On Jan 27, 12:45�pm, Steve Bonine wrote:

You go to a real estate agent. �
You give them your wish list. �They do
the best that they can to meet it. �The chances
of them finding a house
that meets 100% of your requirements is nil if your wish list is
comprehensive.

House buying is a tradeoff. �The items on
your wish list related to ham
radio are no different than anything else. �It's as silly to tell
a real
estate agent that you absolutely must have three
bedrooms as it is to
tell them that you absolutely must not have a CCR.

I disagree!

I think it depends on how you write the requirements.

Maybe the house for you actually has four bedrooms. �
Maybe the house for
you actually has a CCR but it's something
that you can live with. �Those
are YOUR decisions. �If you never
see the potential properties, you
won't have the opportunity to make the decision.

Again, it's a matter of writing the requirements correctly. Most people
do not have the time to investigate hundreds of homes and all the
details. If they did, they wouldn't need an agent!

There's also the fact that in many situations it's not a one-person
decision. If Spouse A has a lot of time and patience but Spouse B does
not, looking at lots of homes is liable to cause Spouse B to put
pressure on Spouse A to compromise on requirements.

The way I would do it is the following:

First on the list would be the "must haves". These are minimum
requirements that cannot be compromised. For example, if I'm set on a
house in certain school districts, there's no point in showing me homes
outside those districts. If I'm moving in order to have a better
antenna farm, there's no point in showing me houses with less ground or
anti-antenna restrictions.

Second would be negotiables; things that there could be some compromise
on, such as a bathroom near the shack, a multi-car garage,etc.

Third, requirements would be written in the most flexible terms
possible. If I absolutely must have three bedrooms, the requirement
would be "Minimum of three bedrooms" so that a four-bedroom house
wouldn't be ruled out - but a two-bedroom house would be. Same for a
lot of other things. A no-farm-animals CC&R would be fine; a no-
antennas one is a deal-killer.

The key is to find a real estate agent who understands what you're
looking for and is able to show you a reasonable number of
homes; not
everything that might conceivably meet your need, but not rule out
something arbitrarily because it is 2002 square feet and your
max was 2000.

And part of that is making absolutely clear what's negotiable and what
isn't, and not wasting time on homes that cannot meet the requirements.

Ham radio may not be important to everyone, but it's important to me,
and what I see are unreasonable rules restricting it.

Yes, CCRs are a real issue for ham radio today.
�But condemning them as
inherently evil isn't going to accomplish anything because it's only a
tiny minority of the population that wants to erect a tower in their
back yard. �Most everyone thinks CCRs are good and in that
environment
they're not going away. �Best to understand how to work within
the system.

The problem is that "the system" is often specifically designed to
prevent being worked within.

In my township, there is zoning of every property. Zoning is simply a
set of government ordinances, and as such can be changed, amended,
varianced, or overlaid with special rules. Nothing in the zoning
ordinances is unchangeable, and there are strict limits on what zoning
can restrict, because the power of government is
constitutionallylimited.

In similar fashion there are "nuisance ordinances" about things like
noise and keeping the property in reasonable repair. There are also
building codes for safety reasons.

And some properties in my township have deed restrictions, a form of
CC&R. These can restrict things much more than zoning can, and can be
made unchangeable because they are contracts agreed to upon buying the
property - one of which is to require all future owners to do the same.
Most deed restrictions cannot be changed or varianced because they're
specifically set up not to be.

What I see happening more and more is that deed restrictions and
similar one-sided unchangeable contracts are being used to replace
zoning, nuisance ordinances and building codes. And I think that's a
very bad thing which must be resisted however possible.

Because if we don't, eventually there won't be anyplace left to have an
antenna, let alone a tower.

I'm old enough to remember a time when, if you told an American that
people were trying to sell homes where you couldn't put a TV antenna on
the roof, the response would be "That's crazy; they'll never sell!" And
they would have been right. But a little bit here and a little bit
there, and now it's not unusual at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY