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

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 =-