enough, the Board’s action also conflicts with state law on the placement of political signs on personal property, as confirmed by Association attorney John Leach. To make matters even worse, Election Committee Chairman Lorraine Kennett, in a statement delivered to the Board, said she had already advised candidates that multiple sign posting was permitted under current election guidelines. Candidate campaign funds for signs had already been spent. In their defense, the Board cited an ARC rule for Design Guidelines that restricts the number of signs to one. Was the Board’s action legal? Unlikely, on the basis of an apparent conflict with state law. Will the Board relent? Not voluntarily in time for this election cycle. After all, the election of Board-supported candidates is at stake. So what’s really going on here? It so happened that the Unity candidates produced a single sign with the names of all three candidates plainly displayed, which will be allowed under the Board's decision. On the other hand homeowners supporting candidates running against the Board-supported Unity candidates are unable to display signs for the two or three candidates they are supporting. What does NRS 116 on Common Interest Ownership say on this issue? NRS 116.325 provides that an owner may exhibit a political sign on their property which the owner has a right to occupy. Does NRS limit the number of signs an owner may exhibit on his or her property in expressing support for or opposition to a candidate? No. NRS merely provides an unfettered right of a property owner to exhibit a sign. Has the Association’s legal counsel provided a legal opinion concerning the application of NRS 116.325 to Sun City Anthem’s election? That is my understanding. John Leach advised that NRS is silent on the number of signs a homeowner may exhibit on their property. What does that mean? It means that “a sign” does not restrict the homeowner to exhibiting only one sign. [See NRS 116.325 below.] May the Board or governing documents of the association restrict the right of a homeowner to exhibit a political sign? As I read NRS 116.325(2), the Board and documents may not restrict the “exhibition of political signs [under the provisions of NRS 116.325 and] other than those established by other provisions of law.” How is the exhibition of campaign signs treated under Sun City’s Design Guidelines? Interestingly, Sun City’s Design Guidelines are quite specific on the number of campaign signs a homeowners may exhibit. The Guidelines state as follows: “only one sign per residence shall be allowed.” [See the Signage section of Design Guidelines below.] Does that particular Guideline highlighted above have the appearance of conflicting with our understanding of state law on the exhibition of political signs as contained in NRS 116.325? A plain reading of NRS 116.325 would suggest that that particular guideline restricting the number of signs a homeowner is allowed to exhibit is in conflict with state law. A guideline does not have the same force of law that NRS does. Furthermore, based on the advice rendered by Association legal counsel John Leach, NRS does not place a limit on the number of signs a homeowner may exhibit on his or her property. Does that mean that candidates and homeowners can in good faith rely on the advice of the Association’s legal counsel, thereby ignoring the vote taken by a majority of the Board that relied instead on the more restricting and conflicting language contained in the Design Guidelines? Or, said differently, was the Board’s 27 March rush to vote a politically motivated attempt in support of certain Unity candidates and against other candidates rather than based on common sense and good governance? Stay tuned for another clarifying email from President Mike Dixon on setting the record straight, or will he choose sit this one out.
Ron Johnson, 28 March 2008 ADDENDUM Mike Dixon's penchant for . . . . . was reiterated in this unsigned all receipient email reminder on campaign signs that was sent out by RMI on 2 April: "Now that the ballots have been mailed to each home in SCA, many residents are getting involved by putting up signs for their chosen candidates. All homeowners are reminded to follow the regulations in the Sun City Anthem CC&R's addendum, Design Guidelines. page 17, #6, which allows only one sign per yard, no higher than 4 feet and no larger than 3 sq feet. In respect for Association regulations and all neighbors, homeowners are kindly asked to remove all but one sign in their yards. FYI, guidelines require that these signs be taken down by Friday, May 2, at 4:00 pm. Your cooperation and understanding are appreciated." _______________________________________________________ NRS 116.325 Right of units’ owners to exhibit political signs in certain areas; conditions and limitations on exercise of right.
Part III, ARCHITECTURAL AND IMPROVEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS Section L. Signage 6. Campaign or Proclamation Signs-Local, State and Federal Elections:
|