|
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Jerry Oxendine wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote: But Bill has bigger problems. His car broke down and he can't afford to fix it. His electricity has been turned off. His shoes have holes in them. He's three months late on his taxes. What should be done? I am not following your premise. What does this have with Bill being "poor" and his ability, or restictions from, putting up antennas? A ham antenna is just one of the problems that Bill has. Why should a ham antenna problem get more of a special treatment that any of Bill's other problems? Premise #1: Some old people need free prescription drugs. Premise #2: Some old people need free shoes. Premise #3: Some old people need ham radio antennas. Where does it end? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp OK. Everyone has to set priorities. Housing, food, insurance (home and car-if any), medical expenses have to come first. Ham radio is a hobby. I have the same expense as everyone else and my rig is an IC735 and an old Atlas I am trying to fix as time and money permits. Lots of the radio stuff was accumulated over many, many years. The antenna issue, I guess, is an issue that revolves around the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". To *some* people, antennas are ugly, to others (hams) they are beautiful! Now the interests of both the neighbors need to be balanced in some way that allows the neighbors peace and allows the ham to pursue his hobby. Much can be done in the area of diplomacy; this is what I did when I first moved in. As I got to know the neighbors, I mentioned that I was a ham. Most of them knew what that was, and I told 'em to let me know instantly if anyone had any interference. One neighbor politely let me know I was messing up his TV. I gave him a filter and that was that. Across the street, the people had one of those gigantic satellite dishes. One afternoon, the maintenance guy marched over and confidantly informed me I was getting in the Brown's dish/TV. "OH", I said, " Um, what time of day does this happen?" " Around 8 AM until 11:30", was the reply. "Well, that is interesting because I leave for work at 6:15 AM every morning and don't get home until 4:30!" The satellite guy's face fell as his confidence melted, and he walked away. Reckon he wanted me to take my tower down? There's NO regulations in my town forbidding towers--only zoning governing property lines and safety. These limitations are reasonable and I understand them and am willing to comply by setting my tower away the house so that, Heaven forbid, if it fell, it would do so without damaging my neighbor. It stood thru Hugo (96+ MPH winds) and has stood for 17 years attached to the house so that the first 30 feet is firmly secured; there are 4 sections above guyed. I can't speak for other localities, but here (and I checked carefully before I even put money down), if an HOA (unlikely) were to suddenly decide to organize, I wouldn't join it, nor would I abide by any attempts to regulate my antennas. According to the existing, local laws, my tower is considered a "pre-existing" condition just like the cows that used to graze right next door. Maybe some neighbors would like to've gotten rid of the cows as an "eyesore" or because they "smell", but the cows were there when the area was annexed into the city, so they stayed until grandpa died. Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To a country kid like me, smelling or seeing cows is/wasn't offensive and was part of the landscape. Here, as long as I maintain my tower (I have to paint it this spring as a matter of fact), make sure it is safe, there is no existing way, nor any current plans to make me take it down. This is one of the best neighborhoods one could ever live in and I plan to live right here until I die! Everybody is "cool" with the antenna farm, we are all friends, and anyone that moves next to me had be ready to accept my tower or go somewhere else! LOL! "Bill" may have to set priorities based on the conditions that exist and do what he can afford to do, abide with the contract he signed or just live with it. Besides, there *are* sneaky ways to have antennas without the blue- haired old buzzards knowing it! Just makes it more challenging! 73 Jerry -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Dave Shrader" wrote in message news:SWnzb.289798$9E1.1488386@attbi_s52... Ed Price wrote: SNIPPED OK, just what justifies Bill's actions? His age? His loss of memory? He's a retiree? His simple antenna design? Or, to put it simpler, after a few years go by, is it OK to ignore parts of a contract that may complicate your life? His current options? Take down that simple antenna, and all is now in compliance with the HOA CC&R's. That shouldn't stretch his budget too far. Ed wb6wsn Ed, when he signed his contract the CC&Rs on antennas were not the issue as has been the premise in previous posts on this topic. If a ham moves INTO a CC&R community he has contracted to comply with the CC&Rs. [Note: my sister lives in a CC&R community and her antenna structure provision has the adjective 'permanent' in the statement of terms. So, a 'temporary' antenna structure is allowed!] However, at a later time Bill develops a new interest, ham radio, and that includes an activity that is prohibited. Does that mean that the VEC/VE should advise potential applicants that if you live in a CC&R community 'Forget it!!'?? As the thread was/is developing anyone who currently lives in a CC&R community should be discouraged from becoming a ham! Deacon Dave Framed that way, then, YES, a good friend would warn a neophyte about some of the possible hassles of a hobby. However, what prevents Bill from operating mobile, from his car? Or joining a club and using its common station? Or, heaven forbid, finding an in-person ham friend and setting up some kind of agreement to use his station (like good old Bill comes over every Saturday afternoon with a pizza and a couple of six-packs, and they do some contesting till the dials get too fuzzy to read). Or, since he's retired, why doesn't Bill volunteer to set up a station at one or two local schools, organize a radio club (remember them?), and do something constructive in life instead of fighting a losing battle against the HOA where he lives? You are being fanatically short-sighted by insisting that an antenna farm is needed or the hobby is impossible to pursue. Ed WB6WSN |
