"KC4UAI" wrote

Maybe in your area, but where I live CC&R's are the rule and they will
all pretty much restrict antennas for ham radio use. It all depends
on when the average house was built in your area.

All of what you wrote applies to housing here in Tucson. Seems that only if
you're a multi-millionaire can you buy land (if there's any left) and build
your own custom home... completely outside of restrictions (other than
towers, etc.)

I live in one of these CC&R developments, and I'm fortunate to be able to
have something of an antenna in my backyard: an MFJ Hi-Q 10-30m Loop on a 5'
pole. While it's VERY visible from the street (and is quite an effective
antenna), over the 10+ years I've lived here no one's said a word. The
CC&R's state "no antennas without permission." I never asked. That statement
was written, BTW, before the FCC demanded the allowance of tv antennas and
satellite dishes.

When guests ask what my [MFJ antenna] is, I tell them it's my yard
sculpture. I'm fortunate to be under an HOA that's more relaxed than a lot
of the others I've heard about.

N7SO

"Howard Lester" wrote in
acomip:

"KC4UAI" wrote

Maybe in your area, but where I live CC&R's are the rule and they will
all pretty much restrict antennas for ham radio use. It all depends
on when the average house was built in your area.

All of what you wrote applies to housing here in Tucson. Seems that
only if you're a multi-millionaire can you buy land (if there's any
left) and build your own custom home... completely outside of
restrictions (other than towers, etc.)


I can find a lot of houses in this area that don't allow much of anything
too. I'd respectfully suggest that people might look a little harder based
on the fact that a whole lot of people in this area believe that even my
neighborhood will not allow antennas, and don't believe me when I tell them
it does.

If it is true that there is no land available in either Dallas or Tucson
that would allow antennas, then that is indeed sad. I simply would not live
there.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

If it is true that there is no land available in either Dallas or Tucson
that would allow antennas, then that is indeed sad. I simply would not
live
there.

Mike, there is land and housing in Tucson that allows antennas, but in
general, as far as I know either you have to be "out in the county," or in
an older, very established neighborhood. That seems to be "in general," as
I'm sure there are exceptions. But if you want a new, modest home in a
typical family-oriented subdivision, it is not at all likely you'll find one
that allows antennas. If you've "got money," then your options are greater.

Howard N7SO

On Jul 18, 7:28 pm, "Howard Lester" wrote:

there is land and housing in Tucson that allows antennas, but in
general, as far as I know either you have to be "out in the county," or i
n
an older, very established neighborhood. That seems to be "in general," a
s
I'm sure there are exceptions. But if you want a new, modest home in a
typical family-oriented subdivision, it is not at all likely you'll find
one
that allows antennas. If you've "got money," then your options are greate
r.

wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:28 pm, "Howard Lester" wrote:

there is land and housing in Tucson that allows antennas, but in
general, as far as I know either you have to be "out in the county," or i
n
an older, very established neighborhood. That seems to be "in general," a
s
I'm sure there are exceptions. But if you want a new, modest home in a
typical family-oriented subdivision, it is not at all likely you'll find
one
that allows antennas. If you've "got money," then your options are greate
r.

As previously observed, one can only buy what is for sale when one is
looking to buy. There are several houses near me that I would gladly
move to - but they're not for sale, and haven't been for at least a
decade.

Respectfully Jim, I think that is just simplified too much.

While it is true within itself, It is possible to get the house that you
want, and with the features you want.

You just might have to wait a while. We looked several times before we
bought the place we are in now. Some times we just didn't buy.

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. It
took about 2 years, but we got a real bargain at the price we wanted, in
the neighborhood we wanted. Sold the mobile home for nearly what we paid
for it, and were out only the lot rent. House rent would have been a bit
more outlay, but it's still worth it to get the house you want.

I did the same thing with a motorcycle I bought recently. I could have
bought new or what the dealers wanted and had the bike I wanted in
around 15 minutes. I looked and waited for a month to find a motivated
seller, and got a good bike for thousands less.

And back to Ham radio, I have bought all my used radios that way. Got an
IC-745 for $250, and my latest, an IC-761 for 300 dollars. I just had to
wait and pounce at the right time.

Patience will reward you. Buy exactly what you want, not the one that
you think is best when you first start looking


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?


Jim, what I think it is is that we are hearing mostly from those who
are having trouble putting up an antenna, and since they are mostly from
the newr home group, they are more likely to be people who insist on a
newer home. Just a guess.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Jul 21, 9:52 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:28 pm, "Howard Lester" wrote:

As previously observed, one can only buy what is for sale when one is
looking to buy. There are several houses near me that I would gladly
move to - but they're not for sale, and haven't been for at least a
decade.

Respectfully Jim, I think that is just simplified too much.

Without being argumentative, Mike, I think not.

While it is true within itself, It is possible to get the house that you
want, and with the features you want.

You just might have to wait a while. We looked several times before we
bought the place we are in now. Some times we just didn't buy.

Agreed in most cases. But there are probably exceptions out there. I
don't know
what it's like trying to buy real estate in Tucson or Dallas, for
example.

