On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:32:00 -0400, N2EY wrote:
IMHO, part of the problem is that CC&Rs are a different thing
than zoning ordinances and other govt. regs. Most anti-antenna
rules are essentially private contracts that you, the buyer, agreed
to when you bought the place. Asking for preemption means you
want out of that part of the deal. That's a tough sell!

Morally, I would suggest that when a given CC&R restriction is universal
- when *every* acceptable property in an area carries identical
anti-antenna restrictions - then that contract provision was NOT agreed
to. It was *forced* on a buyer who does not have the option of buying a
property 5x the size (and 5x the price) of anything else in the
neighborhood/living on a street with four crack houses/living 50 miles
from work/etc..

In a moral world, the amateur should be able to invalidate anti-antenna
restrictions by showing that no comparable property was available that
lacked those restrictions.

Of course, in the real legal and political world, no such right exists or
is likely to come into being...

It is my understanding that what drove the OTARD process for satellite
TV was that the satellite TV companies pushed the case, and invested th
e
sizable $$$ resources necessary to win. IIRC, their argument was
essentially that the no-TV-antennas CC&Rs effectively created a cable-T
V
monopoly by making it impossible for some people to choose satellite TV
,
since the dish has to have a clear view of the sky where the satellite
is. Regular broadcast TV was added to the mix a bit later, basically on
the same argument.

And, I would suggest, supported by a cable TV industry that wanted
to be deregulated, something that wasn't going to happen if a large
fraction of their customers had no alternative.