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 =-

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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)

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