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Ed Price wrote: "Dave Shrader" wrote: The HOA police show up! What are Bill's options: He is retired and his income is lower than when employed so moving is a very difficult option? His current options? Take down that simple antenna, and all is now in compliance with the HOA CC&R's. That shouldn't stretch his budget too far. But Bill has bigger problems. His car broke down and he can't afford to fix it. His electricity has been turned off. His shoes have holes in them. He's three months late on his taxes. What should be done? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Pity party? Ed WB6WSN |
I wouldn't. I'd recomend that if you can't abide by the rules that you said you would, then either don't sign the contract, or move. All these little tales say more about the person's moral fortitude than it does the HOA's policies... 'Doc ah. Nice advice for pacifists and those having a lack of spine and a yellow tint to the bellies. Clint |
Jerry Oxendine wrote:
Move to NC! Or TX, or AZ. I didn't even have an HOA in San Jose, CA. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Jerry, my daughter lives in Cornelius NC, (which is as you know just a few miles north of you) they have an HOA but it apparently doesn't mean a darn thing. The neighbors are moving into $220,000 new homes, they put up metal sheds chain link fences, etc. which both are against the HOA rules. NC is no different than any other state, they all have the dreaded HOA's. From what I see, the HOA rules are only enforced when some damn nosey neighbor want's to put there nose into your business. God Bless America for our Freedoms, where ever they may be. Jerry Oxendine wrote: Move to NC! While I am sure there are HOA communities as the population grows, there are still plenty of older neighborhoods with excellent homes without HOAs here in my state. And I have never had trouble finding a place to live without 'em. Once checked out a neighborhood in my town called YorkChester. Many older homes of many styles and sizes. It had been desig- nated an historic neighborhood and you couldn't even change the style of your front door without dealing with the old blue-haired lady with the peepovers. NOPE! I ain't moving there. But I found a nice place on a dead end street where such things had never been thought of. Been here for 17 years. Maybe it is more difficult in, say, California (the land of fruits and nuts--dare I say it), but it is still possible to find antenna-friendly places to live if one really wants to. I have no sympathy for someone who moves into such a place where restrictions exist KNOWING it. I am just fiesty enough and ornery enough not to let someone else tell me what I can do on my own property. One's property rights should reign supreme; i.e., your rights end at my property line, and mine end at yours. Most people are sincerely enough for such rules not have to exist. The neighborhood will conform by osmosis or "peer" pressure. If a neighborhood has junk cars in it, look at the rest of the houses; they likely will too. If there are mostly frame "shotgun" houses, the rest are likely to be, too. If the neighborhood is nice, brick/frame, trimmed hedges, mown lawns, *most* all the others will be, too. Choose your neighbors carefully and check for HOAs and coven- ents FIRST. Jerry |
"James" wrote in message ... Same where I live in Raleigh NC, only enforce these hoa rules when it is convenient. Case in point, somebody put in a pool in backyard, not allowed in hoa and county rules, homeowner stops paying hoa dues, hoa filed lein, homeowner filed lawsuit. His/her rights of due process were violated. Homeowner collected over $ 350,000 from our hoa, the insurance only covered $ 200,000 and we the rest of the hood had to pay up with increase in hoa dues. Homeowner sells house and moved out. Did the hoa board learn ? no ! They changed rules so now you need three signed complaints from separate neighbors before the hoa will look into anything. One guy rides a mobility scooter and he takes photos of anything he don't like to see. Complain to the HOA about the pervert who keeps taking pictures. Ed WB6WSN |
Problem is the scooter guy is on the hoa board !
The hoa will disolve in 89 more years ! my neighbor thought my 2m quad beam pvc framed was a kite ! Told him it was stuck in the tree ! This topic has been and still is active on http://www.eham.net/forums antenna restrictions Ed wrote: One guy rides a mobility scooter and he takes photos of anything he don't like to see. Complain to the HOA about the pervert who keeps taking pictures. Ed WB6WSN |
Ed Price wrote: "James" wrote in message ... Same where I live in Raleigh NC, only enforce these hoa rules when it is convenient. Case in point, somebody put in a pool in backyard, not allowed in hoa and county rules, homeowner stops paying hoa dues, hoa filed lein, homeowner filed lawsuit. His/her rights of due process were violated. Homeowner collected over $ 350,000 from our hoa, the insurance only covered $ 200,000 and we the rest of the hood had to pay up with increase in hoa dues. Homeowner sells house and moved out. Did the hoa board learn ? no ! They changed rules so now you need three signed complaints from separate neighbors before the hoa will look into anything. One guy rides a mobility scooter and he takes photos of anything he don't like to see. Complain to the HOA about the pervert who keeps taking pictures. Ed WB6WSN That's called invasion of your privacy and harassment. To hell with the HOA, call the police and file a complaint. Make it a matter for the court, put this guy where he belongs. Some of those kind of people don't learn until the financial ball hits them in there pocket. |
OOOPS! Sorry about that. I forgot about Huntersville,
Davidson, etc. Nice area and expensive! I remember when the area was still country and all those houses right the shoreline weren't built. Could've bought a house in the '70's for a 3rd of what it is now. And, also, I wouldn't move in there for nut'in'--not to mention the traffic is HORRIFIC on the I-77 corridor. Bumper to bumper morning and evening--least little fender scraper, your commute is over! Let me modify this by say that, yes, there are lots of HOA communities everywhere. But if you do a little snooping before moving, you can find older neighborhoods that dont have the HOA nonsense. I am just independent to let someone tell me what to do on/with my own property. And if I catch some bird on a scooter taking pictures, he better not be on my land! He comes down my driveway snooping, he just might get his (*censored*) kicked. Sorry, but that is the way I feel about it. But I've been here for many years, all of us here get along well, stand beside the proverbial fence and chat, borrow/loan tools, and all is well! ...Without any cussed HOA! Jerry K4KWH www.qsl.net/k4kwh wrote in message ... Jerry, my daughter lives in Cornelius NC, (which is as you know just a few miles north of you) they have an HOA but it apparently doesn't mean a darn thing. The neighbors are moving into $220,000 new homes, they put up metal sheds chain link fences, etc. which both are against the HOA rules. NC is no different than any other state, they all have the dreaded HOA's. From what I see, the HOA rules are only enforced when some damn nosey neighbor want's to put there nose into your business. God Bless America for our Freedoms, where ever they may be. Jerry Oxendine wrote: Move to NC! While I am sure there are HOA communities as the population grows, there are still plenty of older neighborhoods with excellent homes without HOAs here in my state. And I have never had trouble finding a place to live without 'em. Once checked out a neighborhood in my town called YorkChester. Many older homes of many styles and sizes. It had been desig- nated an historic neighborhood and you couldn't even change the style of your front door without dealing with the old blue-haired lady with the peepovers. NOPE! I ain't moving there. But I found a nice place on a dead end street where such things had never been thought of. Been here for 17 years. Maybe it is more difficult in, say, California (the land of fruits and nuts--dare I say it), but it is still possible to find antenna-friendly places to live if one really wants to. I have no sympathy for someone who moves into such a place where restrictions exist KNOWING it. I am just fiesty enough and ornery enough not to let someone else tell me what I can do on my own property. One's property rights should reign supreme; i.e., your rights end at my property line, and mine end at yours. Most people are sincerely enough for such rules not have to exist. The neighborhood will conform by osmosis or "peer" pressure. If a neighborhood has junk cars in it, look at the rest of the houses; they likely will too. If there are mostly frame "shotgun" houses, the rest are likely to be, too. If the neighborhood is nice, brick/frame, trimmed hedges, mown lawns, *most* all the others will be, too. Choose your neighbors carefully and check for HOAs and coven- ents FIRST. Jerry |
"James" wrote in message ... Problem is the scooter guy is on the hoa board ! The hoa will disolve in 89 more years ! Like I said, I catch that so-n-so in my yard, I'll take that "board" away from him and stomp his (*censored*) with it. I better NOT catch anyone "snooping" around here. my neighbor thought my 2m quad beam pvc framed was a kite ! Told him it was stuck in the tree ! Now THAT I simple LOVE!!!!!!!!! Those blue hairs aren't as smart as they think! Need to keep their nose back in their OWN business instead of poking around worrying about what is in someone elses' yard. Jerry This topic has been and still is active on http://www.eham.net/forums antenna restrictions Ed wrote: One guy rides a mobility scooter and he takes photos of anything he don't like to see. Complain to the HOA about the pervert who keeps taking pictures. Ed WB6WSN |
|
"Russ" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:53:40 -0500, wrote: Ed Price wrote: "James" wrote in message ... Same where I live in Raleigh NC, only enforce these hoa rules when it is convenient. Case in point, somebody put in a pool in backyard, not allowed in hoa and county rules, homeowner stops paying hoa dues, hoa filed lein, homeowner filed lawsuit. His/her rights of due process were violated. Homeowner collected over $ 350,000 from our hoa, the insurance only covered $ 200,000 and we the rest of the hood had to pay up with increase in hoa dues. Homeowner sells house and moved out. Did the hoa board learn ? no ! They changed rules so now you need three signed complaints from separate neighbors before the hoa will look into anything. One guy rides a mobility scooter and he takes photos of anything he don't like to see. Complain to the HOA about the pervert who keeps taking pictures. Ed WB6WSN That's called invasion of your privacy and harassment. To hell with the HOA, call the police and file a complaint. Make it a matter for the court, put this guy where he belongs. Some of those kind of people don't learn until the financial ball hits them in there pocket. Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing. You have no expectation of privacy in a public place. You cannot forbid photography of the public areas of your property. Russ Yes, you can. None of your private property is public. Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with the civil claim of Invasion of Privacy. It is only a 4th Amendment doctrine. You have every right to forbid photography of your private property, much like concert venues and museums have that right, whether open to view or not. To say otherwise would allow photography through open windows, if viewable from the outside. Thank YOU for playing. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Taking curbside photos happens all the time. Real Estate Appraisers have to
produce pictures of at least two (usually three) comparable homes when they're doing an appraisal. Sometimes, they get lucky and find one on MLS, but usually they're shooting photos from across the street. Having known several appraisers, I can tell you that they know very well to be discreet when doing this. If people are present in the yard, they will ask permission, but most just leave their motor running and shoot them out of a rolled-down window. -- Stinger "MGoBlue" wrote in message ... "Russ" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:53:40 -0500, wrote: Ed Price wrote: "James" wrote in message ... Same where I live in Raleigh NC, only enforce these hoa rules when it is convenient. Case in point, somebody put in a pool in backyard, not allowed in hoa and county rules, homeowner stops paying hoa dues, hoa filed lein, homeowner filed lawsuit. His/her rights of due process were violated. Homeowner collected over $ 350,000 from our hoa, the insurance only covered $ 200,000 and we the rest of the hood had to pay up with increase in hoa dues. Homeowner sells house and moved out. Did the hoa board learn ? no ! They changed rules so now you need three signed complaints from separate neighbors before the hoa will look into anything. One guy rides a mobility scooter and he takes photos of anything he don't like to see. Complain to the HOA about the pervert who keeps taking pictures. Ed WB6WSN That's called invasion of your privacy and harassment. To hell with the HOA, call the police and file a complaint. Make it a matter for the court, put this guy where he belongs. Some of those kind of people don't learn until the financial ball hits them in there pocket. Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing. You have no expectation of privacy in a public place. You cannot forbid photography of the public areas of your property. Russ Yes, you can. None of your private property is public. Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with the civil claim of Invasion of Privacy. It is only a 4th Amendment doctrine. You have every right to forbid photography of your private property, much like concert venues and museums have that right, whether open to view or not. To say otherwise would allow photography through open windows, if viewable from the outside. Thank YOU for playing. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
"Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States" "MGoBlue" wrote in message ... "Russ" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:53:40 -0500, wrote: Ed Price wrote: "James" wrote in message ... Same where I live in Raleigh NC, only enforce these hoa rules when it is convenient. Case in point, somebody put in a pool in backyard, not allowed in hoa and county rules, homeowner stops paying hoa dues, hoa filed lein, homeowner filed lawsuit. His/her rights of due process were violated. Homeowner collected over $ 350,000 from our hoa, the insurance only covered $ 200,000 and we the rest of the hood had to pay up with increase in hoa dues. Homeowner sells house and moved out. Did the hoa board learn ? no ! They changed rules so now you need three signed complaints from separate neighbors before the hoa will look into anything. One guy rides a mobility scooter and he takes photos of anything he don't like to see. Complain to the HOA about the pervert who keeps taking pictures. Ed WB6WSN That's called invasion of your privacy and harassment. To hell with the HOA, call the police and file a complaint. Make it a matter for the court, put this guy where he belongs. Some of those kind of people don't learn until the financial ball hits them in there pocket. Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing. You have no expectation of privacy in a public place. You cannot forbid photography of the public areas of your property. Russ Yes, you can. None of your private property is public. Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with the civil claim of Invasion of Privacy. It is only a 4th Amendment doctrine. You have every right to forbid photography of your private property, much like concert venues and museums have that right, whether open to view or not. To say otherwise would allow photography through open windows, if viewable from the outside. Thank YOU for playing. No, thank you! The BASIC rule of photography is this (and I make a living at it): If you are standing (or sitting for that matter) on public property, you can legally photograph anything you can see from where you are standing. There are, of course, exceptions for various national security considerations, etc., but it is absolutely not against the law to stand on a public sidewalk or in a public street and take a picture of somebody's house, their rose bushes, their car, their ugly fence, their goofy-looking mailbox, their body etc., etc. The fourth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with it. And it's not at all like the case of a museum--a museum is, first of all, not public property in the sense of the law as it applies to photography (or just plain "seeing"). First of all, photography (flash) can damage museum property and annoy the patrons and is often prohibited by _rule_ for that reason. Also, and one does not have unrestricted access to a museum as one does to a street. It is not _public_ in the sense that's pertinent here. And by the way, you _can_ legally take a picture of, say, the side of a house sporting an open window and capture, perhaps, some of what's inside the house and visible. And that's the law. |
MGoBlue wrote:
SNIP Yes, you can. None of your private property is public. Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with the civil claim of Invasion of Privacy. It is only a 4th Amendment doctrine. You have every right to forbid photography of your private property, much like concert venues and museums have that right, whether open to view or not. To say otherwise would allow photography through open windows, if viewable from the outside. Thank YOU for playing. In a former profession, I needed a modified model release to photograph the exterior of houses. At the Mystic Seaport Museum in Connecticut, where there are outdoor exhibits open to all, I have to register as a photographer and sign an affidavit that the photographs are for personal, not professional, use. DD, W1MCE |
"Don Forsling" wrote:
