September 18, 2014 at 11:43 am #1365
The Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Association, its former President and board has filed a motion for summary judgment in the First Amendment case brought by the ACLU on behalf of this publication’s owners and other members. The filings can be found here:
Diamondhead’s Motion for Summary Judgment
The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi files their answers in these documents:September 18, 2014 at 1:09 pm #8529
FYI: Links, except first, do not work.September 18, 2014 at 1:20 pm #8530
Try hovering slowly over the links, or you can access all of the filings on the front page of the Diamondhead News Online at http://www.diamondheadnews.comSeptember 18, 2014 at 2:11 pm #8532
Hovering only shows heading of link. The links on the webpage do not work either.September 18, 2014 at 3:11 pm #8533
I understand that you want to see the links fixed, but if you want to read the filings now just go to the front page. I’m biased but I found the ACLU memorandum far more convincing. I know they’re hard up for money so I have to think they wouldn’t have taken this case on without some pretty large confidence in the outcome. I’m all for tidiness in the ‘hood, but not to the degree that it impedes political expression during election times! Thx John, Alfonsos, Webers, and R. Esher for filing this suit.September 18, 2014 at 4:15 pm #8534
My view of some recent local history: The POA used our dues to fund City Incorporation. POA self-appointed “Incorporators” thought they would maintain control of the POA-created City. The POA transferred various functions to City, which immediately instituted a property tax that was 300% MORE that what “Incorporators” originally touted. Citizens complained but were ignored, since the new POA-created City was controlled by self-appointed POA chosen “leaders”.
First City Election Process, April-June 2013:
Due to U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, the City CANNOT prohibit political signs, etc. For City political sign rules SEE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE: ARTICLE 10, SIGNS; SECTION 10.9.B., “POLITICAL SIGNS” p. 112.) http://www.diamondhead.ms.gov/Ordinances%20%20Resolutions/Ord_2012-019_Zoning_Ordinance_Adopted_101512.pdf
Even though the POA created the City and transferred major services, POA rulers STILL sought to prohibit political signs. But some citizens via ACLU sued and got the preliminary injunction, to which the Kyger-POA agreed. Because of this, citizens were able to have signs toward the end of the City election process (late May 2013). Citizens kicked out several of the original self-appointed, POA-chosen City leaders. Citizens again used signs effectively in the recent POA election and kicked out the incumbent POA leadership.
POA traditional ruler-types FEAR WHAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL: especially Members/citizens open communication, including citizens ability to have political signs and to utilize other citizens’ communication media (like DNOL) that are outside the control and censorship of the POA.
In a couple of years, there will be another POA election and then a City election (as well as other important elections: Presidential, Congressional, County). Certain POA and City “leaders” STILL seek to maintain control by preventing Diamondhead citizens from communicating their election preferences.
It’s all about the First Amendment, especially now that Diamondhead is a City.September 19, 2014 at 3:05 am #8535
Good info, vsimons, thanks.September 19, 2014 at 11:18 am #8542
I would like to ask a question because I am a newbie and there are so many issues being debated about the DPOA and the City of Diamondhead. Was one of the reasons to make Diamondhead a city so it could NOT be annexed by any other city such as Bay St. Louis, Pass Christian, etc.? I know in many areas this is and always has been an issue and/or a threat. For instance, BSL continues to incorporated more and more areas up Hwy 603 to support their tax base. Was this a threat to DH? It has also been an ongoing problem with Gulfport and its surrounding areas. If this is one of the reasons then this must be considered in the issues at hand – the dissolution of the POA, the authority of the City of Diamondhead, etc. – who does what, who has authority over what, where does the county fit in all of this. I would love it if someone could give me the reasoning and history of this issues so I can better understand the debates and the actions people want taken. Thanks.September 19, 2014 at 11:37 am #8544
At least two studies I have seen suggest that a consolidation of the three coastal Hancock County cities would be the most effective form of government in the area and end duplicate and costly services.September 19, 2014 at 11:38 am #8545
You bring up some good questions Ladygator. I’ve been studying the history or these problems by reading here and elsewhere. I’m sure someone with more background will chime in with ideas. About this case it is an important issue, first amendment. This case brings up the problems of having a poa in control when we are a city now.
My question is to address the elephant in the room that people seem too timid mention. I’ve never been afraid of elephants. This question might be rhetorical. Why does the DH poa president have lawsuits against the DH poa? I think there is more than one. I think there have been several DH poa board members that have sued the DH poa. It’s just further proof that we don’t need a need a poa if the DH poa leaders own leaders are suing the DH poa.September 19, 2014 at 11:47 am #8546
John Fletcher sued the POA by means of the ACLU prior to his running for DCC&POA president. The issue was part of the campaign.September 19, 2014 at 12:50 pm #8548
Thank you. That’s an important clarification to make. I did know John Fletcher ran on a platform or reform, I just hope it’s still that way. I think other directors have sued the DH poa but I’m not certain. Just saying we just don’t need a poa that attracts legal action form it’s membership and it’s leaders. If the DH poa had a history of fairness people wouldn’t be forced to sue them. Anyway thank you for calling them out on all their crap and for this discussion board. .September 20, 2014 at 3:35 am #8554
Ladygater, I know this is off topic, but I do know prior to Katrina BSL wanted to incorp. DH. Then Katrina hit and we were gone from the area for 3 years while fighting with the insurance co. So I do not know what happened with that.September 20, 2014 at 5:51 am #8555
I may be wrong but BSL annexing Diamondhead would not, could not happen. It was a scare tactic from the beginning. The area is too spread out and would cost BSL millions of dollars that they did not have. And there would have been the same issue with water and sewer, they would have not gave up the gold mine.
Also there are two POA board members currently on the board that has sued the DPOA.September 20, 2014 at 7:28 am #1364
Diamondhead residents may have genuinely feared annexation by the Bay but it was never a genuine threat. From the onset of casinos in the late 90’s, there were always some with fever dreams in the Bay, even wild rumors of a bridge from Cedar Point to Diamondhead followed by annexation and casinos at both ends.
By the mid-2000’s there may have been wishful thinking about annexation among a handful of BSL politicos, but their primary goal was to get the commercial property along Hwy 603 which they annexed in 2006 and which must have hyped Diamondhead’s fears.
Bay residents would never have supported annexation of Diamondhead. Neither community tends to see the other as congenial to its own politics and point of view.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.