HOA rules go a bit far, this is a perfect example. The painting on the drive way is not only pretty, it is a religious symbol that the owner has a right to display. This absurd rule is similar to banning Christmas Lights, or forbidding anyone to display their religious choice. I say let the design stay.

Posted by battat_1 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CAI had also warned the NJ Appellate Court about "the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members."

Did homeonwers agree to this surrender of their rights? Explicitly, freely and with full understanding as required for a surrender of your rights?

Posted by george (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is why I made sure there was no HOA in my neighborhood when I bought my house. I didn't want someone else telling me what color I could paint my house, what decorations I could display for holidays, what materials I could use to improve my house, whether or not I could work on my own car in my own driveway, what breeds of dogs I could keep as pets, how many people I could invite to a party, how many bumper stickers I could have on my car or what messages they could or could not convey, what kinds of flowers I could plant, what kind of grass my lawn could be, or whether or not I could grow vegetables. I have heard of HOA's making a stink over all these issues.
In my faith, bells not only make pretty music, they dispel negative energy - I have wind chimes hanging from several locations along the eaves. Sage, in addition to it's lovely aroma, is a spiritual purifying agent, and I have sage bundles fastened to the outside of every door of my house. I didn't want anyone telling me that I couldn't put up chimes and sage.
It's MY money that is sent to the bank every month to pay for MY house, and as long as I'm the one paying the note, I should be able to do as I please with MY house, as long as no one else is harmed in the process.

Posted by lepidopteryx (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This guy is a REALTOR he should know how HOA's work. He should have known and expected that they would have had a problem with this.

Posted by larry.drakeford (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does this mean my kids have to redraw the 4 squares boxes every time they want to play on the drive way?

Nevermind, the HOA not enforcing the major violations like a house that removed their fencing that was part of the house. Or the Deck that was built without filling the HOA forms and informing their neighbors.

Posted by katliu1 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i think the home owners association should take a chill pill its no different than any other religous symbols that other americans put up during the holidays. we also know the gestapo will win as always

Posted by beenthe424 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Its HIS driveway. Its not like he painted it on the street. His immediate neighbors, the ones who see it on a daily basis, dont mind. I think most things HOAs do are BS and add no value to the community. What value does fining, harrasing, and causing this much wasted time to a family expressing their religious right add?
I do own a home in South Riding and I side with the homeowner on this manner. No more christmas lights, wreaths, or other items should stay up if this man is told to take his religious symbol down.

Posted by brianmb62 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with the earlier comment that tasteful religious exhibits, such as this as well as Christmas and Hanukah displays, should be permitted for a period of time corresponding to the religious event. That does not mean that they should remain indefinitely.
This Hindu art on the driveway, while attractive in its design, is visually impactful and should not remain for an extended period on black driveway asphalt.

Posted by JohnRice (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For less than the $900 they now owe to the HOA, they could've had a permanent but REMOVABLE design created that they could put down for their special events and pick up after their event was completed.

There.. religious freedom protected and HOA integrity maintained.

Posted by AJohn1 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I needs to moved, like someone noted maybe inside his garage. If a Jewish person drew the Star of David on his driveway by his religious Muslim neighbor would it be allowed. Hello no, and you all know it. HOA's like unions have pros and cons, it all depends on the practicalility of those running them.

Posted by atlwarhawk (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of all the things the HOA should concern themselves with, the driveway painting would not make any rational person's list. To ask that the paiting be removed is tantamount to banning house and holiday decorations. Our culture and society have evolved sufficiently so as to incorporate such expressions. I am glad to no longer live in the County of Loudoun. Season's Greeting to All. Am I allowed to say that???

Posted by frfxtch (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Somebody know where I can send Mr. Balasubramanian a check? This fine is totally ridiculous.

Posted by mbrach1 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Earlier comments have mysteriously disappeared from the WaPo article...

Why? Does the truth scare someone?

Posted by iThink2 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What next? Confederate flags, team logos, advertising? All around a bad idea -- religious or not

Posted by johnmames (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I appreciate the Ram's boldness in using beauty to challenge the HOA's rules.

I would hope that the spirit of the HOA's rule was to prevent ugliness in the community.

If the spirit of the HOA's rule was instead to demand conformity and prevent individual expression, no matter how well expressed, then the rule definitely deserves to be challenged.

My hat is off to all those brave souls, including Ram, who are willing to question authority.

Posted by markhoyer (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

would the HOA take the same stand if a neighbor strung christmas lights along the gutter?

does the HOA intend to fine parents of children playing hopscotch all summer?

has this community (and all others of its ilk) determined to preserve blandness at all costs? even when ours is a country founded on diversity and the freedoms associated with it...

as an HOA president myself for 7 years, i would never have imagined an outcome like this one. if the guy had gone to the trouble of polling his immediate neighbors with positive results, i can't imagine a ruling like this one. this group sounds like racists to me.

Posted by bevan_w (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The HOA could turn this into a great selling point for the community showcasing religious tolerance and respect amongst its diverse residents (including a thriving Indian Hindu population - who might actualy find a house decorated as such a great buy and an auspicious investment). We have several pretty displays and the neighborhood has been very broadminded and tolerant. Suprisingly the neighborhood kids were greatly impressed and am sure saw things next door that they may see in the Sackler Gallery or read about in a few lines in their social studies curriculum about far way ancient cultures. I hope the HOA is able to see the larger picture here!!

Posted by bloovale (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I noticed the comments disappeared also.

To paraphrase my eairler comment. . . Where America is a melting pot of all religions & beliefs, your right to practice-show your hindu art symbol ENDS, when it is OFFENSIVE to Joe Public.

You KNEW the laws of your homeowners group, when you bought your house. Pay the fine, and take a garden hose & wash they off your driveway, its an eyesore. If you don't like what your homeowners group says about your artwork, its ok. Pack up & LEAVE. This is the USA. Live by our laws & rules. If you can not, or will not, then pack up & go back where you came from, and don't forget to wash your driveway before you leave. Its OFFENSIVE and an eyesore.

Posted by Robbnitafl (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Blasubramanian pay the fine. I am so tired of home buyers that go and buy homes in these types of communities knowing that they have to abide by certain rules as established by an association. You are a realtor and if you wanted to buy a house that you could change and have free will you should have found a home elsewhere. You wanted to live there and you know that any changes to your structure have to be approved ahead of time. Do not feel any empathy to this gentlemen, this is not a case for the ACU. Is this a petty thing for the HOA to deal with, perhaps, but that's why I do not want to and do not choose to live in a development where I have to seek the guidance of HOA "powers that be". This is ridiculous and the HOA has a perfect right to make these silly rules. If you do not like it then there are millions of other areas to live that will allow you the freedom to paint your hindu symbol...find one.

Posted by kirk2trek (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not sure comments like "pack up & go back where you came from" are relevant here. I do not know if the person profiled in this story is or is not an American citizen, but that is not even relevant. Should they move if they cannot follow HOA rules...YES. But the same would be true whether it was a citizen natural born or not. This is a simple story of a family who wants to flaunt thier religious freedom outside the rules of the HOA. You want to paint your driveway then ask permission from the HOA, don't want to have to ask permissions then live elsewhere sir.

Posted by kirk2trek (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's wrong with the South Riding HOA, anyway? First they won't let you put up political signs, now they don't let you chalk your driveway? Who would want to live there? Is it really worth it to sit in Rt 50 traffic and listen to jet noise?

Posted by dingus3 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Robbnitafil: Your existence is offensive and an eyesore. I demand you leave immediately.

Posted by Heather3 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"HOA rules go a bit far, this is a perfect example. The painting on the drive way is not only pretty, it is a religious symbol that the owner has a right to display. "

Blah, Blah, Blah. Whine, Whine, Whine.

What if it were a "pretty" skull and crossbones with all kind of nice colors of blood and gore? Would that be ok? Probably not.

South Riding used to be a nice neighborhood with nice people until these kind of people moved in. Now....it's not so nice anymore.

Posted by Cobain (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To the last poster (Robbnitafl):
I would suggest that you get with the program.
America is progressing to a celebration of diversity, not the conformity of which you are so rudely in favor.

Posted by markhoyer (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Robbnitafl:

If I find the plastic Santa sleigh on your roof an eyesore, should you have to remove it? If you've planted gardenias in your front yard and I think they're ugly, should you have to uproot them and plant rosebushes instead? If I think the Jesus fish on your car looks goofy, should you have to remove it?

And just FYI, I AM where I came from.

Posted by lepidopteryx (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hate Homeowners Association's. They are for a bunch of busy bodies who have nothing better to do then haress their neighbors.

Posted by Brian_in_VA (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just read the comments by others after sending my opinion. To those that find the HOA's action of restricting things like this to be OK, I suggest you re-read our early American history. Read why those people left their countries to find a 'new world'... uh, in case you don't remember, it was primarily for religous freedom. Small towns were dictating what and how religion was to be expressed. Also, re-read the U.S. Constitution. Based on some of what I read here, the logic would allow HOA's to make a law that says "murder" is OK withn their community, and, if you don't like it, the people should move out. Come on this basic Civics-101. You should know better.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So enforcing colorlessness and blandness is now an explicit community value?

