On Jul 23, 3:08 am, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:20:26 EDT, wrote:
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.

At least one state (Florida ?. New Hampshire ?) incorporated that
preemption of private contracts into their state "PRB-1" statute.

Gotta find out which states - and add to the list!

Pennsylvania isn't one of them yet, I know that much.

The
US Constitution inhibits Congressional interference with the right of
contract (subject to the usual time, place, manner and least
restrictive means exemptions) but civil contracts such as CC&Rs are
creatures of state law and can be regulated by the state.

Now I'm a little confused.

I recall reading that FCC has been repeatedly asked to extend the TV-
antenna-preemption thing to amateur radio antennas, but has responded
that they will only do so when Congress tells them to (in the form of
legislation).

But now it looks like the state (not local) governments can, if they
want, incorporate PRB-1 into their civil contract statues. I think
this means they could declare too-strict no-antenna CC&Rs as
"unreasonable" and therefore illegal.

If I understand this correctly, we hams have two avenues to pursue;
state and federal.

73 es TNX de Jim, N2EY

On Jul 23, 2:31 am, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:07:57 EDT, wrote:
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.

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

According to California law - the one that I work with - the CC&Rs
are recorded before the first unit is built, and both state law and
common law holds that the restrictions run with the land. The "first
owner" legally is the developer.

So that idea won't work in California.

I was lucky with the condo because the restriction was no antennas
without permission of the board, and I got that permission while the
developer was the "board" and the permission ran with my ownership and
occupancy of the unit.

So you did a version of the second idea. That's great!

CC&Rs, HOAs and such are of interest to me because although I've
managed to avoid them in the homes I've owned so far, the trends are
not promising for the future.

---

I see a lot of (to me) strange development going on.

The first is the McMansion, a huge frame house on a relatively small
lot, with all sorts of restrictions. Incredibly priced, too, and you
don't even get sidewalks. How people are supposed to heat, cool and
maintain them as prices rise is beyond me.

The second is the condo development, aka "above-ground-rabbit-warren",
where a lot of units are piled onto the absolute minimum of land, sort
of like city rowhouses. The problem is that the development is nothing
but homes and is sited on a busy road, so you have to get in your car
and drive a couple miles or more just to get groceries or go to the
post office. IOW, many of the disadvantages of the city and few of the
advantages.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:54:13 EDT, wrote:

If I understand this correctly, we hams have two avenues to pursue;
state and federal.

Thus has long been recognized, but the states are too close to the
developers to want to take them on, and it would take 50 campaigns to
do what a single Federal campaign would do.

We've seen what happens when such a bill is introduced into The
Congress, even when it is cloaked in "equality" and "public service"
terms.

Maybe we need to get some pictures of someone or other.... :-)
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:55:00 EDT, wrote:

The first is the McMansion, a huge frame house on a relatively small
lot, with all sorts of restrictions. Incredibly priced, too, and you
don't even get sidewalks. How people are supposed to heat, cool and
maintain them as prices rise is beyond me.


We had a builder put up a MaxiMansion near here for his own residence.
They had to put in a new gas line up the street to provide enough gas
to heat the place. He has his own pole-pig too. The price was
several mills three years ago. The house across the road from that is
35 rooms occupied by a couple in their 90s - the largest car dealer in
the Portland area. I would suspect that both of those places have
live-in help.

Isn't it nice to have money?
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

In article ,
Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:07:57 EDT, wrote:

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.

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

According to California law - the one that I work with - the CC&Rs
are recorded before the first unit is built, and both state law and
common law holds that the restrictions run with the land. The "first
owner" legally is the developer.

I was lucky with the condo because the restriction was no antennas
without permission of the board, and I got that permission while the
developer was the "board" and the permission ran with my ownership and
occupancy of the unit.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

One of the, few, "Nice Things" about living out in the "Middle of
No where", is that if your nearest neighbor is 5 miles away,
and there are 200 ft trees between them and you, it really doesn't
matter just how BIG, and Tall, the Antenna Farm gets.

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

Phil Kane wrote:
We've seen what happens when such a bill is introduced into The
Congress, even when it is cloaked in "equality" and "public service"
terms.

The magic phrase is "For the children" or, now, "To fight terrorism."

Properly done, it could lead to anyone WITHOUT a tower will be viewed
with suspicion by the rest of the neighbors.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi

Phil Kane wrote:

We had a builder put up a MaxiMansion near here for his own residence.
They had to put in a new gas line up the street to provide enough gas
to heat the place. He has his own pole-pig too. The price was
several mills three years ago.

Out here on Signal Hill, I have to share a pole pig with the neighbor
across the road.

The house across the road from that is
35 rooms occupied by a couple in their 90s - the largest car dealer in
the Portland area. I would suspect that both of those places have
live-in help.

See! I could live in one of those places--as live-in help.

Isn't it nice to have money?

I'd love to have the opportunity to find out if wealth could mess up my
life. Though indoor plumbing came to this area long ago, there's still
a WPA-built privy on our property. When I can afford to do it up in
gold leaf, I will know that I've arrived.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
Phil Kane wrote:

We had a builder put up a MaxiMansion near here for his own residence.
They had to put in a new gas line up the street to provide enough gas
to heat the place. He has his own pole-pig too. The price was
several mills three years ago.

Out here on Signal Hill, I have to share a pole pig with the neighbor
across the road.

The house across the road from that is
35 rooms occupied by a couple in their 90s - the largest car dealer in
the Portland area. I would suspect that both of those places have
live-in help.

See! I could live in one of those places--as live-in help.

Isn't it nice to have money?

I'd love to have the opportunity to find out if wealth could mess up my
life. Though indoor plumbing came to this area long ago, there's still
a WPA-built privy on our property. When I can afford to do it up in
gold leaf, I will know that I've arrived.

Dave K8MN

Your name isn't Al Gore and you haven't purchased 10,000 acres of carbon
credits in West Ubanga Banga.....

Dave WD9BDZ

Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:45:50 EDT, wrote:

There was also the issue that watching TV in one's home, be it a tiny
studio apartment or a giant estate or anything in between, was a
right of any resident, rental, owner, condo, etc. Nobody wanted to
deny *that* right!

Amateur radio doesn't have the same protections.

"... among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.... (from that radical document, the Declaration of
Independence)

I pursue my happiness with a K2 and an all-band antenna....

I love it.

What the _Howard_ case said is that an amateur license doesn't grant a
right to erect any antenna of the licensee's choosing (as against the
regulatory authority of the jurisdiction filtered through PRB-1).

It's still basic, though, that a HOA Rule or CC&R cannot prohibit
amateur radio operation per se.

Some (and only some) West Virginia communities require permits for
erecting a radio tower. the CC&R situation is as ugly as it gets
anywhere else. Out in the counties, the situation is quite different.
Here in Marshall County, *no permit of any kind* is required to put up a
tower. Count elevation, cheap dirt and no antenna restrictions among
the reasons we chose to live here.

(I don't play a lawyer on TV, I'm too busy being one... ) ggg

Heh.

Dave K8MN