| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Antennas and CCRS
In article , Dave Platt wrote: I'd say it's in the "tongue in cheek" category. The final sentence says it: "My gratitude... to all of the above for contributing valuable jargon with which to obfuscate the subject." The jargon is made up; the antenna was real. So was the radiation pattern. (We drove around Sunnyvale taking measurements.) I don't recall why "73" published the article in April. A similar article appeared in an Australian ham magazine, probably not in an April issue. Patty |
Antennas and CCRS
Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Jan 24, 1:10 pm, Ralph E Lindberg wrote: A point to consider, if there are CC&R (say like banning antenna''s), but there is no HOA. In most localities the CC&R has to be enforced by private court action of another home owner. Since their court costs have to come out of their personal pocket, it does really reduce the odds of the CC&R being enforced It's a very good point, Ralph. A person who lives in a place with an HOA at some level wants to live there and is accepting of that fact. One of the other less pretty aspects of human nature is that there are people who either want to mess with the HOA, or want it, but want special privileges. I would personally find it a little odd that a person who is accepting of such intense outside control would under normal circumstances both live in such a place, and simultaneously want to put up a AR antenna. So far I've read much about the radio amateur who buys a place with restriction and then tries to circumvent them. I've seen almost no comments about someone already living in such a place and who then develops an interest in amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
Antennas and CCRS
"Dave Heil" wrote
So far I've read much about the radio amateur who buys a place with restriction and then tries to circumvent them. I've seen almost no comments about someone already living in such a place and who then develops an interest in amateur radio. I was living in a townhouse development (adjoining units side by side, each with their own flat roof) in southern Arizona when I resurrected my interest. I went up on the roof, installed a 7' length of 1" pvc tubing for the support for an inverted-V, and ran ladder line inside the tubing. The tubing was supported by tv mast clamps attached to a parapet wall that separated my unit from one of my neighbors'. The tubing and antenna wires were visible from many directions from the street, and no one ever said anything. It was up there for six years. The CC&R's did prohibit antennas, but it may have said "no antennas without permission." I never asked for permission. Same thing in the place I moved to across town, this time in a single family home, with CC&R's stating "no antennas without permission." I put up a 2m/440 antenna on the flat roof (same arrangement as above), and on a 5 foot mast in my small back yard I erected an MFJ Hi-Q loop, vertically oriented. It was very visible from the street! Although I referred to it as my "yard sculpture," I told neighbor friends what it was, and no one ever said anything. I did not live in one of the ridiculously restrictive developments. So while just about any new housing (except for custom homes on land you buy) are developments that come with CC&R's that almost always say "no antennas," you can find developments that are not overly restrictive and operate more loosely. Just don't expect to put up a serious structure. The MFJ Hi-Q Loop works very, very well, and doesn't look like an antenna. Many other low-profile options are available for use in such developments. Howard N7SO |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 25, 10:56 pm, Dave Heil wrote:
So far I've read much about the radio amateur who buys a place with restriction and then tries to circumvent them. I've seen almost no comments about someone already living in such a place and who then develops an interest in amateur radio. Another good point, and largely the reason that I support the efforts to mitigate the antenna restrictions. A person who doesn't think one thing or another about restrictions and then becomes interested is the loser in this situation. That is why it has to be fixed. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Antennas and CCRS
Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Jan 25, 10:56 pm, Dave Heil wrote: I've seen almost no comments about someone already living in such a place and who then develops an interest in amateur radio. A person who doesn't think one thing or another about restrictions and then becomes interested is the loser in this situation. That is why it has to be fixed. Which was point to begin with. Mitigation, NOT circumvention. Jeff -- Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954 http://www.stay-connect.com |
Antennas and CCRS
When I was shopping for my house in Pahrump, NV, I already was a ham so
I knew enough to look into CC&Rs against antennas. Whenever I found a likely prospect, I went to the County Recorder's office to look up the deed and any other documents like CC&Rs and easements. The house I finally bought did