Scott W. Harvey wrote:
Doug Adair wrote:
"Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote
Chuck Harris wrote:
I'd sure like to see some references on that one!
Yeah, me to. Where my mother lives (condominiums) they absolutely
prohibit visible antennas of any sort - it's in their association
bylaws. If they put up a dish - they have to camouflage it. The City is
just as tough on other similar stuff...

Better tell her association that lawyers will be knocking on their door
sooner or later with their hands out. I don't know about rooftop
conventional OTA antennas, but associations are absolutely prohibited by
federal law from including prohibitions on DBS dishes in their CCRs or
discouraging their use in any way. Requirements to camoflage are NOT
permitted either. The FCC has made it very clear that they want
competition to cable and have jurisdiction in this matter to achieve it,
so the edicts of cities and "townships" do not apply. If an association
takes it to court they will LOSE.

I have a acquaintance who made a good chunk of change during the dot-com
days. He bought a home in a tony planned community in 2001, and put up a
DirecTV dish. Almost immediately one of the neighborhood Nazis tried to
get him to take it down under threat of suit, he said "go ahead and
try"......and they did, and wound up with several thousands of dollars
of egg on their faces, which their insurance company did not pay for
because they had already warned about it in one of their newsletters to
the association some time earlier.

Some time later, I ran into his lawyer (I had met him earlier because I
had helped install the dish that started this mess) and the subject of
the DirecTV dish suit came up. He told me that he deals with disputes
between homeowners and HOAs all the time about all sorts of issues
embedded in CCRs-sometimes he wins and sometimes he loses, but he has
NEVER lost a case involving a homeowner's DBS dish, and he has dealt
with a couple hundred cases.

Unfortunately, none of this applies to ham radio antennas. HOAs are free
to deal with them as they wish, and a lot of them wish to ban them
outright.

-Scott

Thanks for chiming in, Scott -

It seems we have this discussion every year or so, and the same sad
group of naysayers chimes in with "Can't be so. My mother-in-law's
great-grand-uncle lives in a condo in East Buttend and they won't let
him do it." I think that the HOAs write this stuff into their CCRs
because they assume that the homeowners either won't know the truth, or
won't hire a lawyer to fight for them. It's a power thing.

Bill

Bill Jeffrey wrote:


It seems we have this discussion every year or so, and the same sad
group of naysayers chimes in with "Can't be so. My mother-in-law's
great-grand-uncle lives in a condo in East Buttend and they won't let
him do it." I think that the HOAs write this stuff into their CCRs
because they assume that the homeowners either won't know the truth, or
won't hire a lawyer to fight for them. It's a power thing.

No - it's a financial thing, a practical "relationship" thing, - and (at
least what I'm familiar with) a California thing.

First - it costs a lot of money to hire a lawyer to fight such - right
or wrong - it costs a lot.

It makes for bad relationships with the neighbors. They may be wrong -
but you still have to live with them.

And in California, at least - you can't believe some of the rulings that
come down from some of those courts. I just spent many years and nearly
six figures fighting some crap that wouldn't have flown 1 day in most
courts - and lost - so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to
(at least some) California courts.

best regards...
--
randy guttery

A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
so vital to the United States Silent Service:
http://tendertale.com

Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote:
Bill Jeffrey wrote:


It seems we have this discussion every year or so, and the same sad
group of naysayers chimes in with "Can't be so. My mother-in-law's
great-grand-uncle lives in a condo in East Buttend and they won't let
him do it." I think that the HOAs write this stuff into their CCRs
because they assume that the homeowners either won't know the truth,
or won't hire a lawyer to fight for them. It's a power thing.

No - it's a financial thing, a practical "relationship" thing, - and (at
least what I'm familiar with) a California thing.

In the case of dishes, it's a hidden agenda thing. They try to argue
that they are trying to ban them because they are unsightly, and that's
horses**t. If you scratch the surface, the real reason (usually) is that
the HOA has cut a deal with a cable company for monopoly access to
subscribers in exchange for wiring the community. Naturally, they can't
use that reason in court;the judge would not be very sympathetic, so
they claim that the ban is because dishes are unattractive. In all the
years I've been alive, I've never heard one comment from an actual
person about the incredible fuglyness of DBS dishes. The HOAs enforcing
these CCRs would have you believe that such people exist in droves.



First - it costs a lot of money to hire a lawyer to fight such - right
or wrong - it costs a lot.

Yeah and the real bitch here is that you pay even if you win, and you
are compelled to pay your legal adversary to fight you in the form of
HOA yearly dues.

It makes for bad relationships with the neighbors. They may be wrong -
but you still have to live with them.

IMHO any neighbor that would get their panties in a bunch over a dish
installed in my own yard already would have a bad relationship with me.