The design is not offensive, nor does it have political overtones that would offend or threaten.

And the neighbors don't care.

Suburban life is supposed to connote freedom, instead, apparently, it only connotes conformity. . . .

Posted by anganarshah (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Countersue the HOA and bankrupt them. HOA's are unconstitutional, regardless of how Virginia treats them. There's few things more unAmerican than HOA members trying to control the color of your blinds, shutters, doors, etc. in your own home.

Posted by VAChristopher (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Reminds me why I carefully selected a house in an old neighborhood, not a new development. We may have antique copper phone lines, occasional hiccups in the water pressure, and other issues that go with areas built up during the 1950s housing boom, but we do not have the arrogant intrusions of homeowner's associations impinging on our rights of property, expression, or worship.

Posted by paulhume (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's amazing how good natured, repectable foreigners land in these prep-neck, white bread communities around DC.

Again, associations, boards, councils, committees etc are for losers.
I'd recomend avoiding them always. Even if it means quitting a job or moving to another country.

Posted by eddiemacs (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rules are Rules. If he does not want to abide by them he should move!

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Courts generally decline to go behind religious rules or traditions but this might be a good exception. You will note that the original religious practice was to create a totem that would naturally wear away with time to be replaced with another short-lived totem on the next big occasion. Here the homeownere defies not only the HOA rules but the religious notion of temperary in the totem.

Posted by DaveMeyer (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Im not the one with the offensive religious symbol painted in/on my driveway for all to see. He KNEW the rules of the H.O.A. before he moved there, yet it was HE who thought the rules did not apply to him. The rules are there for a reason, if he can not, or will NOT support the rules, then him & his family should leave. Its HIM who should get with the program, not I.

Where I live, I can place the plastic Santa Sleigh on my roof, because my home, is NOT part of a H.O.A. I knew that when I bought it & moved in.

And I'm all for diversity, to the point when someones religious freedoms intrude on my rights not to view them in public. Their right for religious freedom, ENDS when its a public display and in this case an eyesore. If you nice folks are supportive of this gentelman, who thinks he is above the H.O.A. rules, where he lives, then pay his fine. Its that simple.

Posted by Robbnitafl (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The question is "Do HOA rules trump the right of religious expression"? If they do then HOA should also be able to ignore any laws pertain to discrimination such as restricting ownership based on ethinicity - read Jim Crow laws.

Posted by Buckystown (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is horrendous. The primary purpose of HOAs is to help maintain property values from irresponsible acts. Their powers can not and should not ever restrict Constitutional freedoms. I’m curious if the South Village HOA is having ALL religious symbols removed from their community; including Nativity scenes, Christian crosses, Santa Clause statutes, Menorah candle lights in the windows, etc…?

We all know the U.S. Bill of Rights prohibits the restricting of certain inalienable rights, including religious freedom. To quote the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The question is; if the US Congress can’t make a law restricting this drawing from being placed on a driveway, under what authority does this HOA feel they can?

Apparently, Mr. Balasubramanian has been receiving phone calls telling him to leave this country and express his religion somewhere else. I’m sure this absurdity doesn’t need much explanation to most of the readers. However, to those who called, you should be ashamed of yourselves in a deep and profound way. To suggest something like that, insults not just this family, but the entire Country.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To all the posting members and to HOA of south riding and particularly to Robbnitafl

<b>My take on this is </b>
HOW different is this from what you do for Christmas lights and decorations for Haloween in front of homes during christmas and haloween

How different ?

Do we have bylaws and polocies in HOA that define type of lights, type of decorations that you can have christmas, I DONT THINK SO
Do we have what scarry figures by TYPE identified by the HOA Rules when you bought your house - I DONT THINK SO

If there is a freedom of expression for Majority relegious event, why not for a MINORITY relegious practice
<b><font size=3>
IF ITS AN EYE SORE CLOSE YOUR GOD DAMN EYES
you dont pay for our driveways, paving or maintaining, our god-damn wallets
do MR Robbnitafl </font>
With some concern and understanding to the diversity we have around us, it would be nice to allow us to express our relegious based expressions - KOLAM is one such
If there is a problem having it year around we have our festival season from Sept/October to december and we should be allowed to display it during such time, It only appears in the morning and the darkness that starts at 430pm you dont even see it

And for those who are asking Ram to pack up and leave i would like to remind one important statistic
One of the the LARGEST Classified Population demographic in SOUTH RIDING is ASIAN INDIANS
so i dont see any reason for ram to pack up and leave, if any the people who have objection should pack up and leave or CLOSE THEIR EYES as i suggested, get some sleep and possibly give this issue a break
Wake up and mature

Posted by sada.rajagopalan (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh my goodness... Some folks need to read the US Constitution. You've got to be kidding? Where does ANY law give an individual the right to veto someone else's Consitutional freedoms because they don't want to 'look at it'? Actually, if you don't like, then "you shouldn't look at it." Do you remember the '60's? How would these same people feel if the local county commission prohibited displaying of any religuous symbols? Those precious Santa Claus's would be gone. Come on, folks need to think beyond themselves. Really, they've got to be smarter than the anti-american comments they're presenting here.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People need to have all the facts.

1. It is not the South Riding HOA. It is South Village. Two different communities.

2. People complaining about "what if you can't put up Christmas lights" are completely wrong. TEMPORARY exhibits are allowed. When it became permanent it became a problem. Trust me, if you leave up your Christmas decorations permanently you will get fined as well. Let's not make this a diversity issue when that isn't the case. All permanent exhibits would be treated in the same manner.

3. The gentleman is a realtor. He should know this would not be allowed. It's beyond common sense to anyone in the real estate community. He knew what he was moving into and decided to it anyway. He voluntarily signed his HOA docs. Plain and simple.

Posted by jrowzie (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am amazed at some of the ignorant and racist remarks posted here. Way to show your true colors people, Im guessing you all voted for McCain? and hate All people different from you? I think Ill send this guy a few hundred dollars in support, just to piss you ignorant idiots off.

Posted by breal18 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You get a copy of the HOA rules before you close on your house, so you have no excuse for violating them. If they have rules you cant live with, you live somewhere else.

Posted by nuke41 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the year 2008, in a diverse metropolitan area like Washington DC, I am virtually flabbergasted by the remarks of Robbnitafl. "our" rules? "pack and up and leave?" So I guess that the poster has never in his/her life strung up Christmas lights, put out a flag (patriotic or simply design), put a bumper sticker on a car or participated in any sort of self-expression. These kind of comments and close-minded individuals continue to tear at the over-riding tolerance that we enjoy in this area. Had the family in question put a sculpture (religious or otherwise), fountain, rooftop spotlight or something that actually affects other people, I agree that the HOA should enforce the rules but how many people can really see this? Though I imagine posters such as Robbnitafl may go out of their way to ensure a Stepford-like uniformity to keep them comfortable in their desired homogeneity.

Posted by enfj_99 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A driveway is not public property. Just because you can see something on someone's private property as you walk past does not necessarily make it a "public display." And whether or not something is an eyesore is a matter of personal aesthetics. Apparently his immediate neighbors DON'T consider it an eyesore - it just doesn't fit within the excessively narrow strictures of the HOA.
I consider the three 60-foot crosses that a local church has erected on its property, and which can be seen from three exits away on the freeway to be an eyesore, but it's their property, and they have the right to erect them there.
So if your non-Christian neighbors considered your plastic sleigh a "public religious display violating their right not to view it" and an eyesore, would you feel compelled to remove it?
One of my neighbors has a shrine on his front lawn with a statue of the young Buddha in it that I consider so beautiful that I make a point of entering the subdivision via that street just to see it as I drive past his house. Just because non-Buddhist neighbors might not like it doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to have it.

Posted by lepidopteryx (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, this is great. Does this mean that I can paint a Pentagram on my driveway without fear of retribution?

Posted by JoStalin (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Your HOA is there for YOUR protection, believe it or not! You guys are all behind this gentleman because you think his religious symbol is ok to look at, think of this! If every driveway in that developement was painted because it was OK to paint your driveway with religious symbols the place would look like a New Your subway car! HOA's are NOT evil! There are rules for a reason, just because you don't happen to agree with one doesn't mean it should be disregarded. And the HOA does not make the rules, they come from the State of Virginia or MD or the state in which you live. And to the person who wants to Bankrupt the Association, just know that the Association consists of ALL of the Homeowner's in that developement! So, if you do file suit, just know that you are suing everyone of your neighbors! See how much they get behind you when you do that! And HOA boardmembers for the most part, are NOT a bunch of busy bodies with NOTHING better to do! They have lives just live everyone else, all of you who hate HOA's and you live in them, I don't know what to tell you! But you will in time understand the need for HOA's!

