|
PRB-1 and CCNR's
I was just reading on the ARRL's website where the FCC has once again declined to include CCNR's (Deed restrictions) in it's "must be accommodating to Ham Radio" rules. I was wondering if anybody knew much about the organization that petitioned the FCC? I was also wondering if somebody has re-introduced the bill into the new congress that would force the FCC to include CCNRs in it's PRB-1 pre-emption rules? I'm just guessing but it seems that the previous bill that was introduced, got shuttled to committee and died there. This is important to me because I live in a deed restricted community with a very picky HOA. -= bob =- |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
KC4UAI wrote:
I was just reading on the ARRL's website where the FCC has once again declined to include CCNR's (Deed restrictions) in it's "must be accommodating to Ham Radio" rules. I was wondering if anybody knew much about the organization that petitioned the FCC? I was also wondering if somebody has re-introduced the bill into the new congress that would force the FCC to include CCNRs in it's PRB-1 pre-emption rules? I'm just guessing but it seems that the previous bill that was introduced, got shuttled to committee and died there. This is important to me because I live in a deed restricted community with a very picky HOA. -= bob =- Bob, 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 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. YMMV. 73, W1AC -- Bill Horne, W1AC Life Memeber, ARRL (Remove "73" and change top level domain for direct replies) |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Mar 10, 5:38�am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote: KC4UAI wrote: I was just reading on the ARRL's website where the FCC has once again declined to include CCNR's (Deed restrictions) in it's "must be accommodating to Ham Radio" rules. I was wondering if anybody knew much about the organization that petitioned the FCC? I was also wondering if somebody has re-introduced the bill into the new congress that would force the FCC to include CCNRs in it's PRB-1 pre-emption rules? *I'm just guessing but it seems that the previous bill that was introduced, got shuttled to committee and died there. This is important to me because I live in a deed restricted community with a very picky HOA. -= bob =- Bob, 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 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. YMMV. Bill, 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. Second, deed restrictions and covenants are a form of self-perpetuating contract that the buyer must accept or not buy the house, even though the buyer does not get anything tangible from them. Third, many of the "no-antennas" clauses are overly restrictive in that they cover antennas that are not visible to the neighbors, or are no more visually intrusive than the utility wires and poles. It is simply illogical that a nearly invisible wire antenna somehow ruins the neighborhood, but the multiple poles and wires for power, cable TV, telephone, etc, do not. I am not against reasonable regulations, zoning, and codes. IMHO, many anti-antenna CC&Rs are simply not reasonable. They are an attempt to get around the limits of government power by means of private contracts. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
"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) |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CCNR's
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:15:04 CST, "KC4UAI" wrote:
I was just reading on the ARRL's website where the FCC has once again declined to include CCNR's (Deed restrictions) in it's "must be accommodating to Ham Radio" rules. I was wondering if anybody knew much about the organization that petitioned the FCC? The ARRL, among others. I was also wondering if somebody has re-introduced the bill into the new congress that would force the FCC to include CCNRs in it's PRB-1 pre-emption rules? I'm just guessing but it seems that the previous bill that was introduced, got shuttled to committee and died there. I haven't heard that it was reintroduced, but I hope that it is shortly. This is important to me because I live in a deed restricted community with a very picky HOA. It's important to all hams nationwide, whether they know/admitted it or not. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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) |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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. |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
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 |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 =- |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
On Mar 10, 11:12 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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 Well.. If truth be told, I knew in advance about the restrictions. However, this was *only* because I asked. CCNR's are not normally disclosed in total prior to writing a contract on a house. Your only indication that there *might* be CCNR's is that you are told that there is an HOA who collects dues and how much the dues are. In my experience, if you see HOA dues, you should assume the CCNR's restrict antenna installations. And walking away from your contract will cost you the earnest money if the reason is that you found the CCNR's too restrictive. My complaint here is that the CCNR's are all boilerplate and just about 100% of the builders in the area I live have their standard CCNR's that they file before they