| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
In the gospel of Luke Chapter 14, verses 28-30, he admonishes us: "For which of
you, intending to build a tower, sits not down first and counts the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish." -- 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Jul 11, 8:45 pm, "KØHB" wrote:
In the gospel of Luke Chapter 14, verses 28-30, he admonishes us: "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sits not down first and counts the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he has laid th e foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to moc k him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish." LOL I wish He had gone on and extended the PRB-1 ruling to include the pesky CC&R's that will forever keep me from building a tower without having to move first. I'm sure the creator of the universe has the proper authority, even if the FCC doesn't think it does. I so wish that the FCC could be persuaded to reconsider us hams in their limited preemption of CC&R's and give us the same standing as TV antennas and satellite dishes. All I want is reasonable accommodation here. As it stands I’m left to what ever I can cram into the attic and nothing higher than the top of the roof on my single story ranch. If I could only put up a few supports and a 35’ vertical, what a difference it would make. -= KC4UAI =- |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:18:13 EDT, KC4UAI wrote:
I so wish that the FCC could be persuaded to reconsider us hams in their limited preemption of CC&R's and give us the same standing as TV antennas and satellite dishes. They can be persuaded the same way that the OTARD (TV antenna and satellite dishes) got covered -- the big money went to The Congress and "persuaded" them to pass a law directing the FCC to exercise preemptive jurisdiction. At the last go-around visiting the issue, the FCC said in several words that until such "direction" comes about with the ham community, they will do nothing. Every time that such a bill is introduced into The Congress, it goes nowhere. Lest I be called an apologist, during my years on the FCC staff I ticked off my non-ham boss when I stood up for the ham community's needs every time. In retirement I "earn my keep" as an ARRL Volunteer Counsel by assisting amateur licensees in "bringing the light" to those municipalities over which the FCC's PRB-1 can exercise preemptive jurisdiction. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
(insert standard "I Am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer HERE)
On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, KC4UAI wrote: On Jul 11, 8:45 pm, "KØHB" wrote: I so wish that the FCC could be persuaded to reconsider us hams in their limited preemption of CC&R's and give us the same standing as TV antennas and satellite dishes. As K2ASP says, that action has to come from Congress. IMHO, part of the problem is that CC&Rs are a different thing than zoning ordinances and other govt. regs. Most anti-antenna rules are essentially private contracts that you, the buyer, agreed to when you bought the place. Asking for preemption means you want out of that part of the deal. That's a tough sell! It is my understanding that what drove the OTARD process for satellite TV was that the satellite TV companies pushed the case, and invested the sizable $$$ resources necessary to win. IIRC, their argument was essentially that the no-TV-antennas CC&Rs effectively created a cable-TV monopoly by making it impossible for some people to choose satellite TV, since the dish has to have a clear view of the sky where the satellite is. Regular broadcast TV was added to the mix a bit later, basically on the same argument. There was big money at stake because the satellite TV folks saw a huge part of the TV market being off-limits to them because of no-satellite-dish CC&Rs. All I want is reasonable accommodation here. The problem is, who determines what's reasonable? In some places a clothesline in the back yard is considered an eyesore! As it stands I’m left to what ever I can cram into the attic and nothing higher than the top of the roof on my single story ranch. Well, it's a buyer's market now.... --- Besides pushing Congress, one of the things I think we hams could do to help the process is to never refer to amateur radio as "a hobby" or even worse, "just a hobby". While most hams do radio simply as an avocation, IMHO the word "hobby" carries with it a sort of meaning that it's not a serious thing worthy of protection. You'll never hear folks who do sports or art nonprofessionally refer to those activities as "just a hobby". Nor will the term be used by volunteers who donate their time and efforts to a variety of causes. IOW, "hobbies" don't get the kind of respect we want amateur radio to have. If we hams describe amateur radio as "just a hobby", the folks who want to restrict us may think "well, if they say it's just a hobby, what's the problem with a few restrictions?" and "there are all sorts of hobbies that these homes don't accomodate, like raising horses, target shooting, or pleasure boating with a boat that won't fit in the garage. What's different about your radio hobby?" You can be sure the satellite TV people pushing for the OTARD ruling never, ever referred to watching TV as "a hobby", even though their viewers don't get paid to watch TV. 73 de Jim, N2EY If I could only put up a few supports and a 35’ vertical, what a difference it would make. |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
Phil Kane wrote:
Lest I be called an apologist, during my years on the FCC staff I ticked off my non-ham boss when I stood up for the ham community's needs every time. In retirement I "earn my keep" as an ARRL Volunteer Counsel by assisting amateur licensees in "bringing the light" to those municipalities over which the FCC's PRB-1 can exercise preemptive jurisdiction. Your efforts, and those of your peers, are much appreciated. 73, Steve KB9X |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:32:00 -0400, N2EY wrote:
IMHO, part of the problem is that CC&Rs are a different thing than zoning ordinances and other govt. regs. Most anti-antenna rules are essentially private contracts that you, the buyer, agreed to when you bought the place. Asking for preemption means you want out of that part of the deal. That's a tough sell! Morally, I would suggest that when a given CC&R restriction is universal - when *every* acceptable property in an area carries identical anti-antenna restrictions - then that contract provision was NOT agreed to. It was *forced* on a buyer who does not have the option of buying a property 5x the size (and 5x the price) of anything else in the neighborhood/living on a street with four crack houses/living 50 miles from work/etc.. In a moral world, the amateur should be able to invalidate anti-antenna restrictions by showing that no comparable property was available that lacked those restrictions. Of course, in the real legal and political world, no such right exists or is likely to come into being... It is my understanding that what drove the OTARD process for satellite TV was that the satellite TV companies pushed the case, and invested th e sizable $$$ resources necessary to win. IIRC, their argument was essentially that the no-TV-antennas CC&Rs effectively created a cable-T V monopoly by making it impossible for some people to choose satellite TV , since the dish has to have a clear view of the sky where the satellite is. Regular broadcast TV was added to the mix a bit later, basically on the same argument. And, I would suggest, supported by a cable TV industry that wanted to be deregulated, something that wasn't going to happen if a large fraction of their customers had no alternative. |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:29:11 EDT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote: Morally, I would suggest that when a given CC&R restriction is universal - when *every* acceptable property in an area carries identical anti-antenna restrictions - then that contract provision was NOT agreed to. It was *forced* on a buyer .... [snipped] In a moral world, the amateur should be able to invalidate anti-antenna restrictions by showing that no comparable property was available that lacked those restrictions. Both of those points were made in the League's last assault on the problem and those arguments fell on deaf ears. That's when the Commission made it clear that they will move if and only if The Congress orders it to. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
wrote in message ... Besides pushing Congress, one of the things I think we hams could do to help the process is to never refer to amateur radio as "a hobby" or even worse, "just a hobby". But ham radio's dirty little secret is that we have let it become "just a hobby". With the exception of 2M most of our VHF/UHF spectrum is shared with "real" users like DoD who tolerate our presence and because they are NTIA (not FCC) controlled are (at least for now) immune to auctions. Our HF spectrum isn't particularly attractive for commercial applications. Were it not for those fortunate circumstances, our allocations would have been auctioned long ago. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
Michael Coslo wrote:
Here are some ideas: The old vertical as a flagpole. [ Etc. ] Mind if I play devils advocate here for a minute? Where is it written that as Licensed Amateur Radio Operators we have a fair pass to ignore the rules? What part of "no antennas" in the CC&R you signed do you not understand? "But but but, I'm a Ham radio operator!" I'm sorry, I just keep seeing this same thing over and over and over and I don't buy it. (Along with, since I have a license, I don't need a permit to put up a tower.) Jeff-1.0 wa6vfi |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: (insert standard "I Am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer HERE) I'm still not a lawyer... On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, KC4UAI wrote: On Jul 11, 8:45 pm, "KØHB" wrote: There was big money at stake because the satellite TV folks saw a huge and expanding part of the TV market being off-limits to them because of no-satellite-dish CC&Rs. Sure, and considering that the antenna restrictions serve d to monopolize access to the cable industry. It is hard to argue that allowing satellite dishes wasn't a fair and equitable thing to do. 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. The problem is, who determines what's reasonable? In some places a clothesline in the back yard is considered an eyesore! A mile or so from us, there is one of those places. No clotheslines, no kids stuff in yards, all landscaping must be approved. Almost everything about your home life is tightly regulated. People who live in a place that restrictive deserve it. Agreed. As I peruse through the real estate guides, I'm struck by the number of homes that are available that do not have restrictive covenants. Even the village that I live in does not have ban antennas. So I have a nice woodsey atmosphere, and can do most of the things I want. I wasn't allowed to set up my still to make corn squeezins! hehe But my point is that if people are looking for a house, there are options. It's also very important to read all that boring stuff. I wonder how many Hams who live in a place that prohibits antennas read the fineprint. There are plenty of unrestricted places on the market *now*, because of the RE market slump and the mortgage crisis. But not so long ago, it was a different game. At least around here, houses would often be sold the afternoon they went on the market. It was not unusual for a house to have multiple offers above the asking price with a preapproved mortgage and no conditions on the offer. In such a market, simply finding out if a place was antenna-restricted is a real problem. There are deed restrictions on my 1950-built house (none address antennas) but to find them out my RE lawyer had to go to the county courthouse and ask the right person for them. You can only buy a house that is for sale at the time you are looking to buy. If you happen to need to move at a time when the market is hot, you're at a distinct disadvantage. Another tactic is to ask if you can put up an antenna, and if the answer is no, then politely say, "Too bad-see you later!". If the real estate agent loses a few sales for something silly like that, then they will start looking into it. Yes and no. For one thing, *NEVER* take a verbal response as binding in such a situation. Just because the seller or the agent says "yes" or "we can get that changed" does NOT mean there are no restrictions! You and your RE attorney need to see the actual documents themselves and go over every word to make sure there are no restrictions. For example, the word "antenna" may not appear anywhere. But there may be a restriction that says "No structure may exceed a height of 35 feet" (or whatever). A tower may be considered a structure in that situation, so if you want a 50 foot tower, you're out of luck. Deed covenants and restrictions are usually designed so that they cannot easily be removed even if all parties want to remove them. The usual way it works is that each buyer agrees, when buying the property, to pass them on to the next buyer. So the seller, and the seller's agent, may not have the right to remove them even if s/he wants to! Once the sale is done and you've moved in, it's too late. IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes many people make is assuming that because they've read the Constitution, they don't need a lawyer for things like buying a house. In many situations that's a sure-fire path to problems. Some other problems: 1) A considerable number of hams today were not hams when they moved into their current homes. Antennas weren't an issue when the moved - now they are. 2) Considerations such as cost and location are not the same everywhere. "Move to the country" isn't always an option if doing so means one or both spouses' jobs are going to be at the end of a long and expensive commute. School district and access to various services (like health care) are considerations too. 3) In my limited experience, antenna-restricted properties tend to be less expensive than unrestricted ones. This flies in the face of the old "property values" argument, but it makes sense when you consider that many restricted places have HOA fees and such, and that the restrictions often make doing even simple things expensive (you have to use a certain paint, buy exact replacements for fixtures like doors and windows, and get approval for *everything*. So if you are on a limited budget (who isn't?), the restricted properties may appear to be a better deal for your money. There are bigger, newer and more modern houses near me that are priced the same as the little boxes made of ticky-tacky I and my neighbors live in. But those houses are restricted in ways that ours aren't. Besides pushing Congress, one of the things I think we hams could do to help the process is to never refer to amateur radio as "a hobby" or even worse, "just a hobby". While most hams do radio simply as an avocation, IMHO the word "hobby" carries with it a sort of meaning that it's not a serious thing worthy of protection. You'll never hear folks who do sports or art nonprofessionally refer to those activities as "just a hobby". Nor will the term be used by volunteers who donate their time and efforts to a variety of causes. IOW, "hobbies" don't get the kind of respect we want amateur radio to have. If we hams describe amateur radio as "just a hobby", the folks who want to restrict us may think "well, if they say it's just a hobby, what's the problem with a few restrictions?" and "there are all sorts of hobbies that these homes don't accomodate, like raising horses, target shooting, or pleasure boating with a boat that won't fit in the garage. What's different about your radio hobby?" You can be sure the satellite TV people pushing for the OTARD ruling never, ever referred to watching TV as "a hobby", even though their viewers don't get paid to watch TV. I agree! Here are some ideas: The old vertical as a flagpole. Its a sorry bunch who wouldn't approve a flagpole. A few years back, a WW2 veteran in his '80s put up a flagpole in his