Posted by Angryman (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no issue with any of my neighbors painting their driveway any color and with any design they please. In fact, I think it would be great - sort of a horizontal art gallery!

Posted by lepidopteryx (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again folks are missing the point. No PERMANENT exhibits are allowed. It doesn't matter if it is Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim. Just like with Christmas decorations, they must be removed at some point. Seems like there are a lot of folks obsessed with "Christians" in here. Stick to the facts. TEMPORARY is okay. PERMANENT is not regardless of religion.

Posted by jrowzie (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HOA bylaws can not ever restrict any person's civil rights. Period. Even if it's known beforehand and a person signs the HOA bylaws at time of purchase. The courts have ruled in all cases of civil liberties that those type of rules are uneforceable regardless of the signature or knowledge beforehand. They consistently place constitutional rights ahead of everything else. They also view the inclusion of these type of bylaws and requirement to "sign or you can't buy" as a form of coercion to give up your constitutional rights.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sada.rajagopalan. . . you said:
IF ITS AN EYE SORE CLOSE YOUR GOD DAMN EYES
you dont pay for our driveways, paving or maintaining, our god-damn wallets

The use of The Lords name in vain, is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE.

Christmas & Halloween decorations are up for breif periods of time, and are permissiable to most H.O.A.'s . . . the painting on his driveway is not temporary.

Your "right" to practive religious freedoms & expressions END, when its a public eyesore (the point of the article) and when you publically take the Lord's name in vain. (See above and your comment). What someone does in the privacy of their own homes, is one thing & I support their choice & their religious expressions. When its put on public properity, when others can see it, then I have issues with it. I also have issues with you taking My Gods name in vain, just for you to get your point across.

Posted by Robbnitafl (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel that there is no harm if the art stays. After all, don't we have freedom of expression as long as it is not offensive to your neighbors? Yes, HOA's do have rules, but this is a trivial case especially when none of the neighbors have any objections! Ram's HOA has indeed kept the rule but broken the SPIRIT. I live in a neighboring community and my HOA management is the same as the above community. Let me tell you about the sorry state of affairs of my community. The landscape of my community is so neglected and is in such a poor state (I am sure others in my community would definitely agree with me on this). I do not understand where all my HOA fees go to. Instead of concentrating on such critial matters, it is a pity that the HOA is making such a hue and cry for this!

Posted by tsr4web (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Permanent or temporary is NOT the issue. Would I like to see a Pentagram permanently painted on my neighbor's driveway... No. Would I have a right to have them remove it, if it was a honest display of their religious beliefs... No. It's part of being an American Citizen. Tolerance. Deal with it.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What difference does it make if it's permanent or temporary? If my neighbors want to keep their Christmas lights up all year long, it's no skin off my nose. It does no one any harm for this guy's driveway to be painted or for my neighbor's eaves to be covered with twinkle lights 365 days a year, so what's the big deal?

Posted by lepidopteryx (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Robbnitafl. What law book are you reading from? Where is it written that someone can't "publicly take the Lord’s name in vain”? What happen to freedom of speech? And remember, that’s YOUR Lord, not necessarily everyone else’s.

So, based on your logic, then do you agree with the death threats against Salman Rushdie because he wrote a book that Khomeini felt used their religious names in vain? If your logic works, it should work regardless of the penalty.

Really, I think we’re all having a difficult time knowing what laws you’re speaking of that allow you (individually or through an HOA organization) to restrict anyone else’s U.S. Constitutional Rights. Where does it say, these freedoms are OK except when it’s permanent? Your claims are out there beyond what we were all taught in gradeschool.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If this guy was my Realtor, I would fire him right after I read this article. How could he NOT know how his own HOA'S rules work?

Folks, the religious nature of the design has nothing to do with the issue...it's the fact that it is a permanent design. If he can paint this, what's to stop the neighbor from painting a Dallas Cowboys helment on the front door, or the guy down the street hanging a swastika from the roof?

HOAs are onerous (I know, I am on the board of mine), but the rules are CLEAR before you sign the contract to buy the house.

Posted by hoos3014 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love the hand-wringers who want to see see all governing rules be overturned because America is going to have to embrace diversity.

Where does the overturning of rules end?

Think about it folks. Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.

How about people who have Swinger parties in their Purple & Chartreuse love-nest with the truck on cinder-blocks in the front yard, right next to the giant penis sculpture.

Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Permanent or temporary is the issue. Read the HOA rules. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it isn't so. Courts have upheld the rights of HOA to do this kind of thing in may different situations. In others they have not. As the gentleman said, it is not clear cut. Saying it is a constitutional right is not correct because courts have ruled in favor of many HOA's. Do you really think this is the first time this type of thing has come up? Again, he signed off on the rules of the community. It is a private community.

Posted by jrowzie (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

HOAs can have bylaws that address unsightly structures, unsafe situations, irresponsible lack of maintenance, reasonably limit the choices of colors/design of structure to match the environment (historical significance), etc. Although I too enjoy sports, I hope you're not equating football to religious freeedoms..., so, no, a helmet isn't the same as a Catholic Cross. Also,
symbols, such as, swastika's have gone through lengthy legal review to be restricted, not arbitrarily decided by HOAs. Usually the incitement of aggression or hate toward others is what limits these type of things, anyway. Look at the use of the infamous "F" word.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HOA rules used to restrict antennaes from being publicly displayed. The Courts have ruled against this, stating it precludes the individual from excercising their right to receive the airwaves. Airwaves, by the way, are view by the FCC and the CFRs as a public resource... treated the same as our public lands and every citizen's right to travel on them.

It seems a religious freedom right is at least as important as the right to use public resources.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, to all the people complaining about HOA, try NOT having an HOA! I fully support the HOA taking action AGAINST this. Not because it isn't pretty (it is), not because it is causing any harm (it isn't) but because what it could lead to!

People have all these horrible thoughts about HOA, but, they are there because some people push the envelope way to far! Yes, limiting your ability to display a banner flag may be stupid, but it is there so when the A-hole decides to fly a KKK banner it can be removed. Telling home owner they have to have their paint color OK'ed before painting their house is to prohibit someone from painting their house an obnoxoius color and becoming an eyesore! Telling someone what flowers they can and cannot plant is because someone WILL allow weeds to grow uncontrolled and then claim it is an "English Garden".

People are stupid and will do what they want if allowed.

I drove home from a weekend away and was MORTIFIED to find a house in my neighborhood was painted TEAL GREEN/BLUE while I was away. No, this isn't a quaint little "Gingerbread House" that would look cute Teal. This was a split level with shingles down the second level (an ugly 70's house). Good GOD it is an eyesore. Oh, and since there is no HOA, nothing can be done. I am embarassed when people come to my house, they always make comments about the teal house. It ruins the neighborhood.

There is a reason for HOA's. I fully support them. Back to this issue, if the HOA lets this family keep the painting on their driveway, what happens when the next family does something and wants to keep that as well? They can use this case as precident.

Posted by fredsfavefan (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Though we have HOA's, of a sort that is, in the U.K. but this is way over the top and anyway would be illegal as it's against regilous tolerance.

I'm glad I live in Europe where we are way ahead in understanding what needs to be done in order to live in the Free World. The behaviour of the Loudoun HOA is typical of the American idea, i.e. lack of understanding, of democracy...... when it comes to the crunch America has no understanding and never will of the true meaning of tolerence and/or real democracy. No the behaviour of this HOA is rather an example of a total fasiciet dictatorship.

Suggest that the HOA board members need to be placed either in the ducking stool or the stocks!!

Posted by 383WEBB (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But they have restricted the size of the antennas and the placement. You can't place an 8' foot antenna on the roof of your home in HOA's. The HOA isn't saying he can't have this but saying there are certain areas where he can't.

Posted by jrowzie (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not feel that a group of homeowners should decide what another homeowner does with his house. They do not pay his house notes. Some places you can not buy a house without being a part of the HOA. A Marine father was forced to remove his American Pride display for his daughter who was also a Marine by some narrow minded HOA or lose his house.
I may not like the way your house looks but guess what in America we are suppose to be free.
Personally I would rather see the art than some oil drippings.
HOA get a life and let people live freely.

Posted by katmdodd (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that HOAs have great value. BTW, I'm a director on my HOA. However, the line is drawn when Constitutional Rights are infringed upon. Period. HOAs are designed to protect property values, but not at the cost of an individual's rights.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would be curious to hear what the HOA's reaction would be to a Jewish family posting a mezzuzah on their doorposts. A mezzuzah is a requirement for an observant Jewish home and, while removable, is meant to be affixed to the doorpost as long as the family is in residence.

It seems to me that it wouldn't be much of a leap to go from fining a painting on a driveway to prohibiting a mezzuzah, which illustrates the problem with heading down this slippery slope.

