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 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

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 Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:35:04 CST, "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.

The history behind that is that The Congress in passing the
Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 specifically directed the FCC to
do that. This of course was at the urging of the satellite TV
companies. Money talks, and big money talks loudly.

The FCC specifically said in reply to a petition by the ARRL recently
that until and unless The Congress directs otherwise, they will not
exercise the preemption on CC&Rs and HOA regulations.

(I do this stuff for a living.....)
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:38:34 CST, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

I think homeowners are justified in seeking relief from _government_
regulation of antennas, since such rules are not the sort of thing local
governments do well. Deed restrictions, however, are something I think
the government should stay out of unless there's a _very_ compelling
public interest.

But there is a compelling public interest, Bill, there certainly is.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:38:34 CST, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

I think homeowners are justified in seeking relief from _government_
regulation of antennas, since such rules are not the sort of thing local
governments do well. Deed restrictions, however, are something I think
the government should stay out of unless there's a _very_ compelling
public interest.

But there is a compelling public interest, Bill, there certainly is.
--


Phil,

Not being a lawyer, I won't attempt to argue the law with you ;-).

I think that "public interest" is, by its nature, subject to debate.
It's also something that is debated only when the "public" doesn't know
what's good for it: after all, if everybody agreed that there should be
hams and that they should have antennas, there would be no problem. That
means that decisions about public interest _always_ involve political
risk, and politicians are the most risk-averse group on the planet.

I have said before, and will repeat he there used to be a de facto
agreement between hams and the military. We were a trained pool of
operators who could be drafted and placed in service quickly during
wars: that's why the NTS is a mirror of the military network model.
Since the military wanted hams to be (pardon the pun) up to speed, it
defended our frequency assignments in an era when there was fierce
competition for HF from short-wave broadcasting, point-to-point
services, and even other government agencies.

Times have changed: military electronics are too complicated and secret
for civilian training to be meaningful, and code is passé, so hams
aren't high on the pentagon's list-of-friends right now. Ergo, no free
ride at the allocation conferences or inter-agency sessions, and no
"public interest" in keeping hams on the air.

In addition to the military connection, we were also the beneficiary of
the government's push to increase science education in the wake of the
Sputnik panic and ensuing Apollo programs during the cold war. Movies
and periodicals showed hams as young wizards, with attendant benefits:
our neighbors, by and large, admired us and looked the other way when we
wanted a beam.

However, that is also in the past. International phone calls are now
routine, cell phones have removed any sense of wonder from mobile radio,
the Internet has given curious children access to different points of
view and cultures from all over the world. Small wonder, then, that
aging baby-boomers, eager for their own quarter-acre of paradise, have
endorsed deed restrictions and other ways to prevent their neighbors
from darkening their view of the skyline.

So, we come to the question of what the public "needs". We hams are no
longer valuable just for our everyday skills, such as Morse, and we're
not nearly good enough at providing other public services that might
justify overriding local ordinances. Unless Uncle Sam can be convinced
that Amateur Radio is once again relevant and worth keeping, I don't see
the government stepping in where contracts are involved: there's too
much political risk and no pressing need for intervention.

YMMV.

Bill

--
73,

Bill W1AC

(Remove "73" and change top level domain for direct replies)

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:44:44 CST, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

Unless Uncle Sam can be convinced
that Amateur Radio is once again relevant and worth keeping, I don't see
the government stepping in where contracts are involved: there's too
much political risk and no pressing need for intervention.


You are aware, aren't you, that Amateur Radio has been integrated into
Homeland Security as a necessary civilian resource. Here. we are the
backup for the county's and cities' public safety and hospital
communications and we are used for real-fife situations regularly.

International treaties and Congressional legislation specifically
provide valuable spectrum resources for Amateur Radio on an exclusive
basis. That sounds like "relevant", "public interest", and "worth
keeping" to me.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

On Mar 10, 5:38 am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

IANALB, the way it was explained to me is that Congress is very
reluctant to intercede in what is, in essence, a contractual matter, and
I think that reluctance is justified.

I understand that the FCC didn't want to get involved for Hams, but
they did use PRB-1 to pre-empt these private contracts for TV and Data
Services so they do have the right.

I think homeowners are justified in seeking relief from _government_
regulation of antennas, since such rules are not the sort of thing local
governments do well. Deed restrictions, however, are something I think
the government should stay out of unless there's a _very_ compelling
public interest.

One can argue that there is a compelling interest in providing
"reasonable accommodation" for armature radio. Should I desire to put
up any kind of usable antenna, my options are as follows:

1. Get the HOA to back off by my persuasive arguments about the
neighborhood being better off having such communications
infrastructure in my back yard. (Very unlikely)
2. Move to a different house that has less restrictive CCNR's. (Which
I cannot find with the same quality/price that I have now)
3. Put it up anyway and wait for a court order to take it down (and
pay the HOA whatever they decide the fines are going to be) (Which I
cannot afford, I'm sure.)
4. Hope for a state or federal law that preempts the CCNR's I feel
where forced on me in many ways.

I'm here to tell you that in Northeast Dallas you are very unlikely to
find reasonable housing in the $200K price range built in the last few
years that is not CCNR restricted from ham radio antennas. The
builders here simply use the same boiler plate CCNR for all their
developments and there is little else to buy here. It may be
different in rural areas, but I'm betting that around larger cities in
the US this is standard practice. This means that #4 is about all I
can hope for.

-= bob =-

On Mar 13, 10:02�pm, "KC4UAI" wrote:

One can argue that there is a compelling interest in providing
"reasonable accommodation" for armature radio. *Should I desire to put
up any kind of usable antenna, my options are as follows:

1. Get the HOA to back off by my persuasive arguments about the
neighborhood being better off having such communications
infrastructure in my back yard. *(Very unlikely)
2. Move to a different house that has less restrictive CCNR's. (Which
I cannot find with the same quality/price that I have now)

I would argue that lack of CC&Rs is a quality-of-life issue.
If I can't do reasonable things with my home, my quality-
of-life is reduced.

Now of course "reasonable" is the key factor. Putting a 90 foot tower
holding several large beams on a quarter-acre lot
isn't very reasonable. Putting up a dipole or vertical on the same lot
*is* reasonable, IMHO.

3. Put it up anyway and wait for a court order to take it down (and
pay the HOA whatever they decide the fines are going to be) *(Which I
cannot afford, I'm sure.)
4. Hope for a state or federal law that preempts the CCNR's I feel
where forced on me in many ways.

How about working for such a law?

I'm here to tell you that in Northeast Dallas you are very unlikely to
find reasonable housing in the $200K price range built in the last few
years that is not CCNR restricted from ham radio antennas. *The
builders here simply use the same boiler plate CCNR for all their
developments and there is little else to buy here. *It may be
different in rural areas, but I'm betting that around larger cities in
the US this is standard practice. *This means that #4 is about all I
can hope for.

A lot depends on the area.

Here in suburban Philadelphia, CC&Rs vary all over the place. Many
older homes, and there are lots of them,
are completely unrestricted as to antennas. You still
have to satisfy the building code, but that's a safety
issue.

With newer homes (less than 40 years old), it's a mixed bag.
Some are extremely restricted, some not. It just depends on
the builder and the community.

Some folks like CC&Rs because they think CC&Rs "protect
property values". Yet in every case I've seen in this area,
unrestricted houses command *higher* prices and better
appreciation than their CC&R'd counterparts.

In my case I settled for less house and less land in order
to have no anti-antenna restrictions for a given price and
community. I could have gotten more for less elsewhere,
but there were other considerations as to where I would
live.

$200K isn't a lot of money for a house these days in many
markets. Take a look at realtor.com and/or zillow.com,
and see what houses go for in various cities. One thing
to look for in the house description is "fee simple". While
it's no guarantee of an unrestricted property, anything
other than fee simple is almost guaranteed to have lots
of restrictions.

73 de Jim, N2EY