Hi,

Some time back, I did some looking around for an Arizona retirement
home. In an area with approximately 100k population, I saw exactly 2
real HF stations with a true antenna farm in a week. Both were owned
by people whose family had been there before the boom, and were
grandfathered. Except for that, I saw a low dipole, a couple of
flagpoles which were disguised verticals, and one StepIR vertical
standing proudly in someone's back yard. That turned out to be an
interesting story, since the residents of the new development had
voted not to form a HOA. So while it violated the CC&Rs, there was no
organization to enforce it.

Being a place where they prided themselves on being "rustic," they had
instituted some very tight zoning on antennas of every sort. However,
the real problem, from a ham standpoint, was posed by the HOAs and
CC&Rs. They were so standard and pervasive that except for some very
old areas, there was no place to buy which did not have them. As a
buyer, you had no input to their formulation, and because they are
considered private agreements, you had little appeal if you could not
get a waiver from the HOA. According to the locals, you basically
worked 2 meters, used a stealth antenna, or bought a house out in the
county. Way out.

I am all in favor of allowing people to pick an area where the
environment is congenial to them. However, when there may as well be
a sign on the city limits saying "Hams Not Welcome," even if that is
not the intend, it may be time to at least have a vigorous discussion
of the formulations of CC&Rs. As for me, I decided to stay were I am,
where they consider regulation the last resort, not the first.





--
Alan
WA4SCA

In article ,
Alan WA4SCA writes:
Hi,

Some time back, I did some looking around for an Arizona retirement
home. In an area with approximately 100k population, I saw exactly 2
real HF stations with a true antenna farm in a week. Both were owned
by people whose family had been there before the boom, and were
grandfathered. Except for that, I saw a low dipole, a couple of
flagpoles which were disguised verticals, and one StepIR vertical
standing proudly in someone's back yard. That turned out to be an
interesting story, since the residents of the new development had
voted not to form a HOA. So while it violated the CC&Rs, there was no
organization to enforce it.

Being a place where they prided themselves on being "rustic," they had
instituted some very tight zoning on antennas of every sort. However,
the real problem, from a ham standpoint, was posed by the HOAs and
CC&Rs. They were so standard and pervasive that except for some very
old areas, there was no place to buy which did not have them. As a
buyer, you had no input to their formulation, and because they are
considered private agreements, you had little appeal if you could not
get a waiver from the HOA. According to the locals, you basically
worked 2 meters, used a stealth antenna, or bought a house out in the
county. Way out.

I am all in favor of allowing people to pick an area where the
environment is congenial to them. However, when there may as well be
a sign on the city limits saying "Hams Not Welcome," even if that is
not the intend, it may be time to at least have a vigorous discussion
of the formulations of CC&Rs. As for me, I decided to stay were I am,
where they consider regulation the last resort, not the first.

Having not been actively involved in ham radio for several years
(actually, more than a decade) I am amazed to see the same arguments
still going on. This one in particular.

Hams make up approximately 00.2% of the US population. And, decreasing
every year. Why would you be surprised that more and more places don't
want structures they consider unsightly in their neighborhoods.

As has already been stated (and was stated when we argued this more
than a decade ago) CC&R's are contractual matters and you are not
going to see laws to overturn or limit them. If you move into an
area that doesn't allow antennas it was your decision. The argument
that you can't find a place that allows them is bogus. What you
can't find is a place that is willing to operate by your terms.
If you want an antenna farm buy property where that is allowed. If
you want to live in developed neighborhood, then either build one
full of hams or accept that your neighbors don't share your idea
of aesthetics.

bill
KB3YV

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
| and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include std.disclaimer.h

From: (Bill Gunshannon) on Sat, Mar 10 2007 9:35 am

Alan WA4SCA writes:

I am all in favor of allowing people to pick an area where the
environment is congenial to them. However, when there may as well be
a sign on the city limits saying "Hams Not Welcome," even if that is
not the intend, it may be time to at least have a vigorous discussion
of the formulations of CC&Rs. As for me, I decided to stay were I am,
where they consider regulation the last resort, not the first.

Having not been actively involved in ham radio for several years
(actually, more than a decade) I am amazed to see the same arguments
still going on. This one in particular.

"Humankind invented language to satisfy its need to complain."
(anonymous tagline) :-)

Hams make up approximately 00.2% of the US population.

0.023 % actually (understanding the typo on decimal point).

And, decreasing
every year. Why would you be surprised that more and more places don't
want structures they consider unsightly in their neighborhoods.

It's a matter of esthetics and all neighbors wanting the
place where they live to be nice. I've lived at this QTH
for close to 44 years and have seen it grow more attractive
when all in the neighborhood take pride in making their
homes and surrounding territory look good. No unsightly
trash lying around, no rusted car hulks, no huge satellite
dishes of the old kind, just nice upkeep on their property
and landscaping.

