Is "Right To Dry" Wrong To Try?
With near double digit national unemployment, the collapse of the housing market throughout the country, and soaring state deficits, you might think that State government would be too busy to worry about you and your laundry.
Well, think again.
Last month Maryland passed “Right to Dry” legislation, preventing condominium, cooperatives and homeowner associations from prohibiting homeowners from installing clotheslines on their property. In doing so, it joined a handful of states that have in some way addressed this issue.
Yes, clotheslines. Remember them? They were everywhere before the advent of dryers.
And here in Rhode Island, Right to Dry legislation was introduced in the General Assembly but did not come to a vote before the Legislature adjourned for the year. Right to Dry legislation was also introduced in neighboring Connecticut but I understand it too died in the legislature.
The so-called “Right to Dry Movement” is proposing legislation in the various states that would prohibit municipal government, homeowner’s associations, condominium and cooperative associations, deed restrictions and covenants running with the land from preventing outdoor drying of clothes through the use of clotheslines or drying racks. For websites supporting Right to Dry, see www.laundrylist.org and www.right2dry.org.
Florida’s Right to Dry statute, FSA Section 163.04, serves as the basis of the model legislation advocated by Project Laundry List. The Florida statute prohibits municipal governments and various homeowner associations from prohibiting the installation of solar collectors, clotheslines or other energy devises based on renewable resources.
The Maryland statute is more limited than Florida, pertaining only to clotheslines and only to single family property, meaning less than five dwelling units, and it allows for reasonable restrictions to be placed on the clotheslines.
A few other states have joined the laundry wars. For a thumbnail summary of legislative enactments as of last summer, see my good friend Dwight Merriam’s News Brief in Zoning Practice. (Scroll down as the article starts on the lower right.)
Many who support Right to Dry legislation do so for reasons pertaining to energy efficiency and promotion of renewable energy, and many are concerned about curbing greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore arguably reducing their adverse impact on climate change.
(I am not qualified to wade into the debate on greenhouse gas emissions and its asserted causal link to climate change, but I would note two thoughtful articles for readers interested, after the “Climategate” hubbub, in whether there is in fact a scientific “consensus” on this issue. Please see conservative columnist John O’Sullivan’s article and Jay Richard’s article in the American Enterprise Institute Journal.)
Many who oppose Right to Dry legislation do so because it is feared the open air drying of laundry could have a negative aesthetic impact on the property and thereby reduce property values. Someone’s El Grande boxer shorts blowing in the breeze may not exactly dress up the neighborhood, so to speak.
In commenting on the proposed Rhode Island Right to Dry legislation in an op-ed piece in the Providence Business News, I noted that my primary concern with this type of legislation is that it abrogates private property rights.
For example, several of these statutes flatly tell property owners what they must allow on THEIR property. And this is despite the fact that buyers in shared ownership communities, such as condominiums, are almost always given notice prior to their purchase of the restrictions governing their new home. If those restrictions are so onerous or so offensive, do not buy the property, or buy the property and seek to convince your co-owners that the restrictions should be changed.
But should a minority of property owners really be running to the legislature to try to get lawmakers to effectively abrogate rules and regulations enacted or preserved by a majority of property owners to protect their property interests? Did majority rule and private property rights fall off the Constitutional bus somewhere?
One view may be that “Right to Dry” legislation is “Wrong to Try” and should have a “Right to Die” in the legislatures where it is pending.
Exucse me, Mr. Boehnert, but private property rights are exactly why people should be able to air their laundry with impunity. Talk about the tail trying to wag the dog!
There are overwhelming public policy reasons to abrogate sections of contracts, rules or covenants that prevent people from saving an estimated average of about 20% on their electric bill. In the face of climate change, energy security, and personal financial woes, you would advocate for the triumph of individual rights and tastes over the public health and welfare? Whether you look to allowance of satellite dishes or the repeal of Jim Crow, there is precedent for making America better through the rule of law. As a lawyer, I know that you understand that. What I do not understand is why you and those who oppose these attempts to improve our society think that the personal preference of a random assortment of people living in a non-governmental jurisdiction should be able to suppress those who want to do the right thing. What would our nation be like if the American electorate could not watch TV to get educated (something I do not do, which probably speaks to my ignorance) or if you could tell my Black friends that they are not allowed to live in your apartment building?
When I served on the Board of my HOA I did extensive research into their power. It was disheartening how what should be a moderating influence in a neighborhood had many times been highjacked by overzealous members. Did you know that HOAs can even override the US Constitution in some instances? There are some HOAs that forbid property owners from posting political signs on private property. One HOA in Texas required that all F150s and Silverados be garaged at all times, but allowed Cadillac Escalades in driveways. This restriction was obviously about status and appearances. Very similar to the clothesline restrictions. Unbelievable. And I can't believe that you are citing "private property rights" as a reason to support such bans. That's very twisted logic. What about my rights to use my clothesline on my private property?
My association says that I'm not allowed to have a "clothesline". It says nothing about the drying of clothes. So I set up a temporary line & dry my clothes. I don't hang my undies outside & I do try to have it all down by 5pm-ish. So for they have let me alone.
I tried to buy a house in a neighborhood without an association. A house that we had been renting for 4 years. On closing day the owner didn't show. Come to find out the owner was crazy & now wanting to charge hundreds of dollars more for rent. So we had to scramble to find another place. It also had to be in our school district. A month later we were closing. So it is easy to say if you don't like the covenants don't buy. But don't preach to me until you have walked a mile in my shoes.
So now I am a homeowner & I know that the covenants were written by the builder that I can't even find anymore.
So it is MY property & MY RIGHT !
It's exactly a case of people being told what to do (or not do) on their own property. None of the laws compel people to dry clothes outside, although many of the laws in effect right do prohibit homeowners from doing what they want on their own property. Really, I would think you might have thought this through a bit more.
Fact. Clotheslines need NOT be an eyesore. Use some common sense. They can be placed on a side yard, or in an area of the yard seen the least by neighbors. And also ask yourself which is more offensive. Someone drying clean laundry and saving energy or someone who is so noisey they look in other peoples back yards?
I find it strange that anyone would even think clean laundry is offensive. What is offensive is that people put aesthetics over what is best for the health of the planet; aesthetics over economy. If we want to save non-renewable resources, then we must allow people to do what they can to save those resources. If we want to help people survive in this economy, we have to allow them to save money where they can and not take away their dignity by making clean, dry clothes less affordable.
Many thanks to the commentators who took the time to write about my Right to Dry posting. I respect your views and it was good to hear from you. As I indicated in my posting, I come down on the side of the property rights of the declarants and homeowner associations who first established the rules at issue, as opposed to a legislature that would purport to overturn those regulations. That being said, I certainly support the right of property owners who do not agree with any particular rules to seek their change in accordance with applicable procedures.
Thanks again for your comments.
All best.
John
The problem is that many times the actual homeowners had no say whatsoever in the initial versions of the covenants in their HOA controlled neighborhoods. Our developer and his attorney wrote our covenants. The actual (eventual) residents had absolutely no input whatsoever into the covenants. They (the developer and his attorney) also included a procedure in which the homeowners could change the covenants, but it was a very difficult and expensive procedure. We did change ours but it was so hard to do that I doubt anyone will ever try to do so again. And no, I didn't know what was contained in the covenants until the day of our settlement. We were totally naive about HOAs and their power.