An HOA in a suburban community had a rule on the books prohibiting residents from wearing camouflage clothing outdoors. The reasoning, according to the rule: camouflage was considered “redneck” and inconsistent with the community’s image.
One resident kept getting fined. He wore camo every day. Every single day. The fines piled up. He appealed. The appeals were denied. He appealed again. Denied again. He refused to pay. The board held firm.
Per the resident’s account, the HOA’s position was clear: camouflage clothing was not appropriate outdoor attire, and the fines would stand regardless of the reason for wearing it.
The resident’s reason for wearing it: he was in the military. It was his uniform.
The fines were eventually dropped. Not because the board reconsidered its position on camouflage as a fashion choice. Not because someone on the board Googled what a military uniform looks like. The fines were dropped because the resident’s unit commander attended an HOA board meeting in person and, by all accounts, expressed his feelings about the policy with some clarity.
A few things worth sitting with here.
At no point during the repeated appeals did anyone on the board ask why this resident wore camouflage every day. The rule assumed one reason a person might wear camo (cultural signaling the board disapproved of), and it did not occur to anyone that there might be another reason (serving in the armed forces of the United States).
The resident told them. Multiple times. Through the appeals process. They denied the appeals anyway.
It took a commanding officer showing up in person to resolve what could have been resolved by a board member looking up from the complaint form and thinking for approximately four seconds.
The rule, as far as anyone knows, may still be on the books.