On Mar 19, 2:00�pm, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:43 am, wrote:

2) Look for brand-new developments, and offer to buy only
if the developer (who almost always is the one who adds
the restrictions) does not include the anti-antenna CC&Rs
on the house. *It probably will not have an effect right
away, but after a while the developers might get the
message that they are losing sales because of the restrictions.

It's an idea, but there are pitfalls here. *Having a developer wave or
change the CC&R's is an option, but only if he actually can. Assuming
that the developer actually owns the land (all of it) and can make
changes to the restrictions for you, how many will? *Remember there
are only about 600K of us nation wide, not a large percentage of the
market there. I'll bet that even if we all did this, any single
developer would only see this once in a blue moon and making changes
in the boiler plate CC&R's would not be done.

Still worth trying. If a developer starts losing sales because
of CC&Rs, they may be more flexible.

I don't know what the RE market is like in your area, but
here in EPA it is not as much a seller's market as it was
a few years ago. Sellers are making deals today that
they'd never have made in 2000.

I'd also be afraid that the developer would try to give you a "waver
letter" saying that the specific restriction in question didn't apply
to you, but that's about as useful as the paper it's printed on once
the development passes from developer control to HOA control. *They
wouldn't be bound by this "agreement" unless it's legally recorded on
your title (and very likely on everybody else's titles as well.)

That's why you need a competent real estate attorney, to
see that the restrictions are completely removed from the
deed in accordance with all applicable laws.

Some things are *not* DIY.

About the only real option here (Apart from joining the HOA Board and
bribing the rest of the voting members to get a temporary exception
just for me) is to save up my pennies and move to the sticks once I
retire in 20+ years. *In the mean time I'm stuck with what I can hide
in the attic of my single story home which is full of HVAC equipment,
electrical, alarm, and phone wiring and Christmas decorations.

I disagree! I think it's at least worth looking.

IMHO, one of the biggest problems with buying real estate
is that it's not something most people do often, nor when
they choose to do it. The trick to getting the best RE deals
is to simply watch the market in your target area, and be
ready to jump when the right house shows up.

But if you accept defeat before even trying.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:00�pm, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:43 am, wrote:

2) Look for brand-new developments, and offer to buy only
if the developer (who almost always is the one who adds
the restrictions) does not include the anti-antenna CC&Rs
on the house. It probably will not have an effect right
away, but after a while the developers might get the
message that they are losing sales because of the restrictions.
It's an idea, but there are pitfalls here. Having a developer wave or
change the CC&R's is an option, but only if he actually can. Assuming
that the developer actually owns the land (all of it) and can make
changes to the restrictions for you, how many will? Remember there
are only about 600K of us nation wide, not a large percentage of the
market there. I'll bet that even if we all did this, any single
developer would only see this once in a blue moon and making changes
in the boiler plate CC&R's would not be done.

Still worth trying. If a developer starts losing sales because
of CC&Rs, they may be more flexible.

I don't know what the RE market is like in your area, but
here in EPA it is not as much a seller's market as it was
a few years ago. Sellers are making deals today that
they'd never have made in 2000.

Agreed, Jim. It's a disaster up here. Not only are new houses not
selling, but there are going to be a lot of new ones coming on the
market as the people who bought all the houses on the "voodoo mortgage
plans" lose their homes as the payments double or more than double.


My point is that I would wager a beverage of your choice that at this
time, if you approach a real estate agent or developer and let them know
that the antenna restriction is there, you are going to walk - the
restriction will go in a New York minute.


I'd also be afraid that the developer would try to give you a "waver
letter" saying that the specific restriction in question didn't apply
to you, but that's about as useful as the paper it's printed on once
the development passes from developer control to HOA control. They
wouldn't be bound by this "agreement" unless it's legally recorded on
your title (and very likely on everybody else's titles as well.)

That's why you need a competent real estate attorney, to
see that the restrictions are completely removed from the
deed in accordance with all applicable laws.

And how! When we bought our house, and at signing, our attorney found a
lien on the place that wasn't found through the entire buying process.
Apparently the previous owners knew about it too! We were saved an
unholy mess after the sale. He did his job well and didn't just accept
the papers he was given. We're a walking advertisement for the guy now.


One of the most fortunate bits of luck I had was that although I was
about 5 years away from becoming a Ham when we bought it, the
Neighborhood isn't antenna restricted, with the exception that if you
put up a tower, it has to be far away enough from the neighbors that it
won't fall on their house - seems reasonable to me! ;^) All I have to do
is please the XYL, and I'm there.


Some things are *not* DIY.
About the only real option here (Apart from joining the HOA Board and
bribing the rest of the voting members to get a temporary exception
just for me) is to save up my pennies and move to the sticks once I
retire in 20+ years. In the mean time I'm stuck with what I can hide
in the attic of my single story home which is full of HVAC equipment,
electrical, alarm, and phone wiring and Christmas decorations.

I disagree! I think it's at least worth looking.

People have pressed some unusual things into stealth antennas. My very
first antenna was a wire just above the roof line. It was only visible
if you knew exactly where to look. And it worked okay, nothing great,
but I could get a signal out.

I suppose if a neighbor asked, you could tell them it was a roof moss
control line... ;^)


There are a lot of flag poles that have funny little boxes at the
bottom, and a wire that runs into the basement also...

IMHO, one of the biggest problems with buying real estate
is that it's not something most people do often, nor when
they choose to do it. The trick to getting the best RE deals
is to simply watch the market in your target area, and be
ready to jump when the right house shows up.

Yup.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mar 21, 10:33�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:00?pm, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:43 am, wrote:

2) Look for brand-new developments, and offer to buy only
if the developer (who almost always is the one who adds
the restrictions) does not include the anti-antenna CC&Rs
on the house. *It probably will not have an effect right
away, but after a while the developers might get the
message that they are losing sales because of the restrictions.
It's an idea, but there are pitfalls here. *Having a developer wave or
change the CC&R's is an option, but only if he actually can. Assuming
that the developer actually owns the land (all of it) and can make
changes to the restrictions for you, how many will? *Remember there
are only about 600K of us nation wide, not a large percentage of the
market there. I'll bet that even if we all did this, any single
developer would only see this once in a blue moon and making changes
in the boiler plate CC&R's would not be done.

Still worth trying. If a developer starts losing sales because
of CC&Rs, they may be more flexible.

I don't know what the RE market is like in your area, but
here in EPA it is not as much a seller's market as it was
a few years ago. Sellers are making deals today that
they'd never have made in 2000.

Agreed, Jim. It's a disaster up here.

We don't have that problem here. But the market isn't as
hot as it was a few years ago. That's true almost everywhere.

Not only are new houses not
selling, but there are going to be a lot of new ones coming on the
market as the people who bought all the houses on the "voodoo mortgage
plans" lose their homes as the payments double or more than double.

Unfortunate but true.

There was a time, not too long ago, when the lenders
and regulations were *very* cautious about people's
debt limits. Things were set up to prevent people from
getting in too deep a hole. But in recent years, the
opposite has become true.

* * * * My point is that I would wager a beverage of your choice that at this
time, if you approach a real estate agent or developer and let them know
that the antenna restriction is there, you are going to walk - the
restriction will go in a New York minute.

I agree - *if* you are ready to buy, and *if* they can
get rid of the restrictions.

Side Note: The OTARD ruling is really just the tip of the iceberg
IMHO.

As energy prices rise, I think we will see more and more
alternative-energy installations. For example, a solar hot-water-
preheater could reduce the cost of domestic hot
water. If the price of photovoltaic cells comes down
enough, they could help reduce electricity cost. And of
course there's wind energy.

But such things are probably prohibited by many
CC&Rs, for a bunch of reasons. We may see the day
when such CC&Rs are being overturned because of the
cost of energy.

I'd also be afraid that the developer would try to give you a "waver
letter" saying that the specific restriction in question didn't apply
to you, but that's about as useful as the paper it's printed on once
the development passes from developer control to HOA control. *They
wouldn't be bound by this "agreement" unless it's legally recorded on
your title (and very likely on everybody else's titles as well.)

That's why you need a competent real estate attorney, to
see that the restrictions are completely removed from the
deed in accordance with all applicable laws.

* * * * And how! When we bought our house, and at signing, our attorney found a
lien on the place that wasn't found through the entire buying process.
Apparently the previous owners knew about it too! *We were saved an
unholy mess after the sale. He did his job well and didn't just accept
the papers he was given. *We're a walking advertisement for the guy now.

My RE attorney found all the deed restrictions on this house.
Most of my neighbors had no idea they even existed. None
of them are anti-antenna, and most (like setbacks and
impervious-surface rules) have been superseded
by local ordinances.

* * * * One of the most fortunate bits of luck I had was that although I was
about 5 years away from becoming a Ham when we bought it, the
Neighborhood isn't antenna restricted, with the exception that if you
put up a tower, it has to be far away enough from the neighbors that it
won't fall on their house - seems reasonable to me! ;^)

Depends on the size of the lot. On a lot that's , say, 100
feet wide, you can't put up a tower more than 50 feet high
and have its "fall circle" not go over the property line.

All I have to do
is please the XYL, and I'm there.

Yup.

Some things are *not* DIY.

Like The Law.

I am still surprised at how people who wouldn't dream of
working on their car, or their computer, etc., will think
they have the expertise to do real estate buying and selling
without a competent RE attorney looking things over.

About the only real option here (Apart from joining the HOA Board and
bribing the rest of the voting members to get a temporary exception
just for me) is to save up my pennies and move to the sticks once I
retire in 20+ years. *In the mean time I'm stuck with what I can hide
in the attic of my single story home which is full of HVAC equipment,
electrical, alarm, and phone wiring and Christmas decorations.

I disagree! I think it's at least worth looking.

* * * * People have pressed some unusual things into stealth antennas.

What I meant was that even though KC4UAI thinks there
are no unrestricted houses that are in his area and
affordable, he should still keep looking.

My very
first antenna was a wire just above the roof line. It was only visible
if you knew exactly where to look. And it worked okay, nothing great,
but I could get a signal out.

* * * * I suppose if a neighbor asked, you could tell them it was a roof moss
control line... ;^)

There you go!

* * * * There are a lot of flag poles that have funny little boxes at the
bottom, and a wire that runs into the basement also...

In SNJ a few years back there was a case where a
military veteran had all of his children on active military
duty in the Middle East. They were in combat units, too.

He put up a standard flagpole on his front lawn, and would
fly the US flag every day. I saw pictures of the house - the
flagpole was very nicely done, and not out of scale.

The CC&Rs on the property did not allow flagpoles. The
HOA fined the vet and took him to court when he would
neither pay the fines nor take down the flagpole.

I don't know how the case turned out. But I remember it
when people say that if someone signs away their rights,
they should stick to the rules.


IMHO, one of the biggest problems with buying real estate
is that it's not something most people do often, nor when
they choose to do it. The trick to getting the best RE deals
is to simply watch the market in your target area, and be
ready to jump when the right house shows up.

* * * * Yup.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Michael Coslo" wrote

People have pressed some unusual things into stealth antennas. My very
first antenna was a wire just above the roof line. It was only visible if
you knew exactly where to look. And it worked okay, nothing great, but I
could get a signal out.

I have the MFJ-1786 Hi-Q Loop (30-10 m) vertically mounted on a 5' tv mast
in the middle of my small walled-in yard. It's easily visible from the main
street that enters this HOA controlled subdivision, and in the 9 years I've
lived here, NO one has said a word about it. If anyone were to ask, I would
tell them it's a yard sculpture. (I painted the black plastic a light green
to go with nearby trees.) The antenna works amazingly well, by the way.

Howard N7SO

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 21, 10:33�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:00?pm, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:43 am, wrote:


[snip]

One of the most fortunate bits of luck I had was that although I was
about 5 years away from becoming a Ham when we bought it, the
Neighborhood isn't antenna restricted, with the exception that if you
put up a tower, it has to be far away enough from the neighbors that it
won't fall on their house - seems reasonable to me! ;^)

Depends on the size of the lot. On a lot that's , say, 100
feet wide, you can't put up a tower more than 50 feet high
and have its "fall circle" not go over the property line.


Yet is that actually the correct way to calculate it? That assumes that the
tower will break at the base and fall over from the base. This is not the
common failure mode (or so I've been told). From one of the experts who was
speaking to a city council meeting around here, the towers either twist like
a corkscrew or bend over somewhere between the middle and top. The
"corkscrew" is supposedly the most common failure mode as that is the way
the towers are designed to react if wind loads are exceeded. However in
neither case is there a "fall circle".