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. It
took about 2 years, but we got a real bargain at the price we wanted, in
the neighborhood we wanted. Sold the mobile home for nearly what we paid
for it, and were out only the lot rent. House rent would have been a bit
more outlay, but it's still worth it to get the house you want.

It all depends on the situation.

For one thing, there's the money aspect, which is a big one for a lot
of us. Living in a rented space means no deductions for interest or RE
taxes, and no equity building.

When the RE market is rising, waiting too long can be a big problem.
If the house values
are rising faster than your purchasing power, you can find that this
year you can't afford a house that you could have afforded last year.
(Of course this causes people to buy *now*, which raises prices, and
the circle keeps rolling...)

It is a common story here to meet folks who could not afford the house
they live in if they had to buy it today, because the house prices
went up much faster than their income.

Besides pure $$, there are factors like the kids' education. At least
in PA, the public schools your kids attend depends on where you live,
and different school districts have very different levels of quality.
In many areas the house prices reflect that. I've seen similar houses
on opposite sides of the same street priced 20% differently, because
one was in the highly-rated Podunk School District and the other in
the good-but-not-as-highly-rated Squeedunk School District. On top of
that, pulling the kids out of one school and dropping them in another
may not be the best idea if there's any other option.

I did the same thing with a motorcycle I bought recently. I could have
bought new or what the dealers wanted and had the bike I wanted in
around 15 minutes. I looked and waited for a month to find a motivated
seller, and got a good bike for thousands less.

Sure. But everyone needs a place to live; not everyone needs a
motorcycle. More important, real estate isn't portable.

And back to Ham radio, I have bought all my used radios that way. Got an
IC-745 for $250, and my latest, an IC-761 for 300 dollars. I just had to
wait and pounce at the right time.

(cue Jacques Coustea narration)

.....ze barracuda waitz patiently for ze most taztee prey to svim
by.....

Patience will reward you. Buy exactly what you want, not the one that
you think is best when you first start looking

Agreed, but RE is different. For one thing, it costs so much more.
$300 for a rig is a different thing than $300,000 for a house. The ham
who can afford a couple of $300 rigs probably can't afford a couple of
$300,000 houses.

Plus if you choose right you can try a variety of used rigs for
relatively little money. The main cost is shipping. Buying and selling
RE you live in is a completely different game!

And in many areas $300,000 doesn't buy a lot of house.

Most of all, depending on your given set of criteria, it may be a very
long time before the house you really want comes on the market.

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?

Jim, what I think it is is that we are hearing mostly fro
m those who
are having trouble putting up an antenna, and since they are mostly from
the newr home group, they are more likely to be people who insist on a
newer home. Just a guess.

Possibly, but the question remains: Why a new or newer house?


73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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

wrote:

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?

A lot of it might be in heating and cooling costs. Most newer homes are
super insulated--built with 2x6 walls, wrapped with Tyvek and have
joints sealed with expanding foam. Many of them offer geothermal
heating/cooling systems as well. One of my pals lives in Indiana. His
total energy bills this past year have averaged $125 per month with his
geothermal system. That is for a five year old, all electric home with
a geothermal system. That isn't bad for lights, cooking, heating water,
watching TV, ham radio, computers, etc.

I've owned only two homes in my life. My Cincinnati home was a full
masonry brick house (plaster inside directly attached to two courses of
brick). That place was costing me $200-$250 per month during the winter
for natural gas in the late seventies/early eighties. I don't like to
think about what the gas bill might be these days. That's the only
place I ever lived where I could find frost on a closet wall on a cold day.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

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?

A lot of it might be in heating and cooling costs. Most newer homes are
super insulated--built with 2x6 walls, wrapped with Tyvek and have
joints sealed with expanding foam.

I wish I could say the same for my area. Many of the largest, most
expensive houses have very little insulation. There is a dead giveaway -
after a snowstorm, they are the first houses to lose the snow on the
roof. A good bit of my wife's work comes from designing remodels on 2 or
3 year old McMansions.

I think maybe that during the 80's and early 90's home construction
related to insulation was pretty good, but as the housing market took
off, and people seemed to be willing to buy anything for any amount of
money, the quality dropped.


Many of them offer geothermal
heating/cooling systems as well. One of my pals lives in Indiana. His
total energy bills this past year have averaged $125 per month with his
geothermal system. That is for a five year old, all electric home with
a geothermal system. That isn't bad for lights, cooking, heating water,
watching TV, ham radio, computers, etc.

It is truly impressive what can be done with a little work. The caveat
it that when you have a tightly sealed house, you have to be very
careful about chemical exposure. My sister has something fairly similar.
She lives in a large modified A frame with one side all glass. Has a
wind generator, Geothermal heat system, and uses a wood pellet stove for
the comfy glow you get from radiant heat. She lives on the first hill
south of Lake Erie shore near Erie, so there is always some wind.


I would love to be able to put up a tower in the back yard



I've owned only two homes in my life. My Cincinnati home was a full
masonry brick house (plaster inside directly attached to two courses of
brick). That place was costing me $200-$250 per month during the winter
for natural gas in the late seventies/early eighties. I don't like to
think about what the gas bill might be these days. That's the only
place I ever lived where I could find frost on a closet wall on a cold day.

brrrr.. Was that the averaged out bill per month?