(snip) The BASIC rule of photography is this (and I make a living at it): If you are standing (or sitting for that matter) on public property, you can legally photograph anything you can see from where you are standing. There are, of course, exceptions for various national security considerations, etc., but it is absolutely not against the law to stand on a public sidewalk or in a public street and take a picture of somebody's house, their rose bushes, their car, their ugly fence, their goofy-looking mailbox, their body etc., etc. (snip) Exactly right, Don. According to several court cases, a person in a pubic place has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Likewise, property is not protected when photographed from a public place. In other words, as long as you're not on private property, and what you're photographing can be seen from outside that property, you can photograph it. There are a few exceptions. For example, you cannot photograph someone through a window of a house, even if you do so from a public place. You also cannot do anything out of the ordinary, such as climbing a fence to photograph into private property. What you can do with those photographs is another matter (and this is where some protections exist). In general, there are few restrictions on photographs used for private or journalistic purposes, but commerical use often requires permission (a release) from the person on the photograph or the owner of the property photographed. But even here there are exceptions. For example, a person photographed in an embarassing situation may be protected from even journalistic use if the photograph is not specifically news related and a person included in the general background of a photograph used for commercial purposes may not be protected. Everything changes when you enter private property (and a museum is often considered private property, even if only owned by the state). In this case, the owner of that property makes the rules. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
According to several court cases, a person in a pubic place has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Likewise, property is not protected when photographed from a public place. In other words, as long as you're not on private property, and what you're photographing can be seen from outside that property, you can photograph it. If one doesn't want those photons being collected by a camera, one should keep them at home. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
What I failed to say Jerry, I am moving to Myrtle, yes there is an HOA
but from what I found out from the neighbors and the real estate lady (who also resides there) the HOA is not all that strong. Wait until they find out i'm a ham. No, I have no intention of putting up a tower, just a long wire from the back of my property to the house (1/2 acre). Yes, my daughter does reside in a rather expensive area. And "NO", I don't enjoy driving on I-77. It's bumper to bumper three lanes wide from exit 21 south to the state line at 60 MPH. Happy to see they are widening the roadway, I might even give 495 west of I-77 a shot to the state line when it's finished. Seems for what I understand they decided to build the east part of 495 first to accommodate the rich folks in around Union County area. One would think the area west of I-77 close to the airport would have heavier traffic. Back to stealth antennas and HOA's. I have been planning for several months how I am going to put up an antenna. Ideas I have considered a Slinky's in the rafters, gutters, yes the house I bought does have gutters as compared to all the other homes, most do not. And finally long wires. So far, the only people that know I am a ham is the real estate lady and the guy next door. I wouldn't stop in my driveway and start taking photos of my home if you enjoy life as it is. Don't invade my privacy and I shall not invade yours. I invite Russ to give it a try, and "I'm NOT playing". I enjoy my privacy. What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. Russ, just because the U.S. Attorney General got a new law passed in the U.S. Congress doesn't give you or the Feds to invade my privacy. "God Bless America" Jerry Oxendine wrote: OOOPS! Sorry about that. I forgot about Huntersville, Davidson, etc. Nice area and expensive! I remember when the area was still country and all those houses right the shoreline weren't built. Could've bought a house in the '70's for a 3rd of what it is now. And, also, I wouldn't move in there for nut'in'--not to mention the traffic is HORRIFIC on the I-77 corridor. Bumper to bumper morning and evening--least little fender scraper, your commute is over! Let me modify this by say that, yes, there are lots of HOA communities everywhere. But if you do a little snooping before moving, you can find older neighborhoods that dont have the HOA nonsense. I am just independent to let someone tell me what to do on/with my own property. And if I catch some bird on a scooter taking pictures, he better not be on my land! He comes down my driveway snooping, he just might get his (*censored*) kicked. Sorry, but that is the way I feel about it. But I've been here for many years, all of us here get along well, stand beside the proverbial fence and chat, borrow/loan tools, and all is well! ...Without any cussed HOA! Jerry K4KWH www.qsl.net/k4kwh wrote in message ... Jerry, my daughter lives in Cornelius NC, (which is as you know just a few miles north of you) they have an HOA but it apparently doesn't mean a darn thing. The neighbors are moving into $220,000 new homes, they put up metal sheds chain link fences, etc. which both are against the HOA rules. NC is no different than any other state, they all have the dreaded HOA's. From what I see, the HOA rules are only enforced when some damn nosey neighbor want's to put there nose into your business. God Bless America for our Freedoms, where ever they may be. Jerry Oxendine wrote: Move to NC! While I am sure there are HOA communities as the population grows, there are still plenty of older neighborhoods with excellent homes without HOAs here in my state. And I have never had trouble finding a place to live without 'em. Once checked out a neighborhood in my town called YorkChester. Many older homes of many styles and sizes. It had been desig- nated an historic neighborhood and you couldn't even change the style of your front door without dealing with the old blue-haired lady with the peepovers. NOPE! I ain't moving there. But I found a nice place on a dead end street where such things had never been thought of. Been here for 17 years. Maybe it is more difficult in, say, California (the land of fruits and nuts--dare I say it), but it is still possible to find antenna-friendly places to live if one really wants to. I have no sympathy for someone who moves into such a place where restrictions exist KNOWING it. I am just fiesty enough and ornery enough not to let someone else tell me what I can do on my own property. One's property rights should reign supreme; i.e., your rights end at my property line, and mine end at yours. Most people are sincerely enough for such rules not have to exist. The neighborhood will conform by osmosis or "peer" pressure. If a neighborhood has junk cars in it, look at the rest of the houses; they likely will too. If there are mostly frame "shotgun" houses, the rest are likely to be, too. If the neighborhood is nice, brick/frame, trimmed hedges, mown lawns, *most* all the others will be, too. Choose your neighbors carefully and check for HOAs and coven- ents FIRST. Jerry |
The media doesn't even photograph people without their permission. Who
the heck do you think you are, someone special? Don't invade the wrong persons privacy, you could be surprised. Basic rule of photography? Is NOT the law of the land. Don Forsling wrote: No, thank you! The BASIC rule of photography is this (and I make a living at it): If you are standing (or sitting for that matter) on public property, you can legally photograph anything you can see from where you are standing. There are, of course, exceptions for various national security considerations, etc., but it is absolutely not against the law to stand on a public sidewalk or in a public street and take a picture of somebody's house, their rose bushes, their car, their ugly fence, their goofy-looking mailbox, their body etc., etc. The fourth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with it. And it's not at all like the case of a museum--a museum is, first of all, not public property in the sense of the law as it applies to photography (or just plain "seeing"). First of all, photography (flash) can damage museum property and annoy the patrons and is often prohibited by _rule_ for that reason. Also, and one does not have unrestricted access to a museum as one does to a street. It is not _public_ in the sense that's pertinent here. And by the way, you _can_ legally take a picture of, say, the side of a house sporting an open window and capture, perhaps, some of what's inside the house and visible. And that's the law. |
|
|
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
If one doesn't want those photons being collected by a camera, one should keep them at home. Greetings, Cecil. Haven't heard from you in that other newsgroup (rrap) for some time. Where have you been lately? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
wrote:
The media doesn't even photograph people without their permission. (snip) It's done all the time, Pappy. Do you honestly think the media runs around getting permission (a release) for all those people at a sports event, demonstration, or some other news story? If you or your home is a news story, or either is caught in a photograph of a news story, there are few privacy protections involved. If you or your home is photographed from a public place, there are few privacy protections involved. Who the heck do you think you are, someone special? Don't invade the wrong persons privacy, you could be surprised. Basic rule of photography? Is NOT the law of the land. The case law is clear on the matter, Pappy. And there are dozens of books on the legal issues surrounding photography, most citing specific cases, available to photographers. Any wise photographer has read several (I've read perhaps all of them over the years). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:27:21 GMT, Russ wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:35:49 -0500, wrote: What I failed to say Jerry, I am moving to Myrtle, yes there is an HOA but from what I found out from the neighbors and the real estate lady (who also resides there) the HOA is not all that strong. Wait until they find out i'm a ham. No, I have no intention of putting up a tower, just a long wire from the back of my property to the house (1/2 acre). Yes, my daughter does reside in a rather expensive area. And "NO", I don't enjoy driving on I-77. It's bumper to bumper three lanes wide from exit 21 south to the state line at 60 MPH. Happy to see they are widening the roadway, I might even give 495 west of I-77 a shot to the state line when it's finished. Seems for what I understand they decided to build the east part of 495 first to accommodate the rich folks in around Union County area. One would think the area west of I-77 close to the airport would have heavier traffic. Back to stealth antennas and HOA's. I have been planning for several months how I am going to put up an antenna. Ideas I have considered a Slinky's in the rafters, gutters, yes the house I bought does have gutters as compared to all the other homes, most do not. And finally long wires. So far, the only people that know I am a ham is the real estate lady and the guy next door. I wouldn't stop in my driveway and start taking photos of my home if you enjoy life as it is. Don't invade my privacy and I shall not invade yours. I invite Russ to give it a try, and "I'm NOT playing". I enjoy my privacy. What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. Russ, just because the U.S. Attorney General got a new law passed in the U.S. Congress doesn't give you or the Feds to invade my privacy. "God Bless America" Tell you what Jim, I'll stand in the public street all I want and take pictures of anything I want to and you can't do squat about it. I Actually there is. As a civil matter, if you have enough money you can sue most any one for most any thing that you *think* affects you. Now you might, win, or quite likely would win, but to do so is expensive. For many just the prospect of being taken to court can be a deterrent. You could also sue for harassment... But we are looking at something like 20 grand to file a suit unless it's small claims. A good lawyer can draw it out to the point where it can run into 6 figures. The only ones winning in that case are the lawyers. It *may* depend on how much you can afford to protect your legal rights to do what some one else doesn't like. Another option is for him to contact a couple neighbors and they report you to the police as acting suspicious. You may get hauled away and only have the opportunity to explain later. In New England a group is suing the pilots flying out of a local airport because they don't like the noise and there is nothing illegal about what the pilots are doing. So, by harassing the pilots by filing lawsuits they figure they can force them out. It may work and it may backfire if the pilots counter sue for harassment. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?) www.rogerhalstead.com Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers |
Let's not get stupid here.
I don't make threats. I as well as you and all reading this do know that there are HOA's that run a decent and positive program. I believe this thread was centered around the HOA that wants to try and push their program to the limit with some people on the boards and some neighborhood people who think they are cops, running around the neighborhood harassing their fellow neighbors for the most stupid thing they can find. That is what the majority of us are complaining about. People who think they are real cops when in fact they are just the neighborhood nuisance. The new neighborhood I am moving into (159 homes), there are 9 "real" cops, 3 still on the job and 5 retired, just like myself. I do believe the neighborhood is well protected. Oh, I failed to mention that the Chief of the County Police also resides there. Being private property we do not have police patrols so the good neighbors as they are look out for each other when it comes to strangers driving through. When I was ask by two people when I stopped at a stop sign if they could help me find someone I was looking for. I told them I was looking over the area because I was buy a home there and gave them the address. We had a very nice talk and I moved on about my business. As I have said before as well as others: I respect your privacy rights, you should be doing the same. "God Bless America" Russ wrote: On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:35:49 -0500, wrote: What I failed to say Jerry, I am moving to Myrtle, yes there is an HOA but from what I found out from the neighbors and the real estate lady (who also resides there) the HOA is not all that strong. Wait until they find out i'm a ham. No, I have no intention of putting up a tower, just a long wire from the back of my property to the house (1/2 acre). Yes, my daughter does reside in a rather expensive area. And "NO", I don't enjoy driving on I-77. It's bumper to bumper three lanes wide from exit 21 south to the state line at 60 MPH. Happy to see they are widening the roadway, I might even give 495 west of I-77 a shot to the state line when it's finished. Seems for what I understand they decided to build the east part of 495 first to accommodate the rich folks in around Union County area. One would think the area west of I-77 close to the airport would have heavier traffic. Back to stealth antennas and HOA's. I have been planning for several months how I am going to put up an antenna. Ideas I have considered a Slinky's in the rafters, gutters, yes the house I bought does have gutters as compared to all the other homes, most do not. And finally long wires. So far, the only people that know I am a ham is the real estate lady and the guy next door. I wouldn't stop in my driveway and start taking photos of my home if you enjoy life as it is. Don't invade my privacy and I shall not invade yours. I invite Russ to give it a try, and "I'm NOT playing". I enjoy my privacy. What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. Russ, just because the U.S. Attorney General got a new law passed in the U.S. Congress doesn't give you or the Feds to invade my privacy. "God Bless America" Tell you what Jim, I'll stand in the public street all I want and take pictures of anything I want to and you can't do squat about it. I won't trespass on your property and I won't take pictures inside your property without your permission. Your privacy ends at your front door, and rightly so but what's in public view is just that...public. Ask the people at Bay Hill CC in Orlando who lost the lawsuit against the computer game company that used images of their houses in a golf game. Ask the big-time Hollywood star who just lost the lawsuit against the paparazzi taking pictures outside her house. Don't be foolish enough to accost me on public property or threaten me. The immediate and long-term repercussions will amaze you. You aren't big enough to intimidate me and you don't have enough money to make the legal problems go away. Grow up a little and consult a professional instead of getting legal advice from television or here on the 'net. In a bit of irony, we are almost on the same side in this. I am currently looking for a home in an area without deed restrictions. Even if I weren't a ham, I would not sign a contract for a house with CCRs. I lived in Heathrow in Seminole County, FL and in another CCR community here in NC and I've had enough. When you sign for a house in a CCR community, you are signing an ordinary commercial contract that is completely enforceable (from both sides!) no matter what you think or how hard you stamp your feet. Russ |
HEY ! Even though I am from the opposite side of the aisle.
You got to "LOVE" Willie Brown :o) - He has been a Good - - and Faithful Public Servant. - - - Who has Served the State of California, - - - - and the People of San Francisco very well. God Bless Him, amen, Amen. AMEN ! ~ RHF .. .. = = = = = = wrote in message . .. On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 07:29:04 GMT, Roger Halstead wrote: In New England a group is suing the pilots flying out of a local airport because they don't like the noise and there is nothing illegal about what the pilots are doing. So, by harassing the pilots by filing lawsuits they figure they can force them out. It may work and it may backfire if the pilots counter sue for harassment. This was tried in the San Francisco Bay Area some years back. Flight patterns, changed for environmental reasons, brought outgoing flights over housing south of San Francisco. After a number of nuisance suits had been won in small claims court, Willie Brown, then speaker of the assembly got a law passed preventing such suits. To avoid problems with laws designed for specific entities (and probably to minimize opposition), he managed to write the law so narrowly that it applied only to SFO and one tiny airport up in Siskiyou County that had no interest in the legislation. .. |
"Ed Price" wrote:
Great Freudian slip re "pubic place". huge grin Done all the time recently. I have a new desk with the keyboard too far off centered. As a result, typing mistakes have increased dramatically. In this case, that "Freudian slip" got right past my spelling checker. Have you ever considered testing the universal truth of your assertion? How about spending a week or two at a playground, photographing only little girls, say ages 6 to 10. Let us know if you survive. Lets be realistic here, Ed. We're not talking about child porn - laws don't protect that. What we're talking about is photographs taken for legitimate purposes (art, advertising, travel, architecture, news, and so on). Regardless, while I haven't photographed little girls specifically (and have no special desire to do so), I have dozens of images of kids at playgrounds, parks, and on the street, in my film library. Some were taken by me and some by my wife. Whatever the case, nobody has ever complained while either of us were taking those photographs. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article 5Dayb.252403$mZ5.1876750@attbi_s54,
says... Why does it have to be about damn property values? Fairly simple, actually: If your property value increases, your equity increases. If you have more equity, then there's more value that you can borrow against. -- -- //Steve// Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS Fountain Valley, CA Email: |
In article , says...
