wrote

I think there *is* a compelling public interest in the anti-antenna
regulations contained in many CC&Rs.

First off, those regulations have become "boilerplate"
in many if not most new construction since the 1970s.
The percentage of "no antenna" homes keeps growing
with time.

However, a number of years ago the FCC prevented HOA's from restricting the
use of outdoor TV antennas and 3' satellite dishes unless the home is in a
"historic district" or is on a list of "historic homes." The only
restriction I know of otherwise is, as I recall, that the HOA may restricted
the antenna's height to no more than 12 feet above the roof line.

Yes, I know some HOA's prevent even the use of a 2 meter "J pole" taped to
the inside of the owner's window....

Howard N7SO

Howard Lester wrote:
However, a number of years ago the FCC prevented HOA's from restricting the
use of outdoor TV antennas and 3' satellite dishes unless the home is in a
"historic district" or is on a list of "historic homes." The only
restriction I know of otherwise is, as I recall, that the HOA may restricted
the antenna's height to no more than 12 feet above the roof line.

Here's what Texas Law says:

"Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 250.002 (Vernon 2005)
§ 250.002. REGULATION OF AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS.

(a) A municipality or county may not enact or enforce an ordinance or
order that does not comply with the ruling of the Federal Communications
Commission in "Amateur Radio Preemption, 101 FCC 2nd 952 (1985)" or a
regulation related to amateur radio service adopted under 47 C.F.R. Part
97.

(b) If a municipality or county adopts an ordinance or order involving
the placement, screening, or height of an amateur radio antenna based on
health, safety, or aesthetic conditions, the ordinance or order must:
(1) reasonably accommodate amateur communications; and
(2) represent the minimal practicable regulation to accomplish the
municipality's or county's legitimate purpose.

(c) This section does not prohibit a municipality or county from taking
any action to protect or preserve a historic, historical, or
architectural district that is established by the municipality or county
or under state or federal law.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 68, § 1, eff. May 10, 1999."

Of course, this doesn't apply to willingly signed personal contracts.

Howard, did you get the email I sent?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 10, 12:35�pm, "Howard Lester" wrote:
wrote

I think there *is* a compelling public interest in the anti-antenna
regulations contained in many CC&Rs.

First off, those regulations have become "boilerplate"
in many if not most new construction since the 1970s.
The percentage of "no antenna" homes keeps growing
with time.

However, a number of years ago the FCC prevented HOA's from restricting the
use of outdoor TV antennas *and 3' satellite dishes unless the home is in a
"historic district" or is on a list of "historic homes." The only
restriction I know of otherwise is, as I recall, that the HOA may restricted
the antenna's height to no more than 12 feet above the roof line.

FCC only did that because the Supreme Court told them to.

IANAL, but here's what I learned:

What happened was the satellite TV folks claimed that no-antenna CC&Rs
were unfair restraint of interstate
commerce. IOW, they effectively created a cable-TV
monopoly in many areas, because the satellite TV
pizza-dish antennas won't work reliably unless they
can 'see' the satellite.

The satellite TV folks fought it all the way to the Supreme
Court, and won. But only for the small dishes.

"Regular" TV broadcast reception was also included, if the TV antenna
did not exceed a certain size and wasn't more
than a certain height above ground. But the antenna must be
used *only* for TV reception - not ham radio, Wi-Fi, FM radio, SW
radio, public service, etc.

For more details, search for the "OTARD" ruling ("Off The
Air Reception Decision", IIRC.)

It doesn't matter what the HOA rules, deed restrictions,
covenants, etc., say, or that people knowingly bought into
places with "no antennas" clauses. Unless they're in a
certified historic district, they have the right to put up
certain antennas for TV reception. The Feds preempted
those contracts and rules.

Yes, I know some HOA's prevent even the use of a 2 meter "J pole" taped to
the inside of the owner's window....


---

In reading this discussion, it seems there's a major point
being missed: reasonable accomodation.

The issue isn't just about towers and big beams. It's about
unreasonable prohibition of even simple wire and vertical
antennas that are almost invisible.

The simple solution of "don't buy a restricted property"
works well in some places and not in others. It all depends
on what houses are for sale in an area when *you* need to
move. In some areas, there's no shortage of affordable
unrestricted homes for sale, but in others, they are
essentially nonexistent.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
But the antenna must be
used *only* for TV reception - not ham radio, Wi-Fi, FM radio, SW
radio, public service, etc.

One more example of an irrational federal
government completely out of control. What
ever happened to "We The People"?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:35:28 CST, Cecil Moore
wrote:

But the antenna must be
used *only* for TV reception - not ham radio, Wi-Fi, FM radio, SW
radio, public service, etc.

