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.

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. 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 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.

73, Steve KB9X

Steve Bonine wrote:


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.

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. 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.

Steve, that is a good point. While I can put up anything within reason,
I have went with unobtrusive antennas. Some of my neighbor know about
the antennas, and some don't.

Get along with the neighbors!


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.

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.

Also a bit of friendly explanation can go a long way. When I put up my
first dipole, the neighbors across the street came out to ask what I was
doing. Natural enough when they saw the crazy guy on the roof with a
slingshot and fishing line. I explained exactly what it was, and told
them about it's uses, especially about emergency communications. I gave
a few examples, such as the lower Ontario disaster that happened a few
years before.

I even noted that in really bad disasters, I could patch them through
to their relatives to let them know they were okay - if the local phones
went out.

It can be a lot easier sell when they can see that it might be a
benefit to them. Our locale was the site of a couple major wintertime
disasters in the last 10 or so years. Big winter storms that came early
and brought trees down that still had leaves on them, knocking out power
and phone for several days, as long as a week in some areas. The
collective response was, "I'll be, that's pretty cool".

A tray of cookies or brownies once in a while or the occasional beer
doesn't hurt either! Hard to get too mad at people you break bread with.


Contrast that to demanding your right to put up whatever you darn well
please, and if the neighbors don't like it, they can can it. We all know
which one works better.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Jul 22, 12:57 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

Contrast that to demanding your right to put up whatever you darn well
please, and if the neighbors don't like it, they can can it. We all know
which one works better.


Well I don't know about you but my wife has a LOT more to say about my
antenna aspirations than the neighbors ever will. She's not going to
allow anything she considers an eyesore to go up. She sees me gawking
at some of the antenna farms around and makes it clear I won't have
one that looks like that!

Of course this puts me in a difficult situation. When I retire to the
country and get the 20 acres on the hill side. She's going to want
the house on the top of the hill and the antenna farm someplace else.

-= bob =-

KC4UAI wrote in
:

On Jul 22, 12:57 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

Contrast that to demanding your right to put up whatever you
darn well
please, and if the neighbors don't like it, they can can it. We all
know which one works better.


Well I don't know about you but my wife has a LOT more to say about my
antenna aspirations than the neighbors ever will. She's not going to
allow anything she considers an eyesore to go up. She sees me gawking
at some of the antenna farms around and makes it clear I won't have
one that looks like that!

My XYL alsp takes a dim view of some of the more gaudy antennas. I've
bounced ideas off her, and over time have come up with what is
acceptable. I've ended up with wire dipoles, a J-pole for 2 meter
repeater work, and a Butternut vertical.

The Butternut was bought at a Hamfest for a paltry 35.00 It needed one
of the tube insulators and a HV cap. Simple stuff. I took a chance and we
made a deal if she didn't like it, I'd take it down. Oddly enough, it
didin't bother her as much as I thoght it would - it only got the "rolled
eyes" treatment. So we kept it.


Of course this puts me in a difficult situation. When I retire to the
country and get the 20 acres on the hill side. She's going to want
the house on the top of the hill and the antenna farm someplace else.

Doesn't she know that the best place is down the hill a bit? Warmer
in winter, and less likely to have lightning strikes? hehe

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

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

Phil Kane wrote:
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.


Admittedly, we have been blessed neighbor-wise. DId you tell here that
your radials help you grass grow, and you'd be happy to extend them onto
her lawn? evil grin


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

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