My only restriction is of the FAA kind since I am located
about a mile from the nearest corner of Bob Hope Airport
in Burbank, CA. However, trying to put up 200 feet of
tower (plus some) won't get me over the near hilltops for
low-angle HF shoots to the north to east. That didn't
matter when I bought this place back in '63.

As has already been stated (and was stated when we argued this more
than a decade ago) CC&R's are contractual matters and you are not
going to see laws to overturn or limit them. If you move into an
area that doesn't allow antennas it was your decision. The argument
that you can't find a place that allows them is bogus. What you
can't find is a place that is willing to operate by your terms.

The center area of Santa Barbara, CA, has (perhaps) the
most draconian restrictions beginning with the style of
architecture (!) in keeping with tradition of olde
California living. For those that want to live in that
style, let them enjoy it say I.

If you want an antenna farm buy property where that is allowed.

Some 53 years ago I lived and worked IN a two-square-mile
former airfield filled with wire antennas and their support
poles. For half a year until the Army reassigned me to
another place in Japan. That airfield also had dozens of
Japanese farmers on it, living and working at their
agricultural tasks. Those Japanese who contracted with their
government to work that land resented the "intrusion" of a
military who filled their observable sky with wire and
hundreds of poles...not to mention disturbing their BC
receivers with about 250 KW worth of assorted HF signals
from that large transmitter station. The farmers were
there first but their government let the USA put up that
station. Needless to say the farmers were upset with it.
While I enjoyed that assignment, I could understand their
dislike of their new conditions.

If you want to live in developed neighborhood, then either build one
full of hams or accept that your neighbors don't share your idea
of aesthetics.

That's the bottom line. It's a matter of priorities in
life and getting along with all the others in a neighbor-
hood. Radio amateurs are generally out-numbered by all
the others who do NOT share hams' liking for "living IN a
radio station."

I'm planning a new ham station installation but I'm also
considering the esthetics from my neighbor's point of view.
I LIKE my neighbors and I LOVE my wife who lives with me
even though she does not share my electronics interest of
work and play.

73,
Len, AF6AY

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: (Bill Gunshannon) on Sat, Mar 10 2007 9:35 am

Alan WA4SCA writes:

[snip]

Hams make up approximately 00.2% of the US population.

0.023 % actually (understanding the typo on decimal point).


Best to double check that math. It is indeed approximately 0.2% (not 0.02%)
or about 2 hams per thousand people.

Dee, N8UZE

On Mar 11, 3:56�pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

From: (Bill Gunshannon) on Sat, Mar 10 2007 9:35 am

Alan WA4SCA writes:

[snip]

Hams make up approximately 00.2% of the US population.

* 0.023 % actually (understanding the typo on decimal point).

Best to double check that math. *It is indeed approximately 0.2% (not 0.02%)
or about 2 hams per thousand people.

Yes. :-) (710K / 300M) = 2.3^(10-3) = 0.23%

88, AF6AY

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:35:55 CST, (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:

What you
can't find is a place that is willing to operate by your terms.
If you want an antenna farm buy property where that is allowed. If
you want to live in developed neighborhood, then either build one
full of hams or accept that your neighbors don't share your idea
of aesthetics.

The history behind antenna restrictions, BTW, have nothing to do with
ham radio or aesthetics. They were instituted at the urging (read:
financial support) of cable TV companies in the mid 60s to prevent
outdoor TV antennas from being erected, forcing the buyer to take
cable service at a time when all one could get on the cable were the
local TV stations anyhow. Like a bad fungus, it kept on attaching
itself to every new development filing - "monkey see, monkey do".

With all due respect, Bill, there have been several surveys in the
past years that new or modern developments all have the same
"boilerplate" restrictions. You are certainly entitled to the
opinion which you have presented above, but it's not in the best
interests of amateur radio as an integral part of our community. If
it takes the government to force reasonable accommodation, so be it.
Somehow it has to be done. That's my opinion.

A large part of my legal practice is concerned with fighting
unreasonable zoning restrictions on radio facilities, including
amateur radio stations, whether instituted by government or by
individuals.

73 de K2ASP -- Phil Kane
--
Philip M. Kane P E / Esq.
VP - Regulatory Counsel & Engineering Manager
CSI Telecommunication Consulting Engineers
San Francisco, CA - Beaverton, OR

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:11:53 CST, Alan WA4SCA
wrote:

Some time back, I did some looking around for an Arizona retirement
home.

You would be interested to hear that the proposed Arizona statute
mirroring PRB-1 is drafted to apply to homeowner restrictions enacted
AFTER the statute goes into effect but not retroactively.

At least it's a start.

73 de K2ASP -- Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel