Sigh

One of the biproducts of law school is a cyclic feeling of frustration with the people who animate some of the cases we read. To wit--I read a property case this evening regarding covenant enforcement in an Albuquerque neighborhood (Hill v. Community of Damien of Molokai, 911 P.2d 861 (N.M. 1996)). A non-profit corporation who provides people with AIDS and other terminal illnesses places to live within residential communities leased a house in the Four Hills Village subdivision and created a group home for four AIDS patients. Shortly following a (postive) newspaper article about the home, the neighbors decided to file for an injunction against the home, claiming they were upset about the increased traffic the home brought to their neighborhood and that it violated one of the restrictive covenants that applied to all homes in that portion of the subdivision. Specifically, they claimed the use violated the covenant which specified all homes were only ever to be used as single-family dwellings.

They claimed their suit had nothing to do with a People With AIDS Ick Us Out doctrine, but the facts are somewhat problematic. "When a patient [from the group home] was taken to the hospital by ambulance, one family stood in their yard holding champagne glasses." Albuquerque Tribune, Jan. 15 1996, at A3.

You read that correctly. They held up champagne glasses as a person with AIDS was taken to the hospital by ambulance. Fuckers. Seriously? Take your God Hates Fags rhetoric and shove it. Better yet, sit on it for a few and reflect on your behavior: your hatred and bigotry led you to celebrate the worsening of someone's health. I...have not the words. I looked up the article (the line I quoted above was cited in my casebook) to see if it mentioned the names of the people who did this--it didn't, much to my disappointment.

But I'll put aside my ire and utter disgust for a moment to bring up a slightly less angry objection to the neighbors' behavior. Throughout the suit, they maintained the reasons for seeking the injunctions were that a) they didn't like the covenant being violated, and b) they didn't like the increase in neighborhood traffic that (supposedly) resulted from the group home's presence. Please. If you're going to have the gall to stand on your lawn and cheer when the guy with AIDS goes to the hospital, have the stones to file your suit on your real objection to the situation. What's wrong, afraid to go to court and say you think AIDS is icky and you don't like to think about it living down the street? Too fucking bad. Until you sack up and let your bigotry run public, keep your eyes on your own paper and drink your champagne indoors.