On Mar 14, 1:47 am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:02�pm, "KC4UAI" wrote:
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?


Aside from writing my congressman and advocating that others with my
same views do the same, what else can one do? The last house bill got
introduced and quickly referred to a committee where it died. How can
we get it out of that committee with a recommendation that it be
passed?

The FCC in it's latest ruling on this specifically states that if the
Congress tells them to do it they will expand PRB-1 to include CCNRs
for ham radio. How do we get Congress to do that? After all, there
are but 600K or so hams who one could argue might be interested in
this, and few others outside that group who would care.

I actually think this is as important as the spectrum protection stuff
we do. Spectrum doesn't mean a thing, if you cannot build an antenna
to use it.

-= bob =-

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:02:33 CST, "KC4UAI" wrote:

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.

Actually not so on all points. The FCC did not use "PRB-1" in the
OTARD issue. They were commanded by The Congress to adopt regulations
to provide for OTARD, whereas PRB-1 was issued on the FCC's motion
alone. Secondly, the FCC has clearly stated several times that they
will not preempt private land use restrictions until and unless The
Congress mandates it, and they are taking their own sweet time in
doing so.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Covenants, Conditions, AND Restrictions = CC & R's, not CCNR's.

No, I don't think the Homeowner's Association is going to agree to a crossed
out antenna restriction, even if the seller does. The seller does not
represent the HOA. The HOA, however, *may* grant an exception if requested.

N7SO

KC4UAI wrote:
This is important to me because I live in a deed restricted community
with a very picky HOA.

Did you previously agree to the restrictions?
If so, it is likely a legally enforceable contract
between you and the other party.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote

Did you previously agree to the restrictions?
If so, it is likely a legally enforceable contract
between you and the other party.
--

I used to live in a town where the cable company had required builders to
attach a 'no-antenna' covenant as a condition of providing service....and
the town insisted that builders see that cable service was provided. So it
wound up as a covenant, but coerced by the city. Not exactly a level
playing field.

It was almost impossible to live in that area without having some
restrictive covenants...so it oversimplifies to simply suggest that you can
choose to live elsewhere. Most of us have to go where the work is.

Bill KB0RF (now happily living with no covenants and no HOA)

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:12:14 CST, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Did you previously agree to the restrictions?
If so, it is likely a legally enforceable contract
between you and the other party.

Cecil, look up the term "contract of adhesion" in a legal text on
contracts. It is a "take it or leave it" situation where there is no
real bargaining.

In California, where I practice state law, a deed restriction or HOA
regulation can be declared unenforceable if it is found to be
unreasonable but the burden of proof of unreasonableness is on the
homeowner seeking relief.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Phil,

And California is one of the lucky states where there is at least the
potential for relief from unreasonable CC&Rs. Not many do, as you
know.

It also seems somewhat atypical of California. Where I live, there
has been an increasing stream of people moving to escape, their word,
California nuttiness. Of course, they are promptly surprised to find
out that they are expected to get along with their neighbors without
endless rules, regulations, CC&Rs, etc. Quite a culture shock, but
after a couple of years they fit right in.


--
Alan
WA4SCA

Phil Kane wrote:
Cecil, look up the term "contract of adhesion" in a legal text on
contracts. It is a "take it or leave it" situation where there is no
real bargaining.

When I bought my house in CA, I amended the antenna
restriction portion of the contract. When the
neighbors objected to my antennas, I dragged out the
contract and showed them the marked out section
initialed by me, the seller, and the planning
commission. It probably would not have stood up in
court but it never got that far. I was sorta like
that ham in Lubbock, TX. Did you see that video?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:18:20 CST, Cecil Moore wrote in :
Phil Kane wrote:
Cecil, look up the term "contract of adhesion" in a legal text on
contracts. It is a "take it or leave it" situation where there is no
real bargaining.

When I bought my house in CA, I amended the antenna
restriction portion of the contract. When the
neighbors objected to my antennas, I dragged out the
contract and showed them the marked out section
initialed by me, the seller, and the planning
commission. It probably would not have stood up in
court but it never got that far. I was sorta like
that ham in Lubbock, TX. Did you see that video?

No, actually. I haven't, and I suspect a lot of the other denizens of
this fine group haven't and would like to. URL?

--
Death is just Mother Nature's way of telling you
to Slow Down.

In article ,
Phil Kane wrote:

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:12:14 CST, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Did you previously agree to the restrictions?
If so, it is likely a legally enforceable contract
between you and the other party.

Cecil, look up the term "contract of adhesion" in a legal text on
contracts. It is a "take it or leave it" situation where there is no
real bargaining.

In California, where I practice state law, a deed restriction or HOA
regulation can be declared unenforceable if it is found to be
unreasonable but the burden of proof of unreasonableness is on the
homeowner seeking relief.
--

As I understand Washington (state) law, the same is true here, plus if
the regulation hasn't been enforced in years, or has been "selectively"
enforced.

Except for the race restriction found in some old CCNRs

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv