USA HR-4969
On 8/10/2014 10:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.
Really?
.... ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.
Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".
So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.
Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."
I'm not asking why average citizens would want to have CC&R's that
forbid skyhooks: each to his own, etc.
I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.
73,
Bill W1AC
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
|