yard. Every morning he'd raise Old Glory, every night he'd take it down. He had two grandkids on active duty in Iraq. The HOA went after him because freestanding flagpoles were specifically prohibited in the rules. Being in the paper and on TV did not faze them; the rules said no flagpoles and they were going to enforce those rules. I think the WW2 vet moved. Most multiband verticals can be tilted over with kits sold for that purpose. Maybe that can be hid though the day. This is a very good idea. While it may not be fun to go outside and install the antenna before each operating session, it's a solution. One homebrew way would be to bury a pipe vertically in the ground and cut it off at the surface. A cap would keep debris out when not in use. The antenna assembly consists of the vertical and a piece of pipe that will just fit in the buried pipe. Quick connections to the coax and radial system (both buried) complete it. To go on the air, the cap is removed, the antenna assembly raised and the bottom end put in the hole, and the connections made. If the house has plastic gutters, run a wire around them. I'm sure that is part of a defrosting system - Really, it could be! The trick is to make the setup so that it is easy to set up in the dark. And take down. However even such solutions may not work in some areas. The Gladys Kravitz factor looms large in them. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Jul 15, 8:16 pm, Dick Grady AC7EL wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:32:00 EDT, wrote: one of the things I think we hams could do to help the process is to never refer to amateur radio as "a hobby" or even worse, "just a hobby". While most hams do radio simply as an avocation, IMHO the word "hobby" carries with it a sort of meaning that it's not a serious thing worthy of protection. You'll never hear folks who do sports or art nonprofessionally refer to those activities as "just a hobby". Nor will the term be used by volunteers who donate their time and efforts to a variety of causes. IOW, "hobbies" don't get the kind of respect we want amateur radio to have. If we hams describe amateur radio as "just a hobby", the folks who want to restrict us may think "well, if they say it's just a hobby, what's the problem with a few restrictions?" and "there are all sorts of hobbies that these homes don't accomodate, like raising horses, target shooting, or pleasure boating with a boat that won't fit in the garage. What's different about your radio hobby?" Then what do we call it? Avocation? Pasttime? no, none of these ter ms seem appropriate, either. We don't need to call it anything other than "Amateur Radio". The person who gardens/landscapes doesn't use the word "hobby", s/he says "I'm a gardener" and that's it. The amateur artist who paints, sculpts, does pottery, photography, woodwork or any of a range of other activities does not use the word "hobby" either. I know! It's emergency preparation and training. Now that's sounds impressive.. We don't need to sound impressive. All we need to do is not sound apologetic. "Just a hobby" sounds self-denigrating to me. Part 97 does not use the word "hobby". Neither should we. Consider the following conversations: Conversation 1 "What's that wire up there?" "It's my ham radio antenna" "What's ham radio?" "It's just a hobby where I talk to other ham radio operators." "Why would you want to do that? Don't you have a telephone and the internet?" Conversation 2 "What's that wire up there?" "It's the antenna for my Amateur Radio station" "What's Amateur Radio?" "It's a form of noncommercial radio by which licensed radio operators all over the world communicate with each other using a wide variety of methods and technologies." Which do you think sounds better to a non-ham? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
Jeffrey D Angus wrote in
: Michael Coslo wrote: Here are some ideas: The old vertical as a flagpole. [ Etc. ] Mind if I play devils advocate here for a minute? Where is it written that as Licensed Amateur Radio Operators we have a fair pass to ignore the rules? Well, we don't really. I only offer advice to those who might have made a mistake. What part of "no antennas" in the CC&R you signed do you not understand? "But but but, I'm a Ham radio operator!" I'm sorry, I just keep seeing this same thing over and over and over and I don't buy it. I think that in most cases, the Ham didn't read the fine print, or they might not have been a Ham when they bought the house. I've been a long term advocate of knowing what you are getting into. I'm one of thos insufferable geeks that irritate the lawyers and other people present by reading over the fine print. I'm a quick reader though - it is 5 to 10 minutes well spent. I even read equipment manuals, heheh. I wouldn't buy a house in a neighborhood that wouldn't allow mw to put up an antenna. But I know that not everyone is so careful - and I don't think that they should be punished forever. I think that the fight to give them access to the airwaves is a good fight. All that being said, who would want to live in those neighborhoods anyway? All we have to do is keep the grass cut, the house in good repair, and no junk cars sitting around. And our neighborhood is a showpiece. My antennas notwithstanding. (Along with, since I have a license, I don't need a permit to put up a tower.) Well now there is a different kettle of fish. A tower can be a major liability. We can have them here, but they must be approved by an engineer. And I agree with that, even if they take the arbitrary "100 percent height fall radius circle". I don't know if any tower has fallen that way. At least I wouldn't have to fight the township just to put one up. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Jul 16, 7:45 pm, wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: There are plenty of unrestricted places on the market *now*, because of the RE market slump and the mortgage crisis. 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. The standard way this works here in the Dallas area is developer buys large tract of land, applies CC&R's to the tract, subdivides and develops the land to sell the houses he builds. He throws in a pool and play ground across from the model homes which is owned by the HOA that gets created by the CC&R's. 99-100% of the new homes available in the area I live will come with CC&R's based on these boilerplates. (Personally I know of NO new homes in my current price range for sale with 10 miles of my house that won't have CC&R's.) I've seen only ONE subdivision in my area that would have allowed antennas in their CC&R's but it was a very special case. The CC&R's didn't originate with a builder, but where adopted by the land owners AFTER the subdivision was plated. Those CC&R's where a model of simplicity and basically dealt with keeping unsightly things to a minimum. (Keep your house painted a normal color and in good repair, no junk cars, lawns mowed, fences in good repair etc.) The problem is that the big builders have boiler plate CC&R's that change very little between subdivisions. All of these boiler plates contain restrictions on antennas and are constructed to never expire. More and more land is becoming off limits to ham radio antennas and this is a bigger problem in areas that have been under active development for the last 20-30 years such as Dallas. Therefore I have to object to the "just move" response to the plight of hams in CC&R communities. It may be an option for some, but for others it may not. At some point I may choose to move, and CC&R restrictions on antennas will likely be something I look at. I can tell you that I won't be able to buy a comparable house for the same money without CC&R's in Murphy or the surrounding area. There are areas that allow them, but they do not compare with where I live in price or age. Yes, I could drive 40 more miles a day and perhaps find something that would work, but with the cost of driving these days I’d be moving into less of a house for sure to make ends meet. In addition to this, all the CC&R's I've read in my area are usually drafted to NEVER expire. The only way they will go away is if all the land owners agree to it (fat chance of that). This land will forever be of limits for antennas. Year after year as new subdivisions are built, more and more land will be CC&R's restricted unless they are limited by law. As an aside on CC&R's which are all the rage... There are fundamental problems with CC&R's and pesky HOA's under the current law. Depending on how they are drafted, they can end up causing some seemingly very unreasonable consequences for homeowners that may not be obvious by reading them. Personally, I think they should be put under some really strict legal limits and the powers of HOA's strictly limited. But all that is another issue... All in all I can only hope that this CC&R Craze comes to an end pretty soon. I don't think they are as much a benifit to landowners as they are thought to be. But until they fall out of favor to the public or get pre-empted by law they will only increase in coverage. Personally, that scares me. -= Bob =- |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
"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 |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
"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 - |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
Dick Grady AC7EL wrote in
: On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:32:00 EDT, wrote: Besides pushing Congress, one of the things I think we hams could do to help the process is to never refer to amateur radio as "a hobby" or even worse, "just a hobby". While most hams do radio simply as an avocation, IMHO the word "hobby" carries with it a sort of meaning that it's not a serious thing worthy of protection. Then what do we call it? Avocation? Pasttime? no, none of these terms seem appropriate, either. I know! It's emergency preparation and training. Now that's sounds impressive.. 73 de Dick, AC7EL How about "service". The Amateur Radio Service! 73 de KC1IH |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
"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 |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:30:19 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:
Another tactic is to ask if you can put up an antenna, and if the answer is no, then politely say, "Too bad-see you later!". If the real estate agent loses a few sales for something silly like that, then they will start looking into it. We did that when we went looking for this house 9 years ago. Our Realtor was firmly in our camp, but the houses just weren't there. We turned down three houses that were nicer than the one we're in just because of that. Our other "must have" was that it had to be within one block of a bus stop. That we are. -- 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!
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
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. |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Jul 17, 4:17 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:45 pm, wrote: On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: There are plenty of unrestricted places on the market *now*, because of the RE market slump and the mortgage crisis. 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. The standard way this works here in the Dallas area is developer buys large tract of land, applies CC&R's to the tract, subdivides and develops the land to sell the houses he builds. He throws in a pool and play ground across from the model homes which is owned by the HOA that gets created by the CC&R's. 99-100% of the new homes available in the area I live will come with CC&R's based on these boilerplates. (Personally I know of NO new homes in my current price range for sale with 10 miles of my house that won't have CC&R's.) That's pretty much the pattern for developments everywhere. And not just large developments either. There is an way, however. Doesn't work all the time but it has worked in some, and may be worth a try in this RE market. (insert standard "not a lawyer" disclaimer HERE) 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. HOA rules are another issue completely, but the same approach may work. In a market where the developer is desperate to sell, a buyer who is ready to sign on the dotted line if certain conditions are met may be a big incentive to remove some boilerplate. However, this is not something to try without expert RE legal counsel to make absolutely sure you have airtight exemption *before* you sign anything. Verbal assurances mean nothing; it's gotta be in clear writing and properly recorded. Of course you've got to be ready to simply walk away if they say no or even if they hem and haw. I've seen only ONE subdivision in my area that would have allowed antennas in their CC&R's but it was a very special case. The CC&R's didn't originate with a builder, but where adopted by the land owners AFTER the subdivision was plated. Those CC&R's where a model of simplicity and basically dealt with keeping unsightly things to a minimum. (Keep your house painted a normal color and in good repair, no junk cars, lawns mowed, fences in good repair etc.) That brings up another point: Local governments pawning off responsibility. In every house I've lived in, things like no junk cars, lawn mowing, barking dogs, trash, general repair and such were handled by various government ordinances about nuisances. Be a bad neighbor and the local gendarmes will show up with a notice of violating some ordinance or other. IMHO some local governments, rather than pass and enforce such ordinances, depend on the HOAs and CC&Rs to do it for them. "Keeps the taxes down" is their excuse, but of course the enforcement comes out of HOA fees. The problem is that the big builders have boiler plate CC&R's that change very little between subdivisions. All of these boiler plates contain restrictions on antennas and are constructed to never expire. Not just big developers either. More and more land is becoming off limits to ham radio antennas and this is a bigger problem in areas that have been under active development for the last 20-30 years such as Dallas. 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. Therefore I have to object to the "just move" response to the plight of hams in CC&R communities. It may be an option for some, but for others it may not. At some point I may choose to move, and CC&R restrictions on antennas will likely be something I look at. I can tell you that I won't be able to buy a comparable house for the same money without CC&R's in Murphy or the surrounding area. There are areas that allow them, but they do not compare with where I live in price or age. IMHO, one of the things that keeps the price of restricted houses down is the restrictions! Another is the HOA fees and added cost of keeping the place up to HOA standards. I've seen it in action. Yes, I could drive 40 more miles a day and perhaps find something that would work, but with the cost of driving these days I’d be moving into less of a house for sure to make ends meet. 40 miles a day in a small car is maybe $6 in gas.... IMHO, a house where you can't have antennas is less of a house than one where you can. There are fundamental problems with CC&R's and pesky HOA's under the current law. Depending on how they are drafted, they can end up causing some seemingly very unreasonable consequences for homeowners that may not be obvious by reading them. Such as? The one I can think of off-hand has to do with energy. As far as I can tell, the days of cheap plentiful energy are ending, and we're going to see higher prices not just for gasoline but for electricity and natural gas. One way to cope will be to use less energy and to use alternate technologies. For example, whenever the weather is nice I hang clothes on the line rather than use the dryer. Saves a couple of kWh per load. At 15 cents per kWh it adds up, plus in the summertime it reduces the load on the air conditioner. Some folks around here have solar hot water heaters that reduce the need for the regular hot water heater to turn on. The panels are on the roof, facing south. We may someday see low-cost wind and solar electric power systems for homes. Depending on the wind and sun conditions where you live, and how much electricity costs, they may someday be a reasonable alternative for part of the electrical load. But if CC&Rs ban such things, some folks will be very unhappy. Personally, I think they should be put under some really strict legal limits and the powers of HOA's strictly limited. But all that is another issue... Not really. Part of the problem is that a lot of folks don't really know what they're getting into when they buy. 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. But he couldn't just fix it - he had to get HOA approval every step of the way. He had to buy exact replacement windows, even though better ones were available for the same money, because the better ones weren't HOA approved. He had to get a certain kind of trim and paint and such, at high prices, not because it was high quality, but because the stuff wasn't stock anymore. What was a simple project that could have been a major improvement turned into a major headache that cost lots more time and money. All in all I can only hope that this CC&R Craze comes to an end pretty soon. I don't think they are as much a benifit to landowners as they are thought to be. But until they fall out of favor to the public or get pre-empted by law they will only increase in coverage. Personally, that scares me. Me too! The problem is that it doesn't scare most folks. They've been pretty standard for more than 30 years in some places. And in a lot of cases the homeowners don't really own the land! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
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 - |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
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 |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
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... 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. Well, 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. At least in my case, these restrictions where already recorded before the developer owned the lot. 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. I got a feeling that they won't go to this much trouble. Yea, they may give you a "The HOA will allow antennas on your lot" letter, but that would only be good for as long as the developer owned enough lots to retain control of the HOA and actually cared to live by the agreement. After that, it would be worthless. 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. However, this is not something to try without expert RE legal counsel to make absolutely sure you have airtight exemption *before* you sign anything. Verbal assurances mean nothing; it's gotta be in clear writing and properly recorded. Very good advice. 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. More and more land is becoming off limits to ham radio antennas and this is a bigger problem in areas that have been under active development for the last 20-30 years such as Dallas. 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. 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. Yes, I could drive 40 more miles a day and perhaps find something that would work, but with the cost of driving these days I’d be moving into less of a house for sure to make ends meet. 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. There are fundamental problems with CC&R's and pesky HOA's under the current law. Depending on how they are drafted, they can end up causing some seemingly very unreasonable consequences for homeowners that may not be obvious by reading them. Such as? For example... 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. Personally, I think they should be put under some really strict legal limits and the powers of HOA's strictly limited. But all that is another issue... Not really. 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. 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. 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. I figure it was a mistake, but I can just see some guy hired by the HOA driving his Honda though the neighborhood looking for "violations" scratching notes in a book. (In our case it's a lady in a orange corvette that works for the management company. I know, I spotted her a few times before I saw her at the last HOA meeting.) 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. I wonder what the smallest gauge wire I could try for a 75M dipole that would stay together for a reasonable length of time? I'm also got a bit of ladder line I'm thinking I'll use to feed a loop antenna running along the edge of the roof secured with Christmas light holders.. I wonder if they will see that too? Flagpoles are a highly touted option (Just hide a vertical in one) but there are issues there too. In order to be safe, (and legal in some cases) I'd need to consider RF exposure limits and take steps to keep somebody from getting too close to the flagpole in the front yard. If they allowed the flagpole to go up without comment a fence, or some kind of screening, is going to get HOA attention. I’ve considered trying to appeal to the HOA board for some minor allowances. Like giving me the ability to put up things that are hidden behind the house with perhaps just the top 20’ of a vertical visible above my roof or allowing some antenna supports hidden behind my house with just small wire visible from the street. The problem with that is that I don’t know where to start with them. I’ve considered running for the board to increase my pull, but I just don’t have the time right now. 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? -= Bob =- |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
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 =- |
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!
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
|
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!
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com