|
Kudos to HAMS...
They are often overlooked and ignored - even scoffed at by some in these
"modern times" of cell phones, etc. --- but then along comes mother nature - to remind one and all who's boss - and guess who the heroes are? http://www.kptv.com/weatheralert/14776224/detail.html Kudos to all involved! -- randy guttery |
Kudos to HAMS...
Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote:
but then along comes mother nature - to remind one and all who's boss - and guess who the heroes are? Not roast beef on rye? :-) http://www.kptv.com/weatheralert/14776224/detail.html Kudos to all involved! But hams need antennas to make it happen. And we need news stories like these to show to home owner association and towns as to why we should be allowed to have antennas. |
Kudos to HAMS...
On Dec 6, 3:12 pm, robert casey wrote:
Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote: but then along comes mother nature - to remind one and all who's boss - and guess who the heroes are? Not roast beef on rye? :-) http://www.kptv.com/weatheralert/14776224/detail.html Kudos to all involved! But hams need antennas to make it happen. And we need news stories like these to show to home owner association and towns as to why we should be allowed to have antennas. I sit as chair on our Township Board of Historical and Architectural Review. We make deliberate and specific exceptions for Ham antenna vs. satellite dishes and similar. So, your hopes are not altogether in vain. All we ask is that the antenna be installed with as little impact on the significant structure as possible. Not "NO" impact, not "Invisible", just minimum practical impact. In my years on the board, it has come up twice - in both cases, the exception was granted and then further granted by Zoning and Planning (height and setback restrictions). The two are still up today. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Kudos to HAMS...
"robert casey" wrote in message ... Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote: but then along comes mother nature - to remind one and all who's boss - and guess who the heroes are? Not roast beef on rye? :-) http://www.kptv.com/weatheralert/14776224/detail.html Kudos to all involved! But hams need antennas to make it happen. And we need news stories like these to show to home owner association and towns as to why we should be allowed to have antennas. Indeed tis true but isn't it ironic that nearly everyone had antennas on the roof top for TV and FM back 30+ years ago! No one complained. And today in Silicon Valley ($800,000+ homes), many homes still have antennas up on the roof even though they are on cable or dish TV. No one complains, and few HOA's. Lamont Lamenting |
Kudos to HAMS...
"The Shadow" wrote in message
... "robert casey" wrote in message ... Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote: but then along comes mother nature - to remind one and all who's boss - and guess who the heroes are? Not roast beef on rye? :-) http://www.kptv.com/weatheralert/14776224/detail.html Kudos to all involved! But hams need antennas to make it happen. And we need news stories like these to show to home owner association and towns as to why we should be allowed to have antennas. Indeed tis true but isn't it ironic that nearly everyone had antennas on the roof top for TV and FM back 30+ years ago! No one complained. And today in Silicon Valley ($800,000+ homes), many homes still have antennas up on the roof even though they are on cable or dish TV. No one complains, and few HOA's. Lamont Lamenting You're right - NO ONE complained of antennas before - why now? I am on council here - and an issue came up regarding Antennas and towers. Being a "ham" myself - was able to thwart any issues there. When "Zoning" came in - I questioned "their" rules on Towers and Antennas. Theirs are limited to "Commercial" towers - with regard to fencing, posting of signage, etc. Some people in some areas are just too damned particular. Lou |
Kudos to HAMS...
radiosrfun wrote:
You're right - NO ONE complained of antennas before - why now? I am on council here - and an issue came up regarding Antennas and towers. Being a "ham" myself - was able to thwart any issues there. When "Zoning" came in - I questioned "their" rules on Towers and Antennas. Theirs are limited to "Commercial" towers - with regard to fencing, posting of signage, etc. Some people in some areas are just too damned particular. Lou By Federal law, TV and radio receiving antennas, dishes, and so forth, for household (non-commercial) use, are exempt from local restrictions (including any and all HOA covenants). I don't know if this exemption extends to ham radio antennas or not, but I would think that a pretty good case could be made. Bill |
Kudos to HAMS...
Bill Jeffrey wrote:
By Federal law, TV and radio receiving antennas, dishes, and so forth, for household (non-commercial) use, are exempt from local restrictions (including any and all HOA covenants). I don't know if this exemption extends to ham radio antennas or not, but I would think that a pretty good case could be made. Bill I'd sure like to see some references on that one! I have lived in several communities that specifically forbade outside antennas of any kind.... including TV. For instance whenever I have lived in a townhouse, I owned the inside of the house up to the common walls, but the community owned everything outside of the house. It would be hard to imagine how I would be allowed, by Federal exemption, to deface someone else's property so that I may put up an antenna. -Chuck |
Kudos to HAMS...
|
Kudos to HAMS...
