RadioBanter - Jesus knew about ham radio guys!

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Moderated (https://www.radiobanter.com/moderated/)

- - Jesus knew about ham radio guys! (https://www.radiobanter.com/moderated/171030-jesus-knew-about-ham-radio-guys.html)

Jesus knew about ham radio guys!

On Jul 22, 8:58 am, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:
The way deed restrictions & covenants work in the areas I know of is
that they are recorded when the property is first sold. And of course
one of the restrictions is that each owner has to pass the
restrictions on to the next owner.

But in some cases, the first buyer can say "NO!" to the developer, and
get restrictions removed *before* the sale. So while the rest of the
properties may be restricted, that one isn't.

While this might give you the legal right to erect an antenna (and it
might not; I'm not a lawyer either), I would look carefully at other
factors before considering it.

Let me illustrate what I'm trying to say
by building two scenarios:

1. The development has large lots and the neighbors are pretty laid
back. You buy the house and erect an unobtrusive antenna. Your
neighbors don't notice, and the ones who do don't care.

The problem is, how do you know the neighbors are pretty laid back
before you move in? Also, some folks consider *anything* different to
be "obtrusive".

2. You erect a tower on your tiny lot and hang a bunch of antennas on
it, creating what looks like a masterpiece to your eyes and an eyesore
to your neighbors.

This is where the question of "reasonable" comes in. A big tower on a
small treeless lot may not be "reasonable", while a simple vertical or
wire antenna would be.

A big tower on a big lot, screened by trees, is another thing
entirely.

Since the people who bought in the development are
particularly sensitive to such things, they make your life miserable
even though they have no legal recourse.

The problem is that usually you don't know beforehand what sort of
neighbors you'll get.

The point I was making is that universal antenna restrictions on new
homes may not be a foregone conclusion in all cases if you know the
right approach.

Repeating an earlier warning: This is definitely a situation where
you'd want professional counsel (RE lawyer) to make sure you get what
you think you're getting.

The scenarios are deliberately exaggerated to make the point that the
legal situation is only one aspect of living in a community. If the
other members of the community have a strong mindset about what's
appropriate and you're outside that mindset, there will be an issue.
You have to live with these people. If they, as a group, feel strongly
enough that you're acting inappropriately they'll get their way, deed
restrictions or not.

Maybe; it all depends on the situation. For example, not everyone who
buys into a restricted community cares or really knows about all the
restrictions; they may be buying on price alone, low maintenance, etc.
I've talked to a lot of folks who have no idea of the restrictions
they live under until they cross one.

Couple of problems I see all the time:

1) In many new developments, there are no trees of any size, no
fences, and all the utilities are buried. The few inconspicuous places
are used for the A/C condensers and the utility meters. The result is
that *anything* you put up is extremely visible to many neighbors.

2) In many new developments the houses are close together and the
ratio of building to ground is very high, and the roof is useless for
antennas for a number of reasons. Again, this makes anything different
stick out.

Both 1) and 2) are examples of how a lot of modern housing, even if
unrestricted, is not ham-radio-friendly.

3) In many cases all it takes to cause a problem is one or two
neighbors who don't like something. IOW "the Gladys Kravitz effect".
IOW there are people you cannot ever please.

There's a balance between doing whatever the neighbors might want, and
saying the heck with them, you'll do whatever *you* want. That balance
is the concept of "reasonable". And like Quality in "Zen And The Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance", almost everybody knows what "reasonable"
is (to them, anyway)
but almost nobody can exactly define it.

One more point:

A question I see all the time from some hams is "why would anyone buy
into/want to live under such restrictions?" or variations thereof.
Often there are declarations of how these things are evil,
unconstitutional, whatever, be they zoning ordinances, HOA rules, etc.

The answer I give is that it's often due to bitter experience, either
one's own or another's. All it takes is one or two really bad
neighbors ruin a neighborhood.

IOW, a lot of what drives this is fear that neighbors won't behave
responsibly, or reasonably. Like the person who puts his trash on the
curb on Thursday, for a pickup on Tuesday of the next week. Or the
person who can't seem to find a paintbrush or a lawn mower.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jesus knew about ham radio guys!

On Jul 22, 4:30 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 21, 11:07 pm, wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:17 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:45 pm, wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
(insert standard "not a lawyer" disclaimer HERE)
Same for me... I'm not a RE lawyer either...

I'm not any kind of lawyer.

looking at the legal process that went on before I purchased my
house, this isn't going to work. The CC&R's are actually recorded for
the whole property before it was plated and sold to the developer.

Well, there goes that idea in your case. But in others it may work.

There are over 300 lots in my subdivision
and for the developer to except one of the lots, he would have to own
them all, remove the restrictions on them all and reapply them to all
but one.

Maybe. Even if he bought them all, he may not have the right to repeal
the restrictions. It depends on the exact wording.

HOA rules are another issue completely, but the same approach may
work.

In my case the HOA rules are spelled out in the CC&R's (for the most
part). They have some latitude in some areas of appearance, but not a
lot. My CC&R's actually specify the maximum heigth of the grass in
you yard.

Think why that is.....

Get a lawyer BEFORE you need one. Having all the
"I's" dotted and "T's" crossed legally is the best way to proceed. By
the time you need one, it's going to be too late.

I look at it differently. Unless you are an RE lawyer yourself, assume
you need one.

The cure is for lots of people to write Congress and get them to order
FCC to expand the OTARD preemption. FCC has clearly said they will do
it when Congress tells them to.

We can also go to the City, County, and State and ask for preemptive
rules for Part 97 antennas. I get the impression that one might have
more luck in those venues than in Congress.

Probably not. Here's why:

The thing about deed restrictions and covenants is that they are
considered private contracts. Most governments don't want to bust in
on private contracts - or at least that's the excuse they give.

The one exception is that you cannot make a valid, legal contract to
do something that is clearly illegal. Suppose A hires B to murder C,
writes up a contract that they both sign, and A pays B in advance. But
then B decides not to do the job. A cannot use the courts to get his
money back from C for non-comission of a crime.

The OTARD ruling stemmed from the idea that the anti-TV-antenna rules
effectively created an illegal cable-TV-provider monopoly, and
restricted interstate commerce in doing so. The satellite TV folks had
to go all the way to the Supremes to get that ruling, too.

As another example, it used to be legal to put all sorts of
discriminatory restrictions in CC&Rs as to who you could sell the
property to - race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Civil rights and equal
housing laws made these illegal.

On top of that, the local governments, if they have any sense, will
say it's the FCC's area, not theirs, and to go talk to them.

I've seen more than one
antenna bill get introduced into congress with pretty good support
only to get buried in committee and never to be seen again. I don't
see that changing anytime soon.

What is "pretty good support"? How many hundred thousand letters to
Congress supporting it?

40 miles a day in a small car is maybe $6 in gas....

Compared to my current 6 mile/day bill of $0.60 using that car is
pretty expensive. I'm also 6'7" so it's kind of hard to find a car I
can fit into and get good mileage.. But we are moving off track.

Maybe not.

One of the big problems we have in the USA is that we're overdependent
on rubber-tire, fossil-fuel-powered transportation. Consider your 300-
unit development - does it include a shopping center you can walk or
bike to? Or does almost anything require a car or truck ride?

Too much of our country is designed around the automobile, which leads
to all sorts of problems. But it doesn't have to be that way - look at
Portland Oregon for how things could be. (And it didn't used to be
that way - towns and suburbs used to be built so that a car wasn't an
absolute necessity).

Say the HOA doesn't like the current color of your
fence. You live on a fixed income and cannot paint the fence but the
ACC changed the rules and now your fence is unacceptable. HOA
eventually assess fines, charging you for each day the fence is not
painted. They file leans on your property to secure the debt and you
could loose your house, all because the "rules" changed and you didn't
agree to the change.

Good point. I wonder if it could be argued that such rules effectively
create a monopoly for the paint company that makes the approved kind
of paint?

Part of the problem is that a lot of folks don't really
know what they're getting into when they buy.

Some do but the fine details about what can happen would be lost on
most of us. In Texas things get pretty crazy. I've read a case where
a guy got a lot with deed restrictions that didn't allow "mobile
homes". He started to have a pre-fab modular home built on the lot
and got hauled into court by the HOA for trying to install a "mobile
home". He ended up loosing the case after nearly 5 years of having a
half completed house he couldn't live in. Paid substantial fines
too. Crazy Texas courts where they attempt to take the most liberal
interpretation in favor of the HOA they can.

The fundamental problem was that he was doing something they didn't
like. That's the key issue and the key question: why didn't they like
the prefab modular home?

Friend of mine bought into such a place, and after some time
discovered that the upstairs windows leaked. The construction was
rather slipshod IMHO but caulk had worked for a couple of years. But
now he had a major job to fix the problem.

Oh, I know how that goes. My dad made the mistake of getting the
windows changed without consulting the HOA. Hooo Boy, what a mess
that was.

My friend dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts. Point is, it cost
him a lot more because he had to get the exact approved windows and
such; he couldn't get the windows he wanted.

Could that be a monopoly, again?

I got a letter from the HOA telling me to mow my lawn... OK, but I had
proof that my lawn was being mowed each week for the entire summer
(can you say cancelled checks to the lawn care guys) and I'm sure the
yard wasn't getting out of hand enough to warrant a nasty letter from
the HOA in a week.

But how long was it? The rules go by the length, not how often it's
mowed.

Also, I don't dare try and "hide" a stealth antenna in plain sight.
It's like the SS is driving around looking for a justification for the
high fees the management company charges. For some reason they can see
18 gauge bare copper coming off the back of my house heading for the
back fence. (Oh yea, I got a letter on that one too.) I could barely
see it from the street, knowing it was there.

SHEESH!

Has anybody had any success with getting an HOA to allow this kind of
thing, in spite of the clear restrictions in the CC&R’s?

I'm afraid the problem there would be that the HOA would hide behind
the CC&Rs, saying their hands are tied. And they'd be telling the
truth.

---

I can think of one thing hams could do - a sort of "guerilla theatre",
as it were. (Perhaps I listened to Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant"
a few times too many when I was younger....)

Suppose that a developer is having an open house or similar promotion
(expect a lot of them with the RE market the way it is).

And suppose a lot of nicely-dressed radio amateurs and their spouse
show up to look. They act eager and interested, comment on how nice
everything is, and how the place is just what they are looking for and
well within their price range. They start talking about preapproved
mortgages, where the furniture will go and what kind of drapes they'll
install, plus how much cash is in the checking account to make the
deposit.

Then they pull out a big measuring tape and start measuring the yard.
The agent will ask what they are doing, and they say they're figuring
out where the amateur radio antennas will go. "There's no rule against
them, right?" they ask. Of course the agent will have to tell them the
truth, because of disclosure laws.

As soon as the agent says "no antennas", they put all the literature
down, roll up the tape, say "Thanks but no thanks, we wouldn't live
here if you gave us the house", get in their car and drive away.

If one person does it, they'll think it's an oddity.

If a few people do it, they'll look into it.

If a lot of people do it, they may think it's a movement, and get the
message.

Waddya think?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jesus knew about ham radio guys!

wrote

I am curious, though, about some things that seem pretty common in
amateur discussions about HOAs and CC&Rs.

It seems to me that a lot of amateurs insist on a new house, or at
least a newer house, meaning something no older than 10-20 years.
Older homes are simply off the radar, for some reason. Is it just me,
or is this a real trend? What's behind it?

==================================

In my case, I like nice and new because it's nice and new and clean,
everything's under warranty, uses the "latest technology," it was built with
my choice of its internals, including having coax run through the walls from
the roof to my "shack" area.... and I could live with relatively stealth
antennas. Why? Because the house itself is for me more a priority than is
ham radio.

As for CC&R's, I knew it all going in, and I knew that I would be working
with an HOA that is not run by a bunch of... I won't use the term.... I
would *never* live under a regime like that. While it's a 200 home
development, they are fairly flexible in what you can and cannot do. As I
said earlier, I have had an MFJ Hi-Q Loop mounted in my backyard for 10
years, and no one has ever said a word. It works very well, as evidenced by
all the DX I've worked with it. I had a Diamond 2m/440 antenna (40") mounted
on the roof, also as visible as possible.

An HOA can be fired. If the majority of homeowners want to throw them all
out and change the CC&R's they can. (I know, not likely, but the point is
that it can be done.)

So while there are choices, there are choices. Choose wisely.

Howard N7SO

Jesus knew about ham radio guys!

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:52:15 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

This is the part that I do that is apparently foreign to many. The is no
law that says that we have to buy a house, some house, any house. One
can live in an apartment for a while, or as we did, a mobile home.

We moved from a 2-bedroom condo apartment when we ran out of room for
what we wanted our living arrangements to be. We had no guest room
for our kids ( big issue while my divorce from their mother was being
negotiated), no separate office and studio for each of us, a kitchen
that was the size of a telephone booth for my wife the catering chef,
and all the office furniture and my professional library was in a
10X10 storage cubicle after I closed my law office. We bunked in our
kids' guest room for a month while our goods were piling up storage
fees because we had to wait for our condo apartment to sell and clear
escrow before we could put our equity into another home. There was
no way we were going into an apartment and then having to pay for
another move to a place that we would find "later on". We spent a
week with the Realtor checking out deed restrictions and looking at
places that might meet our needs - space, number of rooms, proximity
to public transit, specialized medical services (I was legally blind
at the time), easy travel to our congregation (the only one of our
denomination in the entire state), freedom for onerous anti-ham
ordinances and deed restrictions, a decent and safe neighborhood, and
so on. After turning down three nicer homes (including one brand-new
townhouse that the Realtor's researcher said "no CC&Rs" although the
development literally screamed "restrictive CC&Rs" in my experience,
we settled for this one. We still ran out of storage room and had to
do a fair amount of rebuilding but I could put up my 12 antennas and
my wife could resume her contract catering business - "but it's only
one-half block from the bus stop", as my wife reminds me when we
discover another problem with the 30+ year old house.

Priorities....
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

Jesus knew about ham radio guys!

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:57:09 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

This brings up another thought. I wonder how many times a person who has
trouble with the neighbors might have trouble with them in other areas.
Some times an antenna fight might just be a proxy for personality clashes.

We have a neighbor across the street who had a real bad case for us
about the condition of our lawn (neither of us has the strength or
stamina to really care for it) and the leaves that fall on our lawn
and get blown onto her pristine and well-cared-for lawn (that's all
she has to do all day....).

When I put up my antennas, including the R-8 vertical that sticks up
50 feet above the ground - not a peep. When we finally had the
offending trees removed and contracted with a lawn maintenance
company to take care of the property, she stood there and watched them
work all day. Not a word of "thank you".

At least she doesn't pound on our door and make threats like she used
to.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

Jesus knew about ham radio guys!

On Jul 23, 3:03 am, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:20:26 EDT, wrote:
As another example, it used to be legal to put all sorts of
discriminatory restrictions in CC&Rs as to who you could sell the
property to - race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Civil rights and equal
housing laws made these illegal.

Actually a SCOTUS case called _Shelly v Kraemer_ broke that
restriction many years before The Congress got around to legislation.

This is why I include that "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer so often.

Thanks for the correction, Phil.

I guess the reason for the equal housing and other laws was to outlaw
other forms of discrimination, such as the realtor who wouldn't show a
house to the "wrong" people, lenders who had different lending rules
depending on ethnicity/race/gender/religion, etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY