On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
(insert standard "I Am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer HERE)

I'm still not a lawyer...

On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:45 pm, "KØHB" wrote:

There was big money at stake because the satellite TV folks saw a huge

and expanding

part of the TV market being off-limits to them because of
no-satellite-dish CC&Rs.

Sure, and considering that the antenna restrictions serve
d to
monopolize access to the cable industry. It is hard to argue that
allowing satellite dishes wasn't a fair and equitable thing to do.

There was also the issue that watching TV in one's home, be it a tiny
studio apartment or a giant estate or anything in between, was a
right of any resident, rental, owner, condo, etc. Nobody wanted to
deny *that* right!

Amateur radio doesn't have the same protections.

The problem is, who determines what's reasonable? In some places a
clothesline in the back yard is considered an eyesore!

A mile or so from us, there is one of those places. No clotheslines, no
kids stuff in yards, all landscaping must be approved. Almost everything
about your home life is tightly regulated. People who live in a place
that restrictive deserve it.

Agreed.

As I peruse through the real estate guides, I'm struck by the number of
homes that are available that do not have restrictive covenants. Even
the village that I live in does not have ban antennas. So I have a nice
woodsey atmosphere, and can do most of the things I want. I wasn't
allowed to set up my still to make corn squeezins! hehe

But my point is that if people are looking for a house, there are
options. It's also very important to read all that boring stuff. I
wonder how many Hams who live in a place that prohibits antennas read
the fineprint.

There are plenty of unrestricted places on the market *now*, because
of
the RE market slump and the mortgage crisis.

But not so long ago, it was a different game. At least around here,
houses
would often be sold the afternoon they went on the market. It was not
unusual for
a house to have multiple offers above the asking price with a
preapproved
mortgage and no conditions on the offer.

In such a market, simply finding out if a place was antenna-restricted
is a real problem.
There are deed restrictions on my 1950-built house (none address
antennas) but to
find them out my RE lawyer had to go to the county courthouse and ask
the right
person for them.

You can only buy a house that is for sale at the time you are looking
to buy. If you
happen to need to move at a time when the market is hot, you're at a
distinct
disadvantage.

Another tactic is to ask if you can put up an antenna, and if the answer
is no, then politely say, "Too bad-see you later!". If the real estate
agent loses a few sales for something silly like that, then they will
start looking into it.

Yes and no.

For one thing, *NEVER* take a verbal response as binding in such a
situation.
Just because the seller or the agent says "yes" or "we can get that
changed"
does NOT mean there are no restrictions! You and your RE attorney need
to
see the actual documents themselves and go over every word to make
sure
there are no restrictions.

For example, the word "antenna" may not appear anywhere. But there may
be
a restriction that says "No structure may exceed a height of 35
feet" (or whatever). A tower
may be considered a structure in that situation, so if you want a 50
foot tower, you're out
of luck.

Deed covenants and restrictions are usually designed so that they
cannot easily be removed
even if all parties want to remove them. The usual way it works is
that each buyer agrees, when
buying the property, to pass them on to the next buyer. So the seller,
and the seller's agent,
may not have the right to remove them even if s/he wants to!

Once the sale is done and you've moved in, it's too late.

IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes many people make is assuming that
because they've read
the Constitution, they don't need a lawyer for things like buying a
house. In many situations
that's a sure-fire path to problems.

Some other problems:

1) A considerable number of hams today were not hams when they moved
into their current
homes. Antennas weren't an issue when the moved - now they are.

2) Considerations such as cost and location are not the same
everywhere. "Move to the
country" isn't always an option if doing so means one or both spouses'
jobs are going to
be at the end of a long and expensive commute. School district and
access to various
services (like health care) are considerations too.

3) In my limited experience, antenna-restricted properties tend to be
less expensive than
unrestricted ones. This flies in the face of the old "property values"
argument, but it
makes sense when you consider that many restricted places have HOA
fees and such,
and that the restrictions often make doing even simple things
expensive (you have to use
a certain paint, buy exact replacements for fixtures like doors and
windows, and get
approval for *everything*. So if you are on a limited budget (who
isn't?), the restricted
properties may appear to be a better deal for your money.

There are bigger, newer and more modern houses near me that are priced
the same as
the little boxes made of ticky-tacky I and my neighbors live in. But
those houses are
restricted in ways that ours aren't.

Besides pushing Congress, one of the things I think we hams could do
to help the process is to never refer to amateur radio as "a hobby" or
even worse, "just a hobby". While most hams do radio simply as an
avocation, IMHO the word "hobby" carries with it a sort of meaning
that it's not a serious thing worthy of protection.

You'll never hear folks who do sports or art nonprofessionally refer
to those activities as "just a hobby". Nor will the term be used by
volunteers who donate their time and efforts to a variety of causes.

IOW, "hobbies" don't get the kind of respect we want amateur radio to
have. If we hams describe amateur radio as "just a hobby", the folks
who want to restrict us may think "well, if they say it's just a
hobby, what's the problem with a few restrictions?" and "there are all
sorts of hobbies that these homes don't accomodate, like raising
horses, target shooting, or pleasure boating with a boat that won't
fit in the garage. What's different about your radio hobby?"

You can be sure the satellite TV people pushing for the OTARD ruling
never, ever referred to watching TV as "a hobby", even though their
viewers don't get paid to watch TV.

I agree!

Here are some ideas:

The old vertical as a flagpole. Its a sorry bunch who wouldn't approve a
flagpole.

A few years back, a WW2 veteran in his '80s put up a flagpole in his
yard.
Every morning he'd raise Old Glory, every night he'd take it down. He
had
two grandkids on active duty in Iraq. The HOA went after him because
freestanding flagpoles were specifically prohibited in the rules.
Being in
the paper and on TV did not faze them; the rules said no flagpoles and
they
were going to enforce those rules.

I think the WW2 vet moved.

Most multiband verticals can be tilted over with kits sold for that
purpose. Maybe that can be hid though the day.

This is a very good idea. While it may not be fun to go outside and
install the antenna before
each operating session, it's a solution.

One homebrew way would be to bury a pipe vertically in the ground and
cut it off at the surface.
A cap would keep debris out when not in use.

The antenna assembly consists of the vertical and a piece of pipe that
will just fit in the
buried pipe. Quick connections to the coax and radial system (both
buried) complete it.

To go on the air, the cap is removed, the antenna assembly raised and
the bottom end put in the hole,
and the connections made.

If the house has plastic gutters, run a wire around them. I'm sure that
is part of a defrosting system - Really, it could be!

The trick is to make the setup so that it is easy to set up in the dark.

And take down.

However even such solutions may not work in some areas. The Gladys
Kravitz
factor looms large in them.

73 de Jim, N2EY