"Dave Shrader" wrote in message
news:m9wyb.372045$Tr4.1101837@attbi_s03...

The buyer's requested assurance that the antenna and tower would be
removed prior to passing papers. My response "Of course!"

So here we have:

1: The people did not want the antennas.

2: It's more like "**** my neighbor. If he is selling his home and can't
get a buyer due to my antennas, that's his problem."

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...
There currently exists a rule within the FCC that disallows municipalities
preventing amateur operators from erecting antennas, and a similar rule
for CC&R's is in the works.

If my neighbors use this unjust law to put up an antenna, I hope they don't
plan on selling their home anytime soon. As soon as I see a 4-sale sign in
the neighbors yard, that's when I get into ham myself and erect my big, bad
antenna. Like you hams say, this wouldn't affect the property value or the
sale of the home so my ham neighbor wouldn't say anything to me....right?

" Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news:%Xbyb.22095$yM6.1695@lakeread06...
I kept in at the tree line, in the middle of
the property. Out of sight.

I think how tall the antennas are is what dictates if they are a problems.
Antennas that are as tall as the home and in the back yard really wouldn't
be a a problem for me. Huge big, bad antennas would.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

I'm trying to see the important distinction between "property values"
and "your investment in your home".

Investment in your home, to me, means what you paid for your home. Property
value is what someone is supposedly willing to pay for your land and home.
It doesn't necessary mean your actual investment in the home. If a chemical
spill is discovered near the area, your property value might be $50K while
your investment could be $100K (what you paid for your home). People want to
equate property values with an investment that will _always_ go up, mostly
due to the real estate boom over the last 3 decades or so. I don't see many
people like that. Out of all my family, only a cousin actually rents a
home. No many people buy a home, let it sit empty and hope that they can
sell it for 30% more in a year. That is the main problem with CC&R. People
think they are a way to help your property value increase. That's stupid
logic. They should be more worried about just making sure they get what
they put into the home. I believe CC&Rs do that. They make it so people can
sell their home. I personally wouldn't have a problem with a ham antenna as
long as it didn't interfere with anything in my home. If it did, I would
ask the person to take it down. Chances are I would be a good friend to my
neighbors since I am pretty easy to get along with. It's when hams get this
attitude (like I am seeing here) spouting off: "Well, I got a new law
supporting me so not much you or anyone else can do." That's when the
gloves come off. Screw them. They thought they had a friend....I hope the
person never needs something or tries to make small talk.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
news
The problem is that in some places in this country finding an area without
CCRs that will mean an unreasonably long communte to work.

That's my point. It seems more and more, no one is willing to compromise.
Hams want no CC&R and have everything want. Scanner people want what they
want. Short-wave people want what they want. My commute is 20 miles. I
would be fine with driving 30. Some people can't stand that, so they live
in vinyl villages and in urban areas. Some people think 10 miles or more of
a drive to work is horrible. I don't see how these people would survive if
they had not found their little niche a few decades ago. Would they just be
bitter? I know that if I want to live rural, I have to look at almost a 30
mile drive. So? I save my money and take care of my car. If it's that big
of deal, buy a Honda. Of course then there are the rich folks who can never
been seen in a Honda. Those are the people I tell to go buy an Acura!!

I have seen this attitude more and more with the younger generation. No
home less than 5 years old. Fancy SUVs, etc etc. Live paycheck to
paycheck. These are actually the CC&R cops you people talk about. Always
bitching about so and so violating this and that.....only because they think
their home is going to double in value in 10 years. Me, I hope to live as
rural as possible. Even if that means my ham can put up 500 towers.
Depending on what it does/doesn't do to my electronics and his/her attitude
after I let them know about it, will determine if I see them as friend or
foe. Hams serve a purpose, a good one....but this doesn't mean they should
use some law to skirt the rules of a contract they were never forced into.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:21:24 +0000 (UTC), Richard G Amirault
wrote:

In rec.radio.scanner Dee D. Flint wrote:

: Contact the ARRL. They have data that shows that antennas have NO impact on
: property values. They also have data showing that, in general, property
: values are rising faster in areas without CCRs & HOAs than in areas with
: them.

I find that hard to believe. Do you really mean to say that a ham with 15
or 20 different antennas and two towers does *nothing* to the property
values of the houses next door?

Now that is one of those open ended questions and gets an "it all
depends" for an answer.

If you mean an installation such as
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/Tower30.htm
The answer is no. In the photo there are beams for 20, 15, 10(1),
6(1), 2(2), and 440(2) for a total of 6. plus two verticals for 144
and 440 and a multi band vertical on a 32 foot tower for 9. Then
wire antennas for 75 (2) and 40 (1) for 12. Then three dishes for
satellite and microwave for 15 and two UHF TV antennas for a total of
17. It's not figured in the evaluation of our property as either a
plus or minus.

It's a rural subdivision that is heavily wooded. Except for a couple
of back yards and a corner lot the system is not readily visible. Yet
from half a mile away it stands out readily, being well above the tree
line. The house to the south just sold with nary a question as to the
antennas.

When I first installed the top mast one neighbor asked about it
falling over. We measured the distance and he was well outside the
radius. Plus they now call it the neighbor hood lightening rod as they
have seen it get hit at least twice while they were sitting in their
family room watching a storm. They also watch to see what we do when
the weather gets bad and have the local repeater on their scanner.

Nothing else in the neighborhood has been struck since I put it up.

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Richard in Boston, MA, USA
N1JDU

"Midwest Kid" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
It does amaze me, Pappy, how many are
so willing to accept, and even defend,
additional restrictions on people's lives and
property in this supposedly free country of
ours.

Please show us one case where someone was
force (with a gun, knife, etc) to buy a home in
a CC&R neighborhood. No one is forced to
buy a home in CC&R. If you don't want
CC&R, move.


Nobody today was forced with a gun, knife, or whatever, to be born in this
country either, but we still have restrictions on the government's ability
to interfere with our lives (without having to move to get it). The same
cannot be said for CC&R's. These homeowners associations, and their CC&R's,
restrict our lives in ways our federal government would not even consider.
The only way to escape those restrictions is to move - in a country where
homeowners associations, and their CC&R's, are spreading to the point where
there may someday be no free place left to move to.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Midwest Kid" wrote:

(snip) Your property value doesn't mean
jack if you cannot SELL your home. There
are more people willing to look elsewhere
if my damn neighbor has some 20+ foot
tower in his/her back yard. (snip)


Do you have any reliable evidence of this? I've seen nothing that suggests
people aren't willing to purchase homes with antennas in the neighborhood.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Midwest Kid" wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Same organization has data showing it
doesn't affect the sale of homes either.

How about an organization that has a little
less bias toward allowing antennas.


Okay, how about that organization? Which organization has data showing
antennas in a neighborhood have a negative affect on the sale of homes?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Midwest Kid" wrote:

My county just east of Indy has plenty of
non CC&R neighborhoods. (snip)


I worked in Indianapolis several years ago (as a security specialist for
DFAS in what was once Ft. Ben Harrision). Since the DoD supplied our
residence, we were not personally affected by CC&R's. However, we did
casually look into purchasing a house with the idea of possibly making that
area our home. During that process, we ran into several houses with CC&R's
(especially in the north-eastern part of town). But, on the south side of
town, none of the houses had a CC&R. That has probably changed today. But I
don't doubt the mostly open, mostly country, areas east of Indy are still
relatively free of CC&R's.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/