Does anyone have information on this? Although the speaker was supposed to
be an expert, I'd be interested in some independent information on this.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote:

One of the most fortunate bits of luck I had was that although I was
about 5 years away from becoming a Ham when we bought it, the
Neighborhood isn't antenna restricted, with the exception that if you
put up a tower, it has to be far away enough from the neighbors that it
won't fall on their house - seems reasonable to me! ;^)

Depends on the size of the lot. On a lot that's , say, 100
feet wide, you can't put up a tower more than 50 feet high
and have its "fall circle" not go over the property line.

True that the tower size ends up being a little restricted. In reality
aren't many towers in my 'hood anyhow, because we are in the middle of a
forest. Lots and lots of big trees to hang wires from tho'. ANd no
restrictions on that.


In SNJ a few years back there was a case where a
military veteran had all of his children on active military
duty in the Middle East. They were in combat units, too.

He put up a standard flagpole on his front lawn, and would
fly the US flag every day. I saw pictures of the house - the
flagpole was very nicely done, and not out of scale.

The CC&Rs on the property did not allow flagpoles. The
HOA fined the vet and took him to court when he would
neither pay the fines nor take down the flagpole.

I don't know how the case turned out. But I remember it
when people say that if someone signs away their rights,
they should stick to the rules.

After reading your post, I visited a few sites on the subject. With all
the other stuff on them, the one thing I took away was one HOA president
trying to justify the ban on flagpoles: We have 1400 houses in this
subdivision. What would happen if all 1400 put up flagpoles and flew flags?"

I for one, would find it a thrilling site!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Dee Flint" wrote ...
wrote ...

Depends on the size of the lot. On a lot that's , say, 100
feet wide, you can't put up a tower more than 50 feet high
and have its "fall circle" not go over the property line.

Yet is that actually the correct way to calculate it? That assumes that
the tower will break at the base and fall over from the base. This is not
the common failure mode (or so I've been told). From one of the experts
who was speaking to a city council meeting around here, the towers either
twist like a corkscrew or bend over somewhere between the middle and top.
The "corkscrew" is supposedly the most common failure mode as that is the
way the towers are designed to react if wind loads are exceeded. However
in neither case is there a "fall circle".

Does anyone have information on this? Although the speaker was supposed
to be an expert, I'd be interested in some independent information on
this.

The structure hight as a radius is the "worst-case" limit of
damage. Insurance underwriters, country commissioners,
et.al. likely don't want to expose themselves to the liability
of setting a more risky limit. Our anecdotal history of typical
tower failures may not seem as compelling to people with
actuarial risk at stake.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Dee Flint" wrote ...

[snip]

The structure hight as a radius is the "worst-case" limit of
damage. Insurance underwriters, country commissioners,
et.al. likely don't want to expose themselves to the liability
of setting a more risky limit. Our anecdotal history of typical
tower failures may not seem as compelling to people with
actuarial risk at stake.

Actually shouldn't there be some actuarial data on this? When it comes to
damage, they'd be the most likely to have solid data. I noticed that no one
addressing the council had bothered to get such data either way on this
subject.

At this point, it's just idle curiosity as our ordinance got changed to 75
feet (up from 50) and there was no "fall circle" type of language included.

Dee, N8UZE

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:16:00 EDT, wrote:

Depends on the size of the lot. On a lot that's , say, 100
feet wide, you can't put up a tower more than 50 feet high
and have its "fall circle" not go over the property line.

As we all (should) know, towers rarely, if ever, fail in "stick fall"
mode where the fall zone radius is equal to the tower height. The
usual fall mode is a buckling collapse along the length of the tower
resulting in a fall radius of about 10-15% of the tower height.

There was a study made of commercial tower failures several decades
ago that showed this, and I've seen this first hand in some of the
broadcast and comm towers affected by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
in the San Francisco area.

Whether the local building official is sharp enough to know this is an
exercise left to the applicant....!
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:11:47 EDT, "Dee Flint"
wrote:

Does anyone have information on this? Although the speaker was supposed to
be an expert, I'd be interested in some independent information on this.

See my earlier post. The study was made by the engineering firm that
designed the TV transmitting antennas on the Empire State Building in
New York City - the name escapes me, though.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net