One more example of an irrational federal
government completely out of control. What
ever happened to "We The People"?

That was the deal worked out with the satellite TV folks, who could
care less about the other services. You may consider it "out of
control". I consider that they finally took at least one baby step
towards the right goal.

Money talks. Big Money talks loudly.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:57:50 CST, wrote:

The simple solution of "don't buy a restricted property"
works well in some places and not in others. It all depends
on what houses are for sale in an area when *you* need to
move. In some areas, there's no shortage of affordable
unrestricted homes for sale, but in others, they are
essentially nonexistent.

As you know, Jim, we passed up three homes which were better and nicer
than the one we got because of restrictive covenants or in one case a
"thick" local zoning authority which was known to not understand what
"reasonable accommodation" is all about.

I'm assisting in a case this coming week on just that issue.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Mar 12, 12:54?am, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:57:50 CST, wrote:
The simple solution of "don't buy a restricted property"
works well in some places and not in others. It all depends
on what houses are for sale in an area when *you* need to
move. In some areas, there's no shortage of affordable
unrestricted homes for sale, but in others, they are
essentially nonexistent.

As you know, Jim, we passed up three homes which were better and nicer
than the one we got because of restrictive covenants or in one case a
"thick" local zoning authority which was known to not understand what
"reasonable accommodation" is all about.

Hello Phil,

Yes, I remember that.

Here's another example:

I moved to this house in October of 1999. It has no
anti-antenna restrictions at all. However, it *does* have
a page and a half of fine print deed restrictions about
what can and cannot be done with the property. The
house was built in 1950, too.

Those deed restrictions were unknown to the seller and
the real estate agents. My real estate attorney and I
found them by reading the deed/title (can't remember
which) and finding a reference in there to "all other
restrictions filed...." That led us to the County Courthouse,
where the restrictions had been filed for the whole
development a half-century earlier. If I hadn't pushed the
issue, I never would have known about the restrictions.

Some might say that it's just due diligence to look up
everything about a property before buying. That's true,
but often it's not practical. When the RE market was hot
here, houses were often under contract the day they
went on the market. Even now, with higher interest rates,
good homes don't stay on the market more than a few days.

As you know, disclosure laws vary from state to state.
Who is going to walk away from a sale at the last
minute because they were informed of restrictions at the
closing?

To me, the most ominous facet of deed restrictions and
covenants is that they are designed to be unchangeable
forever. When it comes to laws, zoning codes and
ordinances can be changed, variances can be allowed, etc., but deed
restrictions and covenants do not fall under
their jurisdiction. As properties have boilerplate restrictions
added, the number of ham-friendly homes drops.

I'm assisting in a case this coming week on just that issue.
--
Excellent! Good Luck!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .com,
wrote:

"Regular" TV broadcast reception was also included, if the TV antenna
did not exceed a certain size and wasn't more
than a certain height above ground. But the antenna must be
used *only* for TV reception - not ham radio, Wi-Fi, FM radio, SW
radio, public service, etc.

Actually, it isn't just for TV reception:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

--------

"Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications
signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed
customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide
telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location.

----------

I have friends who have HOA restrictions but had no problem putting
up antennas for Sprintlink (wireless Internet access) because of the
OTARD rules.


Patty N6BIS

On Mar 12, 8:00�pm,
) wrote:
In article .com,

wrote:

"Regular" TV broadcast reception was also included, if the TV antenna
did not exceed a certain size and wasn't more
than a certain height above ground. But the antenna must be
used *only* for TV reception - not ham radio, Wi-Fi, FM radio, SW
radio, public service, etc.

Not exactly - see below. My mistake!

Actually, it isn't just for TV reception:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

--------

"Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications
signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed
customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide
telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location.


Thanks for the info!

Unfortunately, the same link says that amateur radio is specifically
*not* included in the preemption.
----------

I have friends who have HOA restrictions but had no problem putting
up antennas for Sprintlink (wireless Internet access) because of the
OTARD rules.

That's a step in the right direction, but we hams are still outside
that
fence looking in.

And the preemption is specific about size and height of
antenna. Even if ham radio were included, a simple wire
antenna like the G5RV would not be covered.

Thanks again for the info.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .com,
wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:00�pm,
) wrote:

"Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications
signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed
customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide
telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location.

Thanks for the info!

Unfortunately, the same link says that amateur radio is specifically
*not* included in the preemption.

That's correct. I was just addressing the "TV only" statement. It
would be great if there were similar rules about amateur radio antennas.


Patty