On Jul 22, 4:30 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 21, 11:07 pm, wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:17 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:45 pm, wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
(insert standard "not a lawyer" disclaimer HERE)
Same for me... I'm not a RE lawyer either...

I'm not any kind of lawyer.

looking at the legal process that went on before I purchased my
house, this isn't going to work. The CC&R's are actually recorded for
the whole property before it was plated and sold to the developer.

Well, there goes that idea in your case. But in others it may work.

There are over 300 lots in my subdivision
and for the developer to except one of the lots, he would have to own
them all, remove the restrictions on them all and reapply them to all
but one.

Maybe. Even if he bought them all, he may not have the right to repeal
the restrictions. It depends on the exact wording.

HOA rules are another issue completely, but the same approach may
work.

In my case the HOA rules are spelled out in the CC&R's (for the most
part). They have some latitude in some areas of appearance, but not a
lot. My CC&R's actually specify the maximum heigth of the grass in
you yard.

Think why that is.....

Get a lawyer BEFORE you need one. Having all the
"I's" dotted and "T's" crossed legally is the best way to proceed. By
the time you need one, it's going to be too late.

I look at it differently. Unless you are an RE lawyer yourself, assume
you need one.

The cure is for lots of people to write Congress and get them to order
FCC to expand the OTARD preemption. FCC has clearly said they will do
it when Congress tells them to.

We can also go to the City, County, and State and ask for preemptive
rules for Part 97 antennas. I get the impression that one might have
more luck in those venues than in Congress.

Probably not. Here's why:

The thing about deed restrictions and covenants is that they are
considered private contracts. Most governments don't want to bust in
on private contracts - or at least that's the excuse they give.

The one exception is that you cannot make a valid, legal contract to
do something that is clearly illegal. Suppose A hires B to murder C,
writes up a contract that they both sign, and A pays B in advance. But
then B decides not to do the job. A cannot use the courts to get his
money back from C for non-comission of a crime.

The OTARD ruling stemmed from the idea that the anti-TV-antenna rules
effectively created an illegal cable-TV-provider monopoly, and
restricted interstate commerce in doing so. The satellite TV folks had
to go all the way to the Supremes to get that ruling, too.

As another example, it used to be legal to put all sorts of
discriminatory restrictions in CC&Rs as to who you could sell the
property to - race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Civil rights and equal
housing laws made these illegal.

On top of that, the local governments, if they have any sense, will
say it's the FCC's area, not theirs, and to go talk to them.

I've seen more than one
antenna bill get introduced into congress with pretty good support
only to get buried in committee and never to be seen again. I don't
see that changing anytime soon.

What is "pretty good support"? How many hundred thousand letters to
Congress supporting it?

40 miles a day in a small car is maybe $6 in gas....

Compared to my current 6 mile/day bill of $0.60 using that car is
pretty expensive. I'm also 6'7" so it's kind of hard to find a car I
can fit into and get good mileage.. But we are moving off track.

Maybe not.

One of the big problems we have in the USA is that we're overdependent
on rubber-tire, fossil-fuel-powered transportation. Consider your 300-
unit development - does it include a shopping center you can walk or
bike to? Or does almost anything require a car or truck ride?

Too much of our country is designed around the automobile, which leads
to all sorts of problems. But it doesn't have to be that way - look at
Portland Oregon for how things could be. (And it didn't used to be
that way - towns and suburbs used to be built so that a car wasn't an
absolute necessity).

Say the HOA doesn't like the current color of your
fence. You live on a fixed income and cannot paint the fence but the
ACC changed the rules and now your fence is unacceptable. HOA
eventually assess fines, charging you for each day the fence is not
painted. They file leans on your property to secure the debt and you
could loose your house, all because the "rules" changed and you didn't
agree to the change.

Good point. I wonder if it could be argued that such rules effectively
create a monopoly for the paint company that makes the approved kind
of paint?

Part of the problem is that a lot of folks don't really
know what they're getting into when they buy.

Some do but the fine details about what can happen would be lost on
most of us. In Texas things get pretty crazy. I've read a case where
a guy got a lot with deed restrictions that didn't allow "mobile
homes". He started to have a pre-fab modular home built on the lot
and got hauled into court by the HOA for trying to install a "mobile
home". He ended up loosing the case after nearly 5 years of having a
half completed house he couldn't live in. Paid substantial fines
too. Crazy Texas courts where they attempt to take the most liberal
interpretation in favor of the HOA they can.

The fundamental problem was that he was doing something they didn't
like. That's the key issue and the key question: why didn't they like
the prefab modular home?

Friend of mine bought into such a place, and after some time
discovered that the upstairs windows leaked. The construction was
rather slipshod IMHO but caulk had worked for a couple of years. But
now he had a major job to fix the problem.

Oh, I know how that goes. My dad made the mistake of getting the
windows changed without consulting the HOA. Hooo Boy, what a mess
that was.

My friend dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts. Point is, it cost
him a lot more because he had to get the exact approved windows and
such; he couldn't get the windows he wanted.

Could that be a monopoly, again?

I got a letter from the HOA telling me to mow my lawn... OK, but I had
proof that my lawn was being mowed each week for the entire summer
(can you say cancelled checks to the lawn care guys) and I'm sure the
yard wasn't getting out of hand enough to warrant a nasty letter from
the HOA in a week.

But how long was it? The rules go by the length, not how often it's
mowed.

Also, I don't dare try and "hide" a stealth antenna in plain sight.
It's like the SS is driving around looking for a justification for the
high fees the management company charges. For some reason they can see
18 gauge bare copper coming off the back of my house heading for the
back fence. (Oh yea, I got a letter on that one too.) I could barely
see it from the street, knowing it was there.

SHEESH!

Has anybody had any success with getting an HOA to allow this kind of
thing, in spite of the clear restrictions in the CC&R’s?

I'm afraid the problem there would be that the HOA would hide behind
the CC&Rs, saying their hands are tied. And they'd be telling the
truth.

---

I can think of one thing hams could do - a sort of "guerilla theatre",
as it were. (Perhaps I listened to Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant"
a few times too many when I was younger....)

Suppose that a developer is having an open house or similar promotion
(expect a lot of them with the RE market the way it is).

And suppose a lot of nicely-dressed radio amateurs and their spouse
show up to look. They act eager and interested, comment on how nice
everything is, and how the place is just what they are looking for and
well within their price range. They start talking about preapproved
mortgages, where the furniture will go and what kind of drapes they'll
install, plus how much cash is in the checking account to make the
deposit.

Then they pull out a big measuring tape and start measuring the yard.
The agent will ask what they are doing, and they say they're figuring
out where the amateur radio antennas will go. "There's no rule against
them, right?" they ask. Of course the agent will have to tell them the
truth, because of disclosure laws.

As soon as the agent says "no antennas", they put all the literature
down, roll up the tape, say "Thanks but no thanks, we wouldn't live
here if you gave us the house", get in their car and drive away.

If one person does it, they'll think it's an oddity.

If a few people do it, they'll look into it.

If a lot of people do it, they may think it's a movement, and get the
message.

Waddya think?

73 de Jim, N2EY