Photo by Todd Weddle / St. Joseph News-Press / Purchase this photo

Longtime Stonecrest resident Don Kelly cleans the exterior of his home Friday afternoon as his American flag hangs off the side. A proposed restriction in the subdivision states that no flagpoles shall be erected except those attached to a house. Those with existing free-standing flagpoles would be allowed to remain.

A newly proposed restriction in a local subdivision is raising eyebrows among some homeowners and veterans.

The Stonecrest Homes Association recently held a series of meetings to update restrictions in their community. Included in the additions, which are in the voting stage, is a proposal that “no flagpoles shall be erected except those attached to the house.” The proposal also includes instructions modeled after the U.S. Flag Code on how to properly fly the flag.

Curtis Walker, vice president of the Stonecrest Homes Association board, said the restriction was proposed by a homeowner at the third and final meeting, and was then approved by the majority of the residents in attendance. Existing, free-standing flagpoles would be allowed to remain.

Mr. Walker said board members have since heard some concerns about the flagpole proposal from Stonecrest homeowners.

“The perception was that it was not patriotic, but my impression from the meeting that I chaired when the restriction was proposed was exactly opposite,” Mr. Walker said. “The homeowners expressed the concern that those displaying flags should do it in a manner befitting the flag of the United States.”

Now that the flag limitations have entered the list of proposed Stonecrest restrictions, Mr. Walker said the document must be approved by 60 percent of the 595 homes in the subdivision before taking effect. Because of how the voting process is set up, it will be some time before the outcome is known.

Jo Swearingin, Stonecrest Homes Association board member, said she has not heard any complaints about the flag restriction since the board clarified that it was not intended to ban residents from flying the flag.

“I think the purpose of that was to eliminate big commercial or industrial flag poles and still allow (homeowners) to fly the flag, which of course we want,” she said.

Ms. Swearingin said every homeowner was invited to be on the restriction subcommittee, but only about 30 chose to participate in drafting new proposals.

Jerome Goolsby, adjutant at American Legion Post 359, said homeowners should not be flying tattered or faded flags anyway, and said he thinks this section of the proposed restriction is fine.

“That’s standard for the Flag Code, and that’s standard for proper respect,” he said.

The section about free-standing flagpoles, however, is something Mr. Goolsby said he hasn’t seen proposed by any other subdivision in this area. He said as long as a flag in good condition is flying on a flagpole with a proper ratio between the height of the pole and the size of the flag, homeowners should be in the clear.

“I don’t see what the problem is,” Mr. Goolsby said.

The News-Press contacted 10 other homeowner associations in St. Joseph, and no similar restrictions regarding flags or flagpoles were reported. All associations contacted also said the subject had never been proposed.

Dottie Nash, a 16-year resident of Stonecrest, said the flagpole issue is something she has strong feelings about, especially since her husband, Ken, spent 46 years in uniform.

“I absolutely think they should be allowed to have a flagpole in their yard,” she said.

Mr. Nash echoed his wife’s sentiments, saying he did not vote to pass the newly proposed restrictions. He said he agrees with the section that outlines proper flag etiquette but thinks the rest doesn’t make sense.

“We’re intending to put a standing flag up in our front yard,” he said.

Betty Hiett, who has lived in Stonecrest for 20 years, also said she thinks the decision to raise a flagpole should be up to residents.

“I think it’s just everybody’s opinion, what they want to do,” she said.