Posted by arijsky (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Huh, they told him to place it inside his garage. Boy is he lucky to get the HOA's permission to do that INSIDE the privacy of his home. Yeah, he should be so very, very thankful. BTW, did you see the comment from overseas? This type of action by the HOA is fasicst in nature. Tolerance, dude. Oh, and that antennae... an 8' vertical is allow. As a matter of fact, you usually need a lot more than that to adquately transmit on the lower bands.

Posted by sglowacki (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a remark: Has anyone noted that this "religious expression welcoming the Hindu goddess of prosperity and other guests into the home" is being trampled and driven over by their cars?

Posted by apain2di (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to see this issue terminated by a court ruling. So a proper interpretation of "Home owner rights" versus "HOA rights is once for all settled, at least at the regional level. This would require Ram to seek supporters who can fund his law suit. Alternatively he could seek a sympathetic attorney to represent him with a "no fee" or "expenses only" contract. After all we are a nation of "Laws", are we not.

Posted by RMS43067 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now we are getting in semantics. My point was that there are limits on the size of antennas which the court has upheld. Are you going to argue that?

Anyone in real estate knows these rules exist. I still wonder why he chose to do this if he is a realtor. It just doesn't make much sense.

If I want to put up a religious item in my yard and I live in an HOA that should be allowed no matter what? Because that is what you are arguing. As long as it is for religious expression, it should be allowed. How do you pick and choose what is acceptable?

Posted by jrowzie (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HOA is Communist. I'm so happy that I'm living in HOA community.

Posted by nevercheck (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The drawing does not offend any of his immediate neighbors! Isn't there a lawyer around that can take this case pro bono? HOA's are running wild. I would be glad that my neighbor is doing well and paying his mortagage instead of having a vacant foreclosure next door. Let the painting stay and celebrate diversity!

Posted by Ross65 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is totally ridiculous! As long as it does not affect anyone in the neighborhood, the HOA should just leave it alone!It is not one of those overgrown lawn with weeds that creeps to the nighbor's lawn issue. This is just a perfect example of HOA trying to show its wasted powers and getting involved in matters of least concern to anyone in their neighborhood, when they could use their time and efforts on matters that really need attention in their community. What is the pride in owning a home("American Dream")if you can't do things your own way, in your home (and home includes Driveway BTW). Iam sure all the home owners in the community will and should stand by RAM and win this issue over the HOA, because you never know when HOA will send them a notice for something as frivolous as moonsand left by a child which never gets washed even by storms!!

Posted by emailtosudha (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is just a small design on the road and how does it bother anyone ?

HOA is tooooo... much.

Posted by khandavalli (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not Hindu but I think it is beautiful! So much better than some of the ugly graffitti that I see everyday on city walls everywhere! With all of the negative symbolism in the world - this is a postive and hospitable symbol that could bring a little joy to everyone.

Posted by Bebechat (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm surprised a realtor is involved in this. No wonder there are also many other regular homeowners who know nothing about their HOA's CCRs and what it ultimately means to live under one.

Posted by mazman128 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is absolute BS, another example of some self absorbed SOB thinking the world should accomodate them. The HOA was there when they bought the house, the rules apply to everyone, if you didn't like the rules, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BUY THE HOUSE!!!! But don't buy the house and then think that everyone else should bend for you. And this is not like Christmas decorations like some have suggested. The people suggesting that are IDIOTS!! Christmas decorations are taken down after the holidays AND I bet if they aren't taken down after a certain defined period, the HOA WILL CITE THEM AS WELL!!!!

Posted by islandhopper24 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that the HOA is absolutely correct in this case. As is noted, the religious tradition supposedly in question is a that of a TEMPORARY symbol. Had he made this symbol with chalk for the specific event, I might agree that the HOA was going overboard. Given that the symbol is painted and thus semi-permanent, the gentleman is not truly following his religious tradition, but rather using it as an excuse to violate rules that apply to everyone else. The Board of the HOA is legally and ethically required to pursue the correction of this violation, because failure to do so would constitute malfeasance. It would also create a precedent by which any neighborhood resident could violate any neighborhood covenant simply by throwing the "religious freedom" trump card. The covenants of an HOA are incorporated as part of the property deeds in that neighborhood, and one agrees to abide by them as an integral part of property ownership in that neighborhood. Being a realtor, this gentleman knew, or should have known that.

If we can excuse "believers" from specific legal requirements, why are those requirements necessary in the first place? And if they are deemed necessary or desirable by a community or society, how can religious beliefs, which are in fact nothing more than sincerely held opinions, justify exception? We simply have to get away from the idea that one's religious beliefs can provide immunity from laws or regulations that are intended to apply equally to everyone. To do otherwise is to invite anarchy.

Posted by alert4jsw (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is definitely not the point of a HOA. How do they keep gaining attention for such irrelevent home issues? Too bad my HOA doesn't do anything about the missing street sign, that's been gone for two weeks...or the kids who terrorize peoples bushes/the comm. boxes/random TV's left broken in the street. We can't turn the attention on those things, we have to complain about a beautiful symbol on someone's driveway? Really?

Posted by tryingtobeagoodhuman (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am Hindu and I generally think the superstitions some religious Hindus maintain are ridiculous. Not removing a kolam because it will bring bad luck is just a silly superstition. That said, this is a question of freedom or religion and respecting diversity. If removing a kolam from a driveway was disapproved by the pope or against a commandment, you know the HOA would never demand that action.

Yes, he broke the rules but sometimes exceptions should be made. The HOA isn't making an exception because they're not understanding the religious significance removing the kolam has to this man. Give him a stern warning and let it slide this time. It's not going to put their community on the slippery slope to swastikas or unkempt lawns.

Posted by varmau (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is that once you make an acception to the rule, you have to make acceptions for everyone. It's not about religon, it's not about how pretty the symbol is, and it's not about property. It's about living in a community with an HOA, and following the guidelines. So far I haven't heard anything about filling out an application to make a change to their home. So not only did he break the guidelines he didn't follow them from the begining. And get off the religous thing, hoilday lights are temporary, this is not. Oh and lastly his neighbors aren't going to tell him to his face they don't like looking at it, they are going to complain the the HOA. The HOA is just doing their job. He's a realtor, come on.

Posted by Chrs1973 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am writing in response to the comment: "I noticed the comments disappeared also.

To paraphrase my eairler comment. . . Where America is a melting pot of all religions & beliefs, your right to practice-show your hindu art symbol ENDS, when it is OFFENSIVE to Joe Public.

You KNEW the laws of your homeowners group, when you bought your house. Pay the fine, and take a garden hose & wash they off your driveway, its an eyesore. If you don't like what your homeowners group says about your artwork, its ok. Pack up & LEAVE. This is the USA. Live by our laws & rules. If you can not, or will not, then pack up & go back where you came from, and don't forget to wash your driveway before you leave. Its OFFENSIVE and an eyesore."

Posted by Robbnitafl (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The above comment shows extreme bigotry.
If Ram has to "Pack up and Leave" and go back to where he came from, then the entire white population of the U.S.A. should leave as well, to England, Ireland, France, Italy, etc. Remember history (perhaps you don't even know any history): this country DID NOT belong to the English who first colonized it. It belonged to the Native Americans from whom it was deceitfully STOLEN. Then the Native Americans were abused and sent off to reservations while everyone else was enjoying the fruits of THEIR country. And, to top it all, the white "Christian" people brought black people from Africa to serve them, and abused them as well. Such bigoted, self-indulgent, arrogant people who think they are superior to everyone else.

Posted by SHANKER.MEENAKSHI (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the whole thing is about not filling out the proper paperwork to obtain permission for the modification to his driveway, why not just let him fill out the paperwork now? I realize he's supposed to get permission BEFORE painting his driveway, but grant a little leniency to a guy who probably didn't think about the legal ramifications of decorating his own driveway. A stern warning to the guy and an email out to the HOA listserv reminding everyone "no driveway painting w/o prior permission -- no exceptions in the future", would totally suffice.

Posted by varmau (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Next it will be graffiti. How can someone really tell the difference?

Posted by huluv1 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You knew before you bought that there was an HOA.
SO we should just ignore the rules that we don't agree with?
Get me a break.

Posted by jmy999 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What Ms. Gowen, the reported, fails to mention is that although each HOA has rules in place that strictly do not allow these types of "modifications" to a property, we DO have a process in place to request a waiver for such modifications BEFORE they are done. Granted he would have been denied or at least told to do it somewhere else (on something that could be portable to the back yard or in the home?) but this guy did not do that. She fails to mention that he ignored the rules and went ahead and did it anyway! Did it have to be on the driveway? Permanent paint? Why not on a board of some sort that could have stayed outside for a limited amount of time and then put in the home for personal viewing? She also fails to mention that allowing something like this then opens up a whole other can of worms - other homeowners wanting to paint crosses, Jewish starts, Nascar numbers, or even their favorite image all in the name of "freedom of expression." Just to clarify - I have nothing against any of those images, even his image, (I'm Baptist and my husband is Jewish so we could paint both on our driveway if we wanted :-) ) but I think you can see where I'm going with this. The bottom line is that he could have worked with the HOA on this design but he chose not to.