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote: I have lived in several communities that specifically forbade outside antennas of any kind.... including TV. And it's getting more restrictive every day. Even so called older neighborhoods are getting restrictions put in by the local city councils in an effort to "make them look nicer". These are the same fools that want streaming video on their cell phones, but insist on no cell towers in their neighborhood. On antenna towers for amateur radio use. I have no issues with a tower as long as it meets certain engineering standards. What got folks all riled up out my way, is a dentist/ham put up four, 400 foot, towers on some property owned by one of his kids. Legally he was in the clear, but he ****ed off all of his neighbors, ... rich horsey country neighbors... and they steamrolled a bunch of restrictive ordinances through the county code to make sure something like that could not happen again. So thanks to his having the nicest contest station in the county, nobody else can put up towers more than 20 feet higher than their houses. -Chuck |
Kudos to HAMS...
|
Kudos to HAMS...
In article , Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote: I have lived in several communities that specifically forbade outside antennas of any kind.... including TV. What ever happened. I really didn't keep track. I thought at one time there was some kind of thing going on many years ago, where Hams were allowed to get by almost doing anything. Some kind of bill or something. How was that lost ?? I moved to a new location 2.5 years ago, still remodling. I have no antennas up but I live on kind of an antenna hill. There is still a Ham across the street, two doors down. There used to be a Ham right across the street. I'm not sure who owns the two of three towers over there. the property lines are bizzare. The one guy has transmission lines going up into the second story window. From my house it looks like about 20. greg N6GS And it's getting more restrictive every day. Even so called older neighborhoods are getting restrictions put in by the local city councils in an effort to "make them look nicer". These are the same fools that want streaming video on their cell phones, but insist on no cell towers in their neighborhood. On antenna towers for amateur radio use. I have no issues with a tower as long as it meets certain engineering standards. What I have problems with is Joe "I know code so I'm a civil engineer too" Ham throwing together some 30 year old piece of crap he bought at an estate sale and then having it fall over onto my property. And then when the city tells him he needs a permit, screaming about emergency communications as a justification. Jeff wa6fwi |
Kudos to HAMS...
(GregS) wrote in
: In article , Jeffrey D Angus wrote: Chuck Harris wrote: I have lived in several communities that specifically forbade outside antennas of any kind.... including TV. What ever happened. I really didn't keep track. I thought at one time there was some kind of thing going on many years ago, where Hams were allowed to get by almost doing anything. Some kind of bill or something. How was that lost ?? http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...1_program.html "PRB-1, cited as "Amateur Radio Preemption, 101 FCC2d 952 (1985)," is a limited preemption of local zoning ordinances." http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...local/ccr.html "Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in the Amateur Service" -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | |
Antenna Restrictions (Was Kudos to HAMS)
What ever happened. I really didn't keep track. I thought at one time there was some kind of thing going on many years ago, where Hams were allowed to get by almost doing anything. Some kind of bill or something. How was that lost ?? I moved to a new location 2.5 years ago, still remodling. I have no antennas up but I live on kind of an antenna hill. There is still a Ham across the street, two doors down. There used to be a Ham right across the street. I'm not sure who owns the two of three towers over there. the property lines are bizzare. The one guy has transmission lines going up into the second story window. From my house it looks like about 20. greg N6GS ALL ABOUT CC&R's, ZONING, PRB-1, HOA's AND ANTENNA RESTRICTIONS AT URL: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...local/ccr.html Lamont |
Kudos to HAMS...
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... Here's mom's neighborhood... http://www.comcents.com/momshood.jpg See any antennas? There is one - VERY tall as a matter of fact - see it? http://www.comcents.com/momshood2.jpg In case you think I'm making this up - here is a close-up noting two of the lower antennas (there are several more up in the "fronds")... http://www.comcents.com/tower.jpg So like Chuck said - I'd like to see some references on that. 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 |
Kudos to HAMS...
The local NPR station (KUOW) ran a story this morning about how ham radio
operators provided the only means of communication in the hardest-hit areas of western Washington. Landline phones were dead, cell phones were dead, and even the police & emergency network was dead except for something like handheld two-way radios. Hams relayed messages up and down the coast about places to shelter, availability of supplies, medical emergencies, and so on. They interviewed a law enforcement guy who happens to be a ham. In this age of the Internet, ham radio might seem like a quaint throwback to old times, practiced by a shrinking crew of oddballs. It's reassuring to know that ham radio is alive and well, and still performing its public service function as a last-resort network in emergencies. Regards, Phil Nelson Phil's Old Radios http://antiqueradio.org/index.html |
Kudos to HAMS...
I'd sure like to see some references on that one! SNIP So like Chuck said - I'd like to see some references on that. FCC RULES ON ANTENNA RESTRICTIONS I THINK YOU ALL ARE REFERRING TO THE FCC Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule Preemption of Restrictions on Placement of Direct Broadcast Satellite, Broadband Radio Service, and Television Broadcast Antennas URL: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Lamont |
Kudos to HAMS...
In article , 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... Here's mom's neighborhood... http://www.comcents.com/momshood.jpg See any antennas? There is one - VERY tall as a matter of fact - see it? http://www.comcents.com/momshood2.jpg In case you think I'm making this up - here is a close-up noting two of the lower antennas (there are several more up in the "fronds")... http://www.comcents.com/tower.jpg So like Chuck said - I'd like to see some references on that. There is an old church near a hill, and I was watching them making an addition. Its a very old church. They had a kind of bell tower, but now the bell tower is much higher. Its loaded with cell antennas inside. greg |
Kudos to HAMS...
