RadioBanter - View Single Post

Bill Horne[_4_] · January 30th 10, 03:21 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated

On 1/27/2010 8:29 AM, wrote:
On Jan 25, 3:44�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
My wife and I looked at over 100 houses before we selected
the one I live in now. I have *no* HOA, *no* CC&R's,
and *no* problem putting up antennas: I had to fire
three agents who hadn't heard me when I told them what *my*
requirements were.

Thanks for proving the point, Bill.

Having to look at 100 houses after telling an agent what you want means
something's really wrong somewhere.

At the time, there was a speculative bubble, and many homeowners
expected unreasonable prices for their property. In addition, I had
certain requirements not germane to this discussion due to physical
challenges, and there was also the threat of certain neighborhoods
being used as dumps for potentially toxic waste being dredged up from
Boston's "Big Dig" construction projects. Since agents refused to
disclose property addresses and insisted on being present at any visit,
we had to endure a lot of "non-starter" pitches.

Having to fire three agents after telling them what you want means
something's really wrong somewhere.

I won't describe it as "wrong", but it was certainly counterproductive.
The Agents I dismissed all assumed that they could show me multi-story
houses after I'd said "Only one level" as clearly as possible, or that
condos would interest me after I'd told them "No" in plain English, or
that I'd be willing to live next to a pile of chromium. They lost the
sale because they didn't listen.

I don't think the problem was that you were excessively choosy; I think
the problem was a lack of suitable houses, so the agents showed you
"almost good enough" houses.

They showed us whatever they had, including one home where, when we
asked about local stores, the sole occupant - a high school senior who
was staying there until he graduated - told us that if we wanted a Coke
we could just walk over to the prison!

You had the resources and patience to go through all that. Many folks
don't. If you spent just 1 hour per house on research, that's over
2-1/2 weeks work before the actual job of buying and moving begins.

It was more like six months: my wife and I were both holding down
full-time jobs, but we chose to dedicate the time and money to finding
a home that *WE* wanted, instead of something that a real-estate
agentdecided on.

Michael is right: the agent represents the *SELLER*, not the buyer.
He is legally obligated to disclose _some_ things, but professionally
obligated not to disclose anything else that might lower the house's
value. Agents are not your friends.

I disagree; they can be. But the main point is that the agent, whether
a buyer's agent or a seller's agent, doesn't make any money until a
sale happens.

The main point is that an agent doesn't really care if (s)he meets your
needs. (S)he gets paid to wear a buyer down until the trash heap next
to the Interstate starts to look good, and that's a damned shame, but
it's also capitalism in action. Real-estate agents *know* that they'll
only make a sale out of some small percentage of showings, but they
also know that that percentage is constant, and so they'll show you
everything they can get a commission on. If it's "your" house, they
win, and if it's not, they're that much closer to a sale. It's a tough
business, to be sure, but some agents allow it to dull their common
sense.

I think all this is having a negative impact on amateur radio.
Here's why:

1) Lots of people who live in restricted homes never pursue an interest
in amateur radio because they don't want the antenna hassle. Not every
restricted home has a suitable attic or yard where an antenna can be
hidden. Many restrictions are such that flagpoles, birdhouses, awnings
and other things are prohibited too. Plus Gladys Kravitz type neighbors
who look for *any* infractions (it only takes one).

The effect is particularly strong on young people, who can't just move
and whose resources are usually less.

It's not the neighbors who matter: IMNSHO, home buyers don't care about
CC&R's unless and until a real-estate agent convinces them that such
things are important. CC&R's are put in place to protect *builders*,
not buyers, because the builder is afraid that someone will erect a
tower or construct an addition or drill for oil before all the lots of
a development are committed, and because builders are vain enough to
believe that their corporate identity is something that makes a
difference to home buyers.

For their part, real-estate agents like CC&R's because they assure a
consistent product that can be turned over repeatedly without the need
to worry about someone's aversion to whirligigs, antennas, lawn
ornaments, or pretty much anything else that a homeowner might add.
CC&R's save them time and trouble, and that means more profit.

CC&R's are like an automobile purchase contract that obligates the
buyer to never repaint the car, never allow it to rust, never install
custom headlights, never modify the interior, and never hang fuzzy dice
from the mirror. They are contracts that benefit only those who are
involved in the *transfer* of property, not in its use: if CC&R's
benefit homeowners by maintaining the "value" of their land, they also
cheapen people's lives by lessening the value of their community and by
denying their children exposure to other ways of living and looking at
the world.

2) Lots of hams who live in restricted homes are much less active
amateurs than they would be if they didn't have the hassle.

3) Certain areas become "no-hams" zones, because more and more hams
steer clear of them.

4) The publicity and visibility of amateur radio decreases over time,
because nobody sees antennas, and hams operating stealth don't
talk about it.

How many of us first discovered amateur radio, or found our first
Elmer, by seeing his/her antenna(s)?

For decades the trend in amateur radio has been to make the licenses
easier to get, the equipment less expensive, more reliable and higher
performing, and the choices of activities greater. But at the same
time, there's been a slow but steady trend to make more and more homes
ham-radio-unfriendly. That's not a good thing.

I'm not sure how to meet the challenge head-on; we don't have the
resources of the satellite-dish folks.

I'm not sure the challenge _can_ be met "head on": as I've said before,
in this and other forums, Ham Radio was popular when I was young
because the government took extraordinary steps to encourage scientific
education in the post-Sputnik years, feeling that we had to outpace the
"red menace". That translated into lots of publicity for ham radio, a
good amount of "free" equipment for those who participated in MARS, and
preferential treatment during frequency-allocation hearings at a time
when shortwaves were the _only_ means of international broadcasting.

During most of the Cold War, hams were a trained corps of radio
operators who could be pressed into service quickly if needed: that's
why the NTS is patterned after military nets, and why hams had to learn
Morse long after it passed from commercial use. The Cold War is over:
we won, and now the military thinks we're surplus.

Of course, it's more complicated now. We can, sometimes, help out
during disasters, and even though some hams headed to Haiti in the wake
of the earthquake found themselves getting shot at, in most cases our
assistance is welcomed. We can, sometimes, provide a source of news and
information to both public outlets and individuals during such events,
although American TV networks think nothing of bringing suitcase
satellites into disaster areas. We can, sometimes, provide public
exposure for ham radio, even if only by wearing a T-shirt with an ARES
logo during field day.

Long story short: CC&R's are one symptom of a societal shift which is
leading to less demand for all kinds of technical expertise, not just
ham operators. American home buyers, fully aware that their futures and
their horizons are being altered by international forces they can
neither anticipate nor prepare for, are willing to shortchange each
other and give up their right to modify their environment, in return
for being able to keep anyone else from doing so. The "paradise" they
are purchasing is a pale imitation of what it could be, but they'll
settle for it never being less.

We must adapt or perish.

My 2¢. YMMV.

Bill, W1AC