Side note: This is the same person that had his home written up by the Post regarding a prayer room in his house - now he's appealing to the masses on this issue.

Posted by kkartsen (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe that the Post used the wrong headline for this article. This issue has nothing to do with religious expression or freedoms. The permanent painting on the driveway is in violation of the HOA covenants. All homeowners agree to follow these rules when they purchase their homes. The HOA is doing their job. If they let this go, what will be the next issue? They have to be consistent and enforce the rules. If the community wishes to do so, they can change the rules, but they must work together to decide on such changes.

Many posters have problems with HOAs in general. That is a completely seperate issue from the specific actions of this HOA.

By the way - "Christmas" lights are not a religious symbol. Howver, HOAs have rules about when to take them down and you do get a letter and potential fines if you don't comply. It is in the covenants, too.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not about religion. A big happy face on the driveway would receive the same fine from the HOA.

Posted by mazman128 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He is an American citizen. And before someone goes off the deep and accuses me of being foreign, I'm a citizen too.

This article should lead to a deeper philosophical conversation. It begins with the fundamental belief behind our society: the Lockean social contract. By this, we give up some individual freedoms in order for societal benefits, like protection and order. This is the classical defense of restricting property rights - "for the greater good."

Without going into pointless argument of the slippery slope (if you let one small thing happen, it'll lead to this extreme example), does this take away from the greater good?

On the note of proof of property rights written in the Constitution: the original phrase was "life, liberty, and property," (changed to our classic "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"). Furthermore, the third amendment was written to protect the rights of property owners. In fact, a true conservative would be on Mr. Balasubramanian's side. A libertarian would be up in arms.

The reason why I bring up the social contract is simple: when did we sign that? The world today presents no alternative. You are born into this contract. Spending your life never challenging the limitations or restrictions of this contract is irresponsible. What Mr. Balasubramanian has done is both bold and oddly important to for our society. The HOA is an organization which sets down these rules not based on any referendum or logical process, but simply by precedent; looking at South Village, they model off South Riding. South Riding modeled off Chantilly, etc. etc. Questioning them is a democratic right, and a philosophical responsibility.

On a completely unrelated note, the simple solution is a Coasian negotiation. Mr. Balasubramanian values the image at around $900, the HOA values the clean driveway at around the same price (evidenced by the maximum fine). The HOA should pay Mr. Balasubramanian $900 to remove it, or Mr. Balasubramanian should purchase the rights to keep it for $900. Any other solution would have an economically inefficient outcome.

Posted by arb88 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hate HOA's more than most, but for those screaming "racism" I'm sure if a neighbor had a giant painting of the Last Supper put on his driveway they'd get the same treatment.

Posted by jlp7t (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there something wrong with having a prayer room in his house? Or is that a violation of the HOA code as well?

Posted by lepidopteryx (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Community /HOA should come together for some ammendments to HOA rules.
I absolutely agree with the comments posted by SHANKER.MEENAKSHI
That is a wonderful drawing.It is not threating anybody nor carry any political importance.
Its a simple beautiful drawing symbolising importance as described by Mr. Bala subramaniam and not any picture of hindu idol.
HOA should keep check on people who are not maintaing thier yard or voilating any other rules
Which are causing a problem/damange to the image of the community.

United states is a democratic country and everybody has freedom towards religion.USA should be
another place for such hate crime discussions.

Posted by johnfraser751 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Even a big permanent smiley face would be in violation. Not because people don't approve of smiley faces, but because it is permanent and not allowed in the rules.

Here is another thought, too. The Board of HOAs are volunteers who give their time. They want to make their communities a better place. Whether we like the rules or not, the rules have to be enforced consistently. Do you know how much extra time these volunteers have to give to deal with challenges from everyone who wants an exception to the rules and then the fallout from the neighbors who DON'T like the exception that has been made?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As an Evangelical Christian I say leave the guy alone. It's an expression of faith which, [last time I read] the free-expression of said faith was protected under the first amendment.

One cannot give away one's constitutional rights without due process. IMHO an HOA does not constitute due process. Of course he could just argue this under the Federal statues on Civil Rights and see how much money the HOA actually has ROTFL.

Posted by RedCleric (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and another thing: if you want to claim that it should be in the back, or that it is against the rules because it is visible, hang your Christmas lights behind your house or exclusively inside (not near windows, what if they see?!). You need a reason? They are an eyesore to those of us driving, and are a danger to the public, especially given the icy conditions of the winter. I often get distracted looking at the different colors and patterns.

Let's look at examples of peaceful civil disobedience:
- Rosa Parks
- MLK Jr.
- Gandhi
- Nelson Mandela

Peacefully disagreeing with the rules seems to have an awfully sweet track record. Mr. Balasubramanian isn't out there to cause trouble and burn South Village to the ground. Outside of the mundane "what's next, graffiti?!?" comments, I don't see a logical argument against keeping the image.

Posted by arb88 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Arb88 - Honestly, making this situation parallel to that of the fine folks you listed is a real stretch.

The logical argument is, next we could have swasticas, devil worship symbols,etc, etc, permanently painted onto the driveways since everyone should have the same rights to express themselves. Perhaps the next paintings would not be as beautiful and benign as the one in the article. Where do we draw the line? We have the rules that should be followed.

This is not about freedom of expression. It is about the permanent change in appearance to the driveway that is not consistent with the covenants for the community.

People, this is not what you are making it out to be.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Simple test: are the symbols peaceful? The swastika is actually a Hindu symbol, representing peace. The Nazi swastika is inverted - and clearly represents the opposite ideal. Devil worship signs are easy to identify. Figuring out what is peaceful and harmless and what is malicious and destructive isn't as difficult as you'd think.

I don't see the need for a bright-line rule. Our judicial system is not black and white. Why should the rules be?

We all know that it is against the existing covenants. That isn't the question. The question is why? You cannot use the extreme to explain the rule - they are not guarding against the extreme in this case. This is a moderately appealing flower design. No, this issue is a question of property rights, and a man's right to peacefully disagree with the current rules of the HOA.

As for the comment about a real stretch to compare the situation to those folk? Refusing to get up from a seat (Parks). Refusing to get up from a stool (MLK). Refusing to pay taxes on salt (Gandhi). These seem like simple tasks, but they have broad implications because they challenge what we take for granted. This may not be a watershed moment in property rights, but to belittle the importance of questioning authority is unnecessary.

Posted by arb88 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never thought that this simple and beautiful painting could be a cause of trouble.

Posted by sxpati2 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just remove the kolam. If you want you can move to a more open and colorful neighborhood. Indians who move to gated communities and HOA neighborhoods will never leave a mark in American culture. There are plenty of people who appreciate art and color and go to places like bali, thailand, and tibet to see it and would love to see it brought to America. Those who dont want it, have their HOAs to keep it out. Erase the kolam and move. Tell other Asians not to buy homes in HOA neighborhoods in case their culture interferes with uniformity of bland suburbia.

Posted by sudha_rajendran (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you let this guy have his kolam, then it sets a precedent. The next guy who wants to paint his pentagram or a painting of Barney the dinosaur will sue for discrimination since the HOA allowed the first one. It has nothing to do with what the symbol is, just that it's not allowed.

Posted by jlp7t (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you do not like the rules of the neighborhood you chose to live in then live somewhere where there are no rules. If you want to live in a community that has rules to keep homes looking nice then abide by the rules or at least follow the process to seek change. To completely go against the rules though, when there is a process in place to appeal them, is just telling everyone else that you feel you are above the rules.

I like the painting. I do not, however, feel it belongs on the driveway permanently. If it was temporary...sure. Permanent...no.

lepidopteryx - There is nothing wrong with having a prayer room in his home. The point was that he tends to seek the media to make his case. From what I understand there is a media crew at his home now.

Posted by kkartsen (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The kolam on the drieway is mostly permamnent, it is painted on, not chalk. For those who try to compare it to xmas lights and other TEMPORARY displays, you are comparing apples to oranges. Most HOAs have limited times that lights and other seasonal displays can be up. As I see it, this is not about religion but maintaining the uniformity of the community, which many people DO want to live in. Housing prices are generally higher HOA controlled communities than those that are not.
And where do you draw the line? Many have said it is beautiful, well, beauty is a subjectable thing is it not? What if someone wants a pentagram or a rebel flag? What if someone whats to paint their entire driveway like a football field? This issue is not about allowing one driveway to have a painting (again NOT chalk), it is about not allowing EVERYONE to have free reign to paint their driveways as they wish.

Posted by t8erman (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

t8erman,
What harm does it do to let everyone paint the driveway of THEIR OWN HOME in wahtever manner they wish? So what if my neighbor wants to paint his yard like a football field? It harms nothing. It harms nothing if I paint pentacles on my driveway. It harms nothing if my neighbor paints his house pink and green paisley or if he paints a skull and crossbones on his driveway. It's HIS house, not the HOA's house; he should be able to paint his own driveway if he wants to.

Posted by lepidopteryx (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HOA's protect the value of your home. Permanent designs on your driveway could jeapordize that so they are doing their job to restrict this.

Posted by CountrySide2cents (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Kolam" is more a social symbol for the South Indians. (See the "kolam" and you may not find any religious image). Even if it is a religious symbol for Ram Balasubramanian, he does not feel bad to drive over it. So it won't be a big thing for him to delete it for the good of his neighbourhood. This attitude may lead to painting of other political, cultural and gang symbols on the fron't yard, which may look ugly. Let Ram keep his religion in a religious surrounding. Let him not trample it down.

Posted by russelocd (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The people on this Blog who are asking Ram to go back to where he came from are totally out of line. UNLESS they are full blooded Native Indians they have to realize that they are as much strangers here as Ram. Ram is said to be a citizen, regardless of his ancestry, with as much right as anybody else. The white people who say others to leave at the drop of a hat are to say the least are very presumptious and arrogant. The non-whites who say such rude statements also have to realize that Ram did not say he does not want to comply with the American laws, he only lamented about not being able to afford an attorny to represent himself.

Posted by rms43067 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Balasubramaniam should take this issue to litigation, to supreme court if that's where it takes, to see if the Home Owners Association, while a private entity, violated constitutional rights. Although this could be argued as a private matter, the HOA here, in this regulation, is behaving like any other public agency, stepping on free exercise of religion clause. While we appreciate the HOA for looking after the welfare (house prizes, appearance etc) of the community, it should distinguish between a religious symbol and an arbitrary work of art. Fight for your rights, Bala. Please contact local law schools Georgetown, University of Maryland (Prof. Reynolds) and others to see if the faculty is willing to fight for you pro-bono. Law students too will benefit.

Posted by tpiriyan (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow when I brought this up to look at it, I didn't think it was going to read like this. Here's my take, the symbol was/is supposed to be temporary and he admits that, HE/HIS family chose to paint it on without permission of the HOA, he's a realtor and I would hope he knew he was in violation of the HOA rules (wouldn't want him as my realtor if he doesn't understand the fine print)

And to top it off people are suppose to walk though it to "wash" it away. He painted it on and he's driving over it every day....How important can it be.....Get over it, you broke the rules, remove the symbol. this is not about religious freedom.

Posted by eholifeld1 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This guy is a realtor, if anyone knows about HOA regs, he does - he probably feels like he can play the victim. And for the moronic reporter, how is this a test of religious freedom? If he gets a waiver from the HOA then NO HOMEOWNER should have to pay a fine and if he or she did have to pay I would recommend they sue for discrimination.

Posted by dollyq (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is no test of religious freedom. Balasubramanian was free to practice his religion before he put that thing on the driveway; he can practice it after it's gone. Evidently he didn't have any problem when the temporary emblems washed away, so what's the difference when the painted version has to go? The issue here isn't religious, it's Balasubramanian's refusal to abide by the rules he freely accepted when he moved into South Riding. The Post was irresponsible, one-sided and silly to portray this as a freedom of religion issue.

Posted by bgalburt (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, if Balasubramanian decides to go to court over this, where does the HOA get its funds for legal fees? Does it come from the HOA fees? If so, that means the residents who do not have a problem with the Kolam are also paying for something that is not offensive to them.

Posted by SHANKER.MEENAKSHI (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad to see that more of the comments supported Ram's right of self-expression. I think that while some HOA rules serve to protect home values (such as no junkers on blocks in the front yard) others are overly restrictive and petty, such as the one preventing his driveway art from staying in place. Realistically, there are very few middle class communities without HOAs, so "voting with your feet" against restrictive covenants is a luxury available only to the wealthy.

Posted by 5510701887 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think at the very least Ram's action should be classified as "Grand fathered'. And a new by-law of the HOA should specifically ban such artistic expression in the future. Or a democratic poll should be conducted if Ram is willing as to the dispensation of the issue. Just the board members of the HOA should not have the right to arbitrarily rule on this issue as it appears that many neighbors do not care one way or other.

Posted by rms43067 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why can't this guy just respect the rules. Is it that hard to fit in?

Posted by yokosuka1985 (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If he's a devout hindu why is he departing from the traditional way of creating the kolam, "A kolam is a design that women traditionally draw with rice flour on the front steps of their homes in southern India, often to welcome guests arriving for holidays or special occasions. By tradition, the kolam is impermanent, worn away by footsteps or rain by the end of the day." It was suppose to be made with rice or flour. it's not supposed to be permanant according to tradional practice. Tradition says, "In olden days, kolams used to be drawn in coarse rice flour, so that the ants don't have to work so hard for a meal. The rice powder is said to invite birds and other small critters to eat it, thus inviting other beings into one's home and everyday life: a daily tribute to harmonious co-existence..." Seems if Mr. Balasubramanian had followed tradion, he would be in harmonious co-existence with the HOA?

Posted by carl2t (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree it's attractive and religious in nature. But the religious custom is "impermanent" so he's already outside the confines of religious custom. Second, these rules weren't sprung on him. And if he'd followed the custom - the rules never would have applied. Third, the rules apply to everyone. If I put a giant menorah or nativity in my front yard, by May I'll be getting letters too. When you move into an HOA you accept the restrictions for good and for bad. Everyone gives up a little freedom for a little protection. OH - and typically the fines don't start applying until after a hearing, so this has been going on for at LEAST 5 or 6 months. It didn't happen yesterday.

Posted by mwcob (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Displaying religious symbols is a very delicate issue, if everyone starts displaying array of different symbols in front of their homes, it would just look messy, weird! I am a Buddhist and believe me, Buddhism has plenty of symbols ranging from swastikas (clockwise) to Mandalas.
Someone might argue, that Christmas decorations are religious in nature, but they are somewhat seasonal, and taken off, than the holidays are over. So, if someone wants to display their religious symbols badly , they can do so temporarily during their holidays or celebrations. But, it should not stay permanently! And if someone is faithful to their religion, they should cherish these symbols deeply with respect. If you really do, you do not want to make an “eye sore” display out of them…

Posted by bolor (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

if we are tenants in an assocation situation, we, as consumers, have to STUDY the rules, GO TO THE MEETINGS and help reform the rules. Our apathy is what causes this abuse of power by the HOAs.

Posted by deeeefense (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not Hindu, but I think the driveway is beautiful. People put medalions in their floors on on ceilings all the time. Why not artwork on the driveway? I don't care how "religious" it is, I like it. But HOA's don't care about originality as they just want every house to be the same bland, cookcutter pattern. Just another Stepford community.

Posted by GenuineRisk (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

so he polled 20 neighbors and no one objected to his driveway. did this self-centered individual consider that the neighbors were just being "neighborly" and wanted to avoid a sticky situation and in getting involved in any way. i'll bet if these neighbors were given the opportunity to respond anonyomously there would be a far different result. the fact that he's a real estate professional and shud know better proves that he's an idiot for pulling this caper. i think the state shud pull his license.

Posted by surlydoc (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Being an immigrant from India myself I am proud of living in an open and welcoming society as the U.S. I have been amazed at the extent of diverse people I've come across in this country. However HOA such as this one in South Riding appear to be intolerant of faith and cultures that "do not look like" theirs. I sincerely hope and pray HOAs such as this one will not lead this country into the way of communist nations or theocratic nations that clamp down on people, cultures and faith that do not conform to uniformity.

Posted by npotti (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Every prospective buyer has access to the HOA rules before they purchase. Every buyer then enters into a binding contractual agreement with the HOA. If they don't like the rules they can either choose not to buy the property or they can buy the property and try to change the rules in the legal manner provided by the HOA bylaws. Ignoring the terms of the contract that one has signed is never a valid option. If I were an officer of that HOA there would already be a lien on that property.

Posted by mycroftt (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Doesn't seem like the Balasubramanians are practising their faith according to tradition:

"Kolams are thought to bestow prosperity to homes. Every morning in southern India, millions of women draw kolams on the ground with white rice powder. Through the day, the drawings get walked on, rained out, or blown around in the wind; new ones are made the next day."

Seems the Balasubramanians are just trying to draw publicity to not wanting to remove something that according to tradition is supposed to be temporary. As stated in the article, it was a "thread" ceremony -- a coming-of-age ritual similar to a confirmation or bar mitzvah -- for their son. Well, party's over! Google the name Ram Balasubramanian and you'll be amazed how far this topic has spread.

Posted by carl2t (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I bought my home in a HOA setting, I like knowing what rules everyone MUST follow up-front. Don't like it don't buy here because we don't want you here. No cars on blocks in front yard, no orange shutters on purple siding, no work trucks parked on sidewalks, and no stupid permanent paintings on the driveway. Paint over it or move, your neighbors are too polite to tell you how they really feel and don't want it either.