start building. If you want to buy a house built in the last 5 years or so, almost 100% of them will have CCNR's that restrict antenna installations that are visible from any other lot or the street. Almost 100% of houses are built by builders who's standard operating procedure is to file boiler plate CCNR's before they even subdivide the land and start building roads. Further, it's next to impossible to change these agreements. Legally, you have to get 100% of the lot owners on the original land that the CCNR got enacted on to agree to modify the agreement. (Can you say herding cats..) You cannot even go to the HOA and get an "agreement" here, because if they choose to not enforce the CCNR the guy next door has the right to take you to court himself. In fact *anybody* in the neighborhood can. CCNRs have their place, and I understand that. How else would you get folks to pay for the community pool. But, I believe that there is a vested interest in the pre-emption of these agreements in a few more cases than the FCC has chosen. Amateur Radio being among these few cases. -= bob =- |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 =- |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
KC4UAI wrote:
Further, it's next to impossible to change these agreements. Legally, you have to get 100% of the lot owners on the original land that the CCNR got enacted on to agree to modify the agreement. Legally, it is not a contract unless you agree to it. What would happen if you simply crossed out the antenna restrictions clause before signing the contract? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
On Mar 16, 2:39�pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
KC4UAI wrote: Further, it's next to impossible to change these agreements. *Legally, you have to get 100% of the lot owners on the original land that the CCNR got enacted on to agree to modify the agreement. Legally, it is not a contract unless you agree to it. Not only do *you* have to agree to it, but everyone else involved has to agree to it as well. What would happen if you simply crossed out the antenna restrictions clause before signing the contract? That depends: IANAL, but this is what I've learned. If the seller is the person who put the restriction on the contract, and has the authority to remove it, then the two of you (and all other parties involved) could agree to remove the restriction. But in many cases that simply won't work. Here's why: Most deed restrictions and covenants are specifically written to be self-perpetuating. There is usually a clause which says that the restrictions cannot be removed by future owners - including the restriction that says restrictions cannot be removed. In those cases, the seller does not have the right to remove the restrictions. S/he agreed to give up that right and to continue all the restrictions as a condition of the sale when *s/he* bought the property. So you could cross it out and sign it, and so could the seller, but if it were challenged by anyone, it would not stand up. In fact, you might be in trouble for attempting to alter an official document. Deed restrictions are written that way for a reason: they'd be too easy to change without it. For example, a friend of mine lives on a 1.2 acre lot. The zoning in the area requires a lot size of at least 0.5 acre. His house and garage are at one end of the property, and he could easily slice off a half-acre at the back without violating any setback requirements. But a deed restriction dating from the building of the house prohibits the further subdivision of the land. So it's 1.2 acres essentially forever. If we could get rid of deed restrictions and covenants just by crossing them out, why would we need PRB-1? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
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 |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:05:57 CST, "KC4UAI" wrote:
Well.. If truth be told, I knew in advance about the restrictions. However, this was *only* because I asked. CCNR's are not normally disclosed in total prior to writing a contract on a house. Your only indication that there *might* be CCNR's is that you are told that there is an HOA who collects dues and how much the dues are. In my experience, if you see HOA dues, you should assume the CCNR's restrict antenna installations. And walking away from your contract will cost you the earnest money if the reason is that you found the CCNR's too restrictive. Depends on where you are. In California and some other states, the seller's agent must produce the documentation of CC&Rs and HOA Regulations before the contract goes into effect, and I insist - for myself and my clients - that a clause be inserted into the contract that the buyer has a set time such as five days to back out with no penalty if there are restrictions on antennas or if the seller's agent fails to produce the above documentation to prove that there are no such restrictions. When we were in the process if buying our house here in 1999, we didn't wait for the seller's agent -- we had our agent telephone her office to get the CC&Rs on every house that we were interested in (they are on file with the county recorder and can be obtained by FAX). There was one brand new townhouse that we really liked that really screamed "CC&Rs" but the search did not reveal any. I didn't trust the search, and we passed it by. We settled for our third choice, a 30-year old house that had CC&Rs but no HOA, and nothing in the CC&Rs would serve as a restriction to what I wanted to erect. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com