For starters, most hams that put up towers with elaborate antenna systems would take them down when they moved (unless they became a silent key), because these things are not petty investments, they cost a lot of money. Some installations cost more than a new mid-sized car. True. I've seen some pretty elaborate antenna farms, even here in suburban Orange County, CA -- some even in my neighborhood. (Only part of our neighborhood is condos, the rest being single-family residences (houses), and the latter have some pretty nice antenna installations.) The installation of the tower itself is held to much higher standard by law than the house itself is. Sad but true. And again, unlike someone who puts up an old car on blocks, or paints their home in rainbow glow paint, hams perform a public service. 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. At least, we hope it's still "in the works." How long has that been rattling around the halls of Congress now, two years? Any bets on which comes on the scene first in the US: a code-free amateur radio service, or a PRB-1 bill to cover CC&Rs? -- -- //Steve// Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS Fountain Valley, CA Email: |
|
Volker Kerkhoff wrote:
1. Acess to all information services is free. Does God provide it as a miracle? That's the only way it could be free. I'm willing to bet taxpayers pay for it and all other "free" governmental services. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Volker Kerkhoff wrote: 1. Acess to all information services is free. Does God provide it as a miracle? That's the only way it could be free. I'm willing to bet taxpayers pay for it and all other "free" governmental services. Should have specified... Free (as in free speech, not as in free lunch) not necessarily means free of charge or other contractual terms, but "must be acessible to anyone wanting to access it and pay the associated charges and obey the contractual terms that go with it. Alas, I still can't subscribe to a digital Satellite Pay-TV package sold and marketed to germany in Spain, because the service provider does not hold a license for selling in Spain, but I can access the 70-something Free-to-air Sat cgannels in german, and put up a dish for it, and nobody can legelly prevent me from doing so. 73, Volker |
Cecil wrote,
Volker Kerkhoff wrote: 1. Acess to all information services is free. Does God provide it as a miracle? That's the only way it could be free. I'm willing to bet taxpayers pay for it and all other "free" governmental services. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Yes, like fire and police "protection." I got chewed out by a Foster City, Ca. motorcycle officer yesterday for slowing down as I passed a grade school when the school wasn't in session. That chewing out was free in the sense I didn't have to pay for it at the time and was theoretically available to everyone, but the cop's salary is paid by Foster City taxpayers. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:56:45 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote: On 18 Jan 2004 18:59:54 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote: Yes, like fire and police "protection." I got chewed out by a Foster City, Ca. motorcycle officer yesterday for slowing down as I passed a grade school when the school wasn't in session. _________________________________________________ ________ I'd write a letter to the Chief. Cops have better things to do than that. Waste of time -- the last thing the chief will admit to publicly is that one of "our own" was wrong. We have plenty of bozos like this out here. |
On or about Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:00:43 +0100, Volker Kerkhoff
wrote about the following in article : Should have specified... Free (as in free speech, not as in free lunch) not necessarily means free of charge or other contractual terms, but "must With a statement like that, I knew that you were a Linux user even before looking at the message headers... -- Alex / AB2RC Yaesu Ft100 software for Linux http://www.qsl.net/kc2ivl Why do they call Radio "Wireless", between my shack and antennas I must have over 1500 feet of wire! |
Interesting discussion. As a the former treasurer of a large
complex(250 units), I was the chair of the roofing committee. The roofs were all failing on 30 buildings and an inspector was hired to review them. The junk that was attached to the roofs was one of the major problems. Cables penetrating the surface etc. In one case, a TV antenna was screwed right into the roof. When it comes to common property like that, the association cannot allow individuals to attach their own private stuff wherever they want. So, homeowners can put up a TV antenna, but the association has to protect the roofs, at a minimum, from damage. I don't know how you can accomplish both. Pat W |
Establish a procedure by which a professional installer places all
antennas on the roof. Failure to use the approved installer can result in the homeowner paying for replacement of everything. Dave N PatW wrote: Interesting discussion. As a the former treasurer of a large complex(250 units), I was the chair of the roofing committee. The roofs were all failing on 30 buildings and an inspector was hired to review them. The junk that was attached to the roofs was one of the major problems. Cables penetrating the surface etc. In one case, a TV antenna was screwed right into the roof. When it comes to common property like that, the association cannot allow individuals to attach their own private stuff wherever they want. So, homeowners can put up a TV antenna, but the association has to protect the roofs, at a minimum, from damage. I don't know how you can accomplish both. Pat W |
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:21:37 GMT, Alex V Flinsch
wrote: On or about Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:00:43 +0100, Volker Kerkhoff wrote about the following in article : Should have specified... Free (as in free speech, not as in free lunch) not necessarily means free of charge or other contractual terms, but "must With a statement like that, I knew that you were a Linux user even before looking at the message headers... Well, no I am a user of whatever operating system my customer expects me to, as long as I have the skills for it. This may involve Linux, Solaris, various flavours of Windows, QNX, OpenVMS, Tru64, HP/UX. At home, btw I use a linux box for a Firewall and Mail / News Gateway to my DSL, and another one as a "playground" and File Server. In my radio / SWL corner I have a Windows-based PC since most of the software, starting with ILGDB and ending with Digital Modes is simply not available for Linux. I choose whatever tool does the job, and this may involve all of the above. Ah, yes, and although I have a goatee (which I keep short and well trimmed) I feature a clean, short haircut, unlike some other gentlemen in Linux advocacy. Anyways, could this "free" be so misunderstood? When I hear the USA being referred to as "The Land of the Free" I don't immediately think "Cool, gotta go there for my next holidays, must be cheap", even though I am not a native english speaker. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com