The Shadow wrote:
I'd sure like to see some references on that one! SNIP So like Chuck said - I'd like to see some references on that. FCC RULES ON ANTENNA RESTRICTIONS I THINK YOU ALL ARE REFERRING TO THE FCC Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule Preemption of Restrictions on Placement of Direct Broadcast Satellite, Broadband Radio Service, and Television Broadcast Antennas URL: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Lamont This rule says basically that you can have an antenna in an area that is available for your exclusive use. That would include your living room, and the confines of a private balcony. "A: No. The rule does not prohibit restrictions on antennas installed beyond the balcony or patio of a condominium or apartment unit if such installation is in, on, or over a common area. An antenna that extends out beyond the balcony or patio is usually considered to be in a common area that is not within the scope of the rule. Therefore, the rule does not apply to a condominium or rental apartment unit unless the antenna is installed wholly within the exclusive use area, such as the balcony or patio" However, not all town houses have such areas. I lived in one that specifically stated that anything from the drywall out belonged to the association. I would not have been allowed to stake an antenna in the dirt in front of my house, or projecting out from a window. -Chuck |
Kudos to HAMS...
"Bert Hyman" wrote in message ... (GregS) wrote in : In article , Jeffrey D Angus wrote: Chuck Harris wrote: I have lived in several communities that specifically forbade outside antennas of any kind.... including TV. What ever happened. I really didn't keep track. I thought at one time there was some kind of thing going on many years ago, where Hams were allowed to get by almost doing anything. Some kind of bill or something. How was that lost ?? http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...1_program.html "PRB-1, cited as "Amateur Radio Preemption, 101 FCC2d 952 (1985)," is a limited preemption of local zoning ordinances." http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...local/ccr.html "Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in the Amateur Service" -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | Areyou related to Buster Hyman? hahahahahaha! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Kudos to HAMS...
Doug Adair wrote:
"Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote in message .. . 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. Maybe when a major disaster strikes and phone lines and cell towers are knocked out for miles around and the residents have no way of telling Mom and Dad in another state that they are safe because there are no ham radio installations in their perfect, manicured community, they will relent, but I am not holding my breath even then. Control is hard for some people to give up, even when doing so makes sense. -Scott |
Kudos to HAMS...
Scott W. Harvey wrote:
Doug Adair wrote: "Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote in message .. . 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. Scott, that works only if the area the dish is attached to belongs to the home owner, or is made exclusively available to the home owner. Condo owners are in a completely different situation. You can set a dish on your porch, or patio, if the porch or patio is exclusively yours to use. You can set it in a window, as long as it does not extend past the window into the air outside of the window. If you drill holes in the common roof of a town house, or the outside walls, or drive a spike into the common lawn of the town house, you will lose. You will also get to pay for the damage you did to the roof, or wall, or lawn, if any. Someone recently posted the FCC regs relative to TV, Radio and Ham antennas, and that fact was made quit clear in their Q&A section. -Chuck |
Kudos to HAMS...
I'd rather have ten antennas than those 3 fugly giant water tanks near
my house! http://www.comcents.com/momshood2.jpg Randy AB9GO On Dec 7, 10:55 pm, blitz 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... One point of distinction that might matter is who owns the actual roof. Much harder if it's someone else. Here's mom's neighborhood... http://www.comcents.com/momshood.jpg See any antennas? There is one - VERY tall as a matter of fact - see it? http://www.comcents.com/momshood2.jpg In case you think I'm making this up - here is a close-up noting two of the lower antennas (there are several more up in the "fronds")... http://www.comcents.com/tower.jpg Very nice. So like Chuck said - I'd like to see some references on that. best regards...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Kudos to HAMS...
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 |
Kudos to HAMS...
AB9GO wrote:
I'd rather have ten antennas than those 3 fugly giant water tanks near my house! Actually - at ground level - they're pretty well camouflaged - they're not tall - about the same as a two story house. There are tall trees and such blocking the view from most directions- except through the tall fence where that property faces the street - but that's quite limited and on a busy main thoroughfare. That picture was zoomed in pretty far - "that stuff" is a lot further away than you might suspect - and that makes it hard to judge how close things are together, how much something "really" sticks out, etc. Here is where that shot was taken from - not zoomed in: http://www.comcents.com/momshood3.jpg You cans still see the tanks - but you gotta look. Besides we'd rather put up with that than the brown air of downtown (and this was a *very* clean-air day after some heavy rains!): http://www.comcents.com/notmomshood.jpg Shot from the same place- just turned towards downtown. 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 |
Kudos to HAMS...
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 |
Kudos to HAMS...
"Jeffrey D Angus" wrote in message news:475974b3$0$2289 These are the same fools that want streaming video on their cell phones, but insist on no cell towers in their neighborhood. Jeff wa6fwi Same fools that complain about electrical rates; and then want nuclear plants shut down and fight new transmission facilities. And no ugly wind plants either, besides being ugly they kill birds! Hydro is not good for fish. Same fools that complain about gas and heating prices, and then fight new refineries or exploration in this country. Blleeeeeehh!!!! |
Kudos to HAMS...
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com