Posted by bbstr6 (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yep... one of the main reasons I will never again live in an HOA controlled community. HOA board members get Napolean complexes and routinely ignore rules where it suits them or their friends but going overboard where no harm is done. Down with HOAs. Homeowners should be able to sever their relationship with any HOA.

Posted by wildfyre99 (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you buy into an HOA community, then you should do so knowing what the rules and restrictions are. You should find this out before buying a house. That way if you find any of the rules/regulations to be offensive/intolerable, then don't buy into that community. To the person who said it's no skin off their back if their neighbor puts up tacky decorations or doesn't maintain their property, you are so wrong! Behavior like that affects all the neighbors. Try selling your house when the house next door or down the street is an eyesore. You will find that the value of your property depreciates.

Also, those of you who are bitterly complaining about the HOA and their rules---how many of you live in an HOA community? Of those of you who do, how many of you are involved in volunteering your time for the HOA? How many of you serve on your HOA board of directors? I'm guessing very few of you get involved. If you don't like the rules/regulations of your HOA, then get involved and work with others to make changes. If you don't want to do that, then just deal with it and follow the rules.

Posted by two4three2 (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lepidopteryx
The harm is that he is violating a contract that he signed when he purchased his home. The harm is that if you allow everyone to do anything they wish to their home(s); it WILL devalue the overall community, it will drive down the resale value of most every home, it will cause neighborly people to not be so neighborly when someone does something that offends and will eventually get so out of control that someone will do something stupid and destroy property or harm someone.

Posted by t8erman (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So much for the 'Land of the Free'!

You Americans are so full of your own propaganda, you don't even see how little freedom there is around you.

Posted by alientech310 (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My neighborhood (not South Riding) also had some homeowners paint these on their driveways and the HOA asked them to remove them. Personally, I think the designs are beautiful and wouldn't mind if an immediate neighbor had one. That said, though, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are other things that could be painted on a driveway that I wouldn't want to look at everyday (or have my kids look at). Or what if the content of the painting was okay but the artist was really awful? Allowing one or two things is a very slippery slope.

The neighborhood I live in also has rules governing holiday lights and how long they can remain on the house. I believe several homeowners have been cited for not taking them down in time. Yes, HOA's can be a pain but I read the rules before I bought the house and knew what I was getting into. No, I can't paint my driveway. But neither can my neighbor paint his shutters electric green or put a car up on blocks in the front yard, etc.

Posted by jt12 (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The greedy Americans can't let their neighbors live their lives in peace because that might reduce the property values. Hate your neighbor because his house doesn't conform to your aesthetics. Tell me more about freedom the American way. What a load of BS.

Posted by alientech310 (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alientech---Do you even own a home? If so, would you like to see its value decline because your neighbor's home is an eyesore? It's not all about greed---it's about protecting your hard-earned investment. Perhaps you are so rich that such things don't matter to you. If so, then good for you. However, most of us can't afford the luxury of seeing our property values drop because there is an eyesore in the neighborhood. No one is forcing anyone to move into an HOA community. So, if one doesn't like having an HOA, s/he is free to live elsewhere. Once again---if someone buys into an HOA community, then s/he must be prepared to abide by the rules. This is not a "load of BS". Since you seen to be so ignorant in these matters, you should also know that when you buy a condo, you have to deal with condo by-laws and covenants. It's the same thing if you rent an apartment---you have to abide by the conditions of the lease. For example, if you rent an apartment, you may not be able to have a pet. Also, you most likely won't be able to paint your apartment a different color. Some buildings do not allow smoking. Do you understand any of this? Once again, no one is forcing anyone to rent an apartment, buy a house or a condo if one does not like the rules. If anything, it shows that one does have freedom of choice.

All that said---I wouldn't like to rent an apartment in a building where anything goes. I can't imagine that would be a pleasant experience. Imagine no rules about where to throw out your trash, where you can park your car, how much noise you can make. We once rented an apartment and the lease we signed said that if the police came to your apartment because you broke a law, it was grounds for eviction. I was glad to read that and rent there. However, I can't imagine any unreformed criminals would have liked to rent there. Get it?

Posted by two4three2 (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: jrowzie (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 11:02 a.m

jrowzie - Your third point about the gentleman being a realtor and must have known... etc... have you ever gotten a traffic ticket? There are times when someone can be excused with a warning. How would you feel if your driving license was revoked because you were 5 miles above the posted limit. The WaPo article also mentions that this guy went in front of the HOA. Take a deep breath and give this guy a break. After all, nobody is perfect.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: nuke41 (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 11:07 a.m.

So, if you are the citizen of a country - you MUST be knowing ALL the rules and regulations, isn't it? I wonder why we have the lawyers?

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why on earth would anybody want to live in a community with a HOA? Thank goodness I have lived for two decades in a funky early 1920s neighborhood in northwest DC. We have NO RULES. People paint their houses all sorts of colors, put up all sorts of decorations (I have a bottle tree with blue bottles), plant all sorts of things in their gardens, and we're just fine with it. I think it would be great if people painted designs on their driveways--except that we don't have driveways. I've been thinking about painting a mural on my garage door, and I'm sure nobody would object.

Posted by carolynlong (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: Angryman (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 11:13 a.m

Angryman - I fully understand your point about HOA. However, the arguments that have supported the homeowner in this case have only questioned how much is too much? The rules are, no doubt, printed and agreed before the homeowner can get the loan processed (in most cases). I wonder how many people would have the time to read the Constitution so that they will remember as they do their day-to-day work. Harsh comments such as "pack and leave" for such a small issue only gives way to questioning our diversity awareness. There is a limit for how critical one should take this discussion in the best interests of a co-existence. I am sure you see my point.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: jrowzie (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 11:19 a.m.

Great point!!! That is the crux of the issue here. It is just a question of permanent versus temporary. It is not a question of religious versus non-religious or one religion versus the other.

Well said!!

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

response to: tsr4web (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 11:21 a.m.

tsr4web - I think this is a great question that every homeowner should be asking their reps. After all, the HOA board is made up of members who are volunteers and elected by the homeowners. It takes quite a lot of time, effort, and sacrifice (from family time) for these folks to do their assigned tasks. But your questioning on lack of attention to the big picture is valid and I am sure your HOA must be able to provide you how your dues are being allocated for various activities.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: hoos3014 (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 11:52 a.m

Wow! So, you will fire your accountant, doctor, teacher, fireman, and any other service provider IF they all broke some rule knowingly or unknowingly. GREAT logic! I wonder if you have ever been found at fault or am I dealing with (the only) Mr.Perfect of this world?

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: 383WEBB (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 12:09 p.m

383WEBB - Well, the HOA board has only done what they have been entrusted to do.. namely maintain the rules as given to them and which were agreed to by every homeowner in the community. However, one must understand that people who have volunteered are also juggling various issues at any given time. If one were to do away completely with the HOA, it can lead to chaos - especially where the homes are in close proximity.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Addition to: arijsky (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 12:20 p.m

arijsky - It is a very interesting point since there must be some Jews living in the same community. I wonder if the HOA has seen any issues with the customs followed by Jews.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the appearance of one house in a neighborhood affecting the value of the rest, perhaps I'm an anomaly (wouldn't be the first time), but when I bought my house, I didn't ask for a discount because one of the neighbors has pink flamingo lawn ornaments and chartreuse shutters. I offered what I felt was a fair price based on the size and condition of the house I wanted.

Posted by lepidopteryx (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the picture is no doubt pretty. anyone interested in fine art would agree.
it is the placement that is in question.
but more importantly, since it turned out to have a religious nature, some Americans have been seemingly intolerant, primarily, perhaps, because of lack of education and information.
As a matter of fact they should consider themselves fortunate to have such homeowners in their areas who are freely and willingly displaying their talents.

Posted by shahbp (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: apain2di (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 12:42 p.m

apain2di - I am not sure if you follow any religion. If you do, then I am sure you walk into the place of worship with your shoes or maybe that is also considered trampling of the place of worship? One can always take the argument any which way one pleases BUT has to be done in moderation. It was referred as a symbol of prosperity or a welcome of prosperity (whatever the article said).

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: islandhopper24 (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 1:47 p.m

islandhopper24 - Take a chill pill. One should learn to give and take respect, Calling others IDIOTS - only makes you one. So, cool it, ok? Have you ever read the HOA doc? Do you live in a subdivision governed by HOA? If the answer is YES to either or both the questions, you will see the point of how many pages one has to read and understand before buying a home. That is probably the last thing you will allocate time when you are getting ready to packing and moving. It is a common problem most of us face - so, don't shoot off your mouth. It can hurt you when it comes to you.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: Robbnitafl (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 9:55 a.m

Robbnafl - I am sure no one has any clue as to what your nationality or religion is... and frankly, it may not even matter. But, this is my recollection of history - Columbus discovered America. Ironically, he was actually searching for India. Interesting to note that you want people to pack and leave - and of course, we have the 2 countries represented here in this issue.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: kkartsen (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 2:37 p.m

kkartsan - You bring an excellent point in your statement(s). The WaPo article states that the traditional kolam generally is washed away by footsteps or rain. However, the homeowner painted it because it was raining that weekend during the event. Yes - HOA permission MUST have been taken (IF only they knew that it was a violation). Given the circumstances, don't you agree that time could have been very short to obtain such a permission? Just a thought...

