From: hybl@umbc4.umbc.edu (Dr. Albert Hybl (UMAB-BIOPHYS))
Subject: Political signs -- Who can remove them?
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:58:23 GMT


I have a large political sign, approximately 12'x2', on
the front exterior of my house.  Mr. Robert C. Prem, a lawyer
claiming to represent an organization called "The Greater Northwood
Covenant Association, Inc." (GNCA), sent me a letter saying:  "Unless
you move the sign within five (5) calendar days of this notice,
my client will, pursuant to Sub-Division XI remove the sign at
your expense."  He also says: "The presents of such a sign
is a violation of Sub-Division III of the Deed and Agreement
and must be moved immediately."

The GNCA are attempting to intimidate me from the exercise of
my first amendment rights of free speech and petition.  The
GNCA threatens to trespass on my land to destroy or remove
some of my private property in gross disregard to my fourth
amendment right to be secure in my house, papers and effects.
CAN THEY LEGALLY DO THAT?  I have added a few reasons why I
don't thank they can.


The GNCA is exempt from taxes under section 501(c)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code and therefore are precluded from and
should suffer loss of exemption for, engaging in any political
campaign for, or in opposition to, any candidate for public
office.  Removal of political signs is surely a dastardly
form of campaigning.  In previous elections there have been
other large signs that seem to evade there attention, although
the GNCA have stolen many lawn posters.

146 Md. 152 says: "Restrictive covenants should be given no
greater effect that their terms clearly intend, and any doubt
as to their meaning should be resolved in favor of the grantee."
As pertains to signs, Sub-Division III says, in part: 'No
"For Sale" and/or "For Rent" sign or sign of similar character
shall be erected or maintained on said tract or on any building
... however, that the Company may from time to time suspend
this restriction, ... ; no signs of any kind (including the
above signs if permitted) nor billboards, posters or
advertising devices of any character shall be erected ...
on any building or structure ... without the written consent of
the Company and its approval in writing ..."   Although there
is an explicit reference to For Sale and For Rent signs there
is no explicit reference to Political signs.  The Association
has erected a sign; the city has put up many street and traffic
signs; there are block watch signs; the telephone poles have
pole licenses, many fences identify the company that erected
it; numerous houses advertise the security company that has
the house wired.   Many truck that are parked in the area
advertise the business interests of their owners.  Surely a
general prohibition against a sign of "any kind" is too vague.

In "Survey of the Law of Real Property" by Chester H Smith and
published by West Publishing Co. in 1956, I read on page 305:
"For a covenant to run with the land the following essential
characteristics must occur--...(d) There must be privity of
estate. ..."  The GNCA does not own land!

Because the Company reserved to itself the right to allow or not
allow signs, it is obviously not uniform; restrictions containing
waiver clauses do not run with the land (145 Md. 572) and the
GNCA can not enforce them against me.

I would be grateful to read a discussion of when and who can legally
remove political signs especially how enforceable restrictive
covenants are when they conflict with homeowner civil-rights.

Vote,
Albert Hybl (hybl@umbc3.umbc.edu)