Scott Zuniga is only the latest victim. The Mount Pleasant resident, who was threatened with action by his property owners' association because he flew a Mexican flag, joins the people in New Jersey who sued to place political signs on their property and the boy in Tarpon Springs, Fla., whose family sued because association rules there prevented him from playing outside. It is one thing to make sure that neighborhoods are well kept; it is quite another, and quite wrong, to intrude in areas which are already and better governed by state and federal constitutions.

Although Zuniga said association representatives told him he couldn't fly a Mexican flag - representing his heritage - the property management company for his condominiums said the rules apply to any flag attached to brackets on a dwelling, which are forbidden by neighborhood rules. Those forbid decorative lighting, flags and flagpoles, a company representative said, although flagpoles in the ground would work and of course there is an exception for U.S. flags because state law says so.

Aside from forbidding a prohibition on respectful displays of the nation's flag, that state law also says association rules can't forbid the display of political candidates' signs. The property association rules also suggest that people couldn't attach to their buildings Danish flags, Packers or Brewers flags, Wisconsin flags or Marine Corps flags.

In short, people can't do anything unless their property owners' associations agree, and that is simply unacceptable because it means a private contract can wipe away rights granted by the state and federal constitutions. A New Jersey appellate court found that premise unacceptable a couple of years ago when condominium owners were forbidden from displaying political signs, and it's a sad statement that governments have to pass special laws to guard basic rights. It is time that laws were rewritten to put more limits on what property associations can restrict.

The simplistic answers - move somewhere else or don't sign the agreement - are not answers. First, regardless of where people live, there must be basic protection from any kind of whimsical intrusion by government or a group of people acting like a government. Second, moving elsewhere is not necessarily possible when one considers distance to work, what schools children will attend, proximity to relatives and so forth. Third, these thick agreements may be presented to buyers at closing when they cannot be neither quickly read nor negotiated.

The reason we have a Constitution and state constitutions is to make sure that individual rights are not trampled by a small group of would-be dictators or political fads, and these public rights should not be subject to elimination through private contracts.

If property associations want to exercise power like little governments, then they must also accept limitations on that power. They cannot push their noses into almost every aspect of a person's life. It is an intrusive, basically undemocratic outlook which invites people to be more involved in their neighbors' business than the king's men who sparked the American Revolution.