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: momof2 (anonymous) posting on December 8, 2008 at 2:53 p.m

momof2 - Well said... this is the crux of the issue on hand. It is a matter of working out between the HOA and the homeowner. As plain and simple as that.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 9, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: mycroftt (anonymous) posting on December 9, 2008 at 11:35 a.m

mycroftt - Too radical a view. It is like your car getting impounded by the government because you were marginally speeding or did not come to a full STOP. Wouldn't that be ridiculous? How do you come up with such great ideas? You should write a book giving solutions for everyday problems - it will be a best seller.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 10, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: t8erman and CountrySide2cents (anonymous) postings on December 8, 2008 at 6:40 p.m

t8erman - By the same token of your argument, (on the lighter side) can the HOA also guarantee that home prices will not go any further down? Or, will they guarantee my home will retain as much value as the price I paid while signing the HOA document? (smile)

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 10, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to ayecue (December 10, 2008 at 12:04 a.m). No, ayecue, it is NOT like getting your car impounded for failing to come to a complete stop. That is simply a strawman argument where you create a weaker argument (the strawman) and then defeat it rather than addressing the issue at hand, which is whether the contract between the homeowner and the HOA is enforceable. The homeowner voluntarily entered into the agreement and is now in violation of it. The HOA apparently has bylaws that allow it to impose penalties for violations. I would not ever advise an HOA to fail to enforce its own rules, because then you will get homeowners deciding that they are not really required to pay their dues. It is better to change a rule in the manner prescribed by the bylaws than simply to ignore it. I advise all HOAs to be aggressive in placing liens on properties that owe money because, in today's market, properties are being foreclosed upon and those HOAs who have not placed encumbtrances on properties for unpaid dues or penalties WILL NOT be able to collect. They will have to write off those debts. It's better to place the lien and then lift it if a settlement is reached. Note that this is not a Constitutional issue either - the Constitution prevents the government from violating rights, but does not address contracts that may place restrictions on private activities. Oh, in case anyone is wondering, I would never buy in a community with an HOA - I think there is more downside than upside in allowing a committee of your neighbors to make decisions about how you will behave.

Posted by mycroftt (anonymous) on December 10, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: mycroftt (anonymous) posted on December 10, 2008 at 8:50 a.m.

I understand your point. When you said lien, it got me to think in terms of what the lender or the government would place for whatever reason. When a home is sold, the buyer is required to give a copy of the HOA docs if the home is in a HOA subdivision. The docs, which are prepared by the HOA or the management company, generally contain any outstanding amount due from the current homeowner. This can be, in a way, close to what you have expressed. So, it is not a lien as recorded in the county but some way to collect any outstanding balance. Am I correct in understanding your point?

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 10, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to ayecue: Yes, more or less, I think my point has come through. :) An HOA lien is a real lien filed with the county but it is of a lower order of precedance than county tax liens or first mortgage liens (but higher than mechanics liens or, sometimes, second mortgages). HOAs can foreclose on these liens but that doesn't usually happen unless there is enough equity in the property to pay off all the primary lienholders and still have some left over to pay the HOA. The HOA liens cost about $15 to file where I live and they are used more to protect the HOAs position than to foreclose - as you say, it is more a tool to keep an official record of the debt than a traditional lien. An HOA that has not filed an HOA lien for delinquent payments will be out of luck if the mortgage company forecloses, but if they have filed one, they might be able to recover the funds.

Posted by mycroftt (anonymous) on December 10, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

These idiots also prevent you from flying the Flag!
And the lawyers like nothing better than for you to fight for your rights. Money in the bank.
It is all sleeze, and the homeowners are being milked of their equity. It cheapens us all. What scum

Posted by mke0391 (anonymous) on December 10, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rESPONSE TO: mke0391 (anonymous) POSTED on December 10, 2008 at 9:08 p.m

Shooting off one's mouth is very easy and that is what a lot of people like you do. Your words clearly speak for themselves that you have little or no idea on what is happening in this case. Sleeze or no sleeze depends on what the guy is asking for at this stage. Do you know for a fact that it is for MILKING the HOA for sure? If you have proof of this anywhere, I suggest you post this - or shut the hell and do something better in life than post such rubbish that contributes NOTHING to this elite to this space.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 11, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm confused. I thought mke0391 was calling the HOA idiots and saying that the HOA and the their lawyers are milking the homeowners!! Please clarify!

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on December 11, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Response to: momof2 (anonymous) posted on December 11, 2008 at 9:12 a.m

mke0391 - Sorry buddy... maybe I was mistaken. Apologize for the confusion.

Posted by ayecue (anonymous) on December 11, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One way or the other, I don't agree with mke0391.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on December 11, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The artwork is pretty, but that's beside the point. Are we supposed to have a summit every time somebody wants to bend/break with established rules? Who is the judge of what is beautiful (or ugly) enough to modify these covenents?

Why does one's religious beliefs need to be permanently emblazoned on their driveway? My Christian neighbors don't have Biblical passages painted on their garage doors. My Jewish neigbors don't have a 10 ft. tall menorah on their front lawn.

These rules are put in place so that people living in close proximity don't behave in conduct that would infringe on anothers', and don't make decisions that effect another persons property value. It protects EVERYONE EQUALLY.

End of story. If consessions are made for Ram, they must be made for everybody. God you hand-wringers are dense. You expect laws to both protect and be constantly broken, on a whim. (rolls eyes)

Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on December 11, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think many of you have missed the point completely. It has nothing to do with the fact that it is a religious symbol. It has to do with the fact that most if not all HOA's won't allow ANY modifications like this to be displayed be it religious or otherwise without prior approval. I'm not a fan of HOA's but I think they are put in place to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.

Posted by sniktaw (anonymous) on December 11, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think modifications SHOULD be made. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a religious symbol.

I am a big fan of HOA's. Neighborhoods without them, like in Sterling Park, are suffering greatly without them. That area is a perfect example what can happen when everyone is free to run amok and do anything they want. (park trucks on the lawn, mow grass onec every other year, etc.)

Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on December 11, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OTH and sniktaw, I agree with you both.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on December 11, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two comments -
1. HOAs are not governments and empowered to trample Constitutionally guaranteed rights of religion - which this obviously is. I say fight the HOA and then sue them individually for attorney fees. Also mandate that if the HOA loses, its fees may not be used to pay the lawyers.

2. Another brouhaha is just over the horizon when digital television happens. Most HOA agreements are explicit in that residents may not erect outside antennas. But, the FCC and courts have ruled that bylaws cannot be enforced if an antenna is necessary to receive television signals - just like a satellite dish. The same exemption applies to amateur or other radio operators.

HOA boards are given too much power over personal property and should be regulated by state statute and individual members be held responsible for their actions.

I noted one comment that disparaged flying or showing the "Confederate Flag." Which one - there are several? Does the HOA have the right to decide what flag you fly? Lots of folks fly a Redskin flag. What if you are a Cowboys fan and don't like it? Can the HOA tell you to take it down?

Posted by dhughes248 (anonymous) on December 12, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This case has nothing to do with religious freedoms. There would never have been a problem if this gentleman had done his design in rice flour, which is evidently the traditional way to do this.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on December 12, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/b...

end
of
story

Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on December 13, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's wrong with this country? First we're forced to put up with religious symbols on public property...and then we're forced to remove religious symbols from private property. We're putting symbols that pertain to only a segment of the population on taxpayer-funded sites, while denying private citizens the right to place symbols that pertain to them on their own property.

Bass ackwards, if you ask me.

Posted by CuckooRaja (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, as a private organization, the HOA has the legal right to tell its members how they can decorate their houses (except perhaps for constitutionally protected speech, which the driveway symbol may or may not be). But those people telling the guy to move are missing the point. If you are a member of a private club and you feel that the club's rules are unreasonable, it perfectly within your rights to try to change them. Complain. Take your problem to the committee. Argue your case. Which this guy has done, unsuccessfully. If they don't listen to you, then you either put up with it or leave.

But it's silly to say you must unquestioningly bow down to every single rule made by every private organization that that you belong to, without so much as a squeak. Put it this way: if your boss at work made a ridiculous rule about the number of toilet paper squares you were allowed to use in the bathroom, it would be absolutely fine to try to change his mind before you considered quitting your job.

Mr. Balasubramanian was on the losing side of a private dispute. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have disputed the rule in the first place.

Posted by kea_ (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 5:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A ceremony lasting 3 months? Next time..............try colors that can be washed by water.
According to Indian tradition, one uses ground rice or colored powder NOT permanent paint!!!!

Posted by ghandhi2 (anonymous) on December 20, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)