« A New "Twist" On The Clothesline | Main | Should You Get a Second Legal Opinion Before Suing? »
November 16, 2007
CRIME IN NEIGHBORHOODS - CAN YOU POST "NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH" SIGNS?
I commonly get questions about what to do about crime in neighborhoods. There are often various conflicting ideas about what should be done. Here is a question related to a group that wanted to get a neighborhood watch going but met resistance from the Board. The Board's concern apparently involved losing important liability protections including insurance coverage that might flow from helping the owners with the NW program. The Board may have been concerned about encouraging "vigilante" activities. As usual, there are many facets to the question of how far a Board should go in trying to prevent crime, and maybe even, how far the Board should go in "encouraging" owners and residents to act. Here is the question:
QUESTION: Does the Board of Directors have the right to refuse the posting of Neighborhood Watch Signs? How can five members of a board be in charge of the safety of a large residential community?
ANSWER: There are considerations above and beyond the simple question of whether the Board can prohibit the posting of Neighborhood Watch signs. As a simple answer with regard to the question of posting signs (IN CALIFORNIA), it would be my belief that the sign law (IN CALIFORNIA) would allow owners/residents to post neighborhood watch signs in their windows as they would qualify as noncommercial signs and banners which the board may not prohibit. My understanding of the NW signs are that they are small, and usually placed in the windows of the people who participate in the neighborhood watch, so those folks can identify each other, and if someone is in distress they can feel free to go to one of those houses. The law says:
“1353.6. NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS, POSTERS, FLAGS, OR BANNERS; PERMITTED PLACEMENT OF POSTING OR DISPLAY; EXCEPTIONS.
(a) The governing documents, including the operating rules, may not prohibit posting or displaying of noncommercial signs, posters, flags, or banners on or in an owner’s separate interest, except as required for the protection of public health or safety or if the posting or display would violate a local, state, or federal law.
(b) For purposes of this section, a noncommercial sign, poster, flag, or banner may be made of paper, cardboard, cloth, plastic, or fabric, and may be posted or displayed from the yard, window, door, balcony, or outside wall of the separate interest, but may not be made of lights, roofing, siding, paving materials, flora, or balloons, or any other similar building, landscaping, or decorative component, or include the painting of architectural surfaces.
(c) An association may prohibit noncommercial signs and posters that are more than 9 square feet in size and noncommercial flags or banners that are more than 15 square feet in size.”
Now, as to the Board's duty to respond. In my experience with communities suffering from high or increasing crime rates, the more the owners and residents are watchful and can provide meaningful information to the police, such as descriptions of vehicles and people, timing of unwelcome foot or vehicular traffic, etc., the more likely the community is to get the "better" of any criminal element that may be lurking. The movement has to come from the people, the Board cannot fix the problem alone. Criminals tend to move out of a community if the heat on them becomes too hot. If they know they are likely to be watched, they will commonly go somewhere else.
On the other side of things, the posting of these signs tends to lead people coming into the development, perhaps with purchasing a home in mind, to believe that there is significant crime, so it can be a deterrent to sales, and thereby affect property values.
That said, the Board is not "in charge" of stopping crime. But it does have some responsibility toward the members as a "fiduciary" (person or entity in charge of the assets of others).
My approach would be to advise the Board that it is appropriate to afford those who want to get involved in a NWP with a venue, and have someone attend the meeting who has expertise in dealing with community issues like this (someone from the PD and perhaps an experienced lawyer, and some communities have a person who helps groups prepare small claims court cases to present locally) to explain to those present (board and residents) what sort of things are allowed with the NW and what are not (such as vigilante type of activities - threatening, cornering, approaching or fighting with those who come into the neighborhood intending bad activities). It is important to advise the Board and members that the Board is not charged with stopping crime, but rather, that is for the police. However, it (the Board) does have some duty to warn, and I believe arranging for a town hall meeting for the purpose of discussing the issue and allowing the neighborhood watch to operate and allowing the placement of signs helps meet that burden. If there are identifiable specifics or patterns in activity, then there may be more that is needed. If the criminal element is drawn into the community because of a resident, the group may want to look at the "mass owner/family/resident small claims remedy for nuisance". I do not believe that the insurance in place to protect directors would be problematic, unless of course a board member harassed or shot someone or took some action that was outside the scope of a board member's reasonable duty.
Posted by Beth Grimm at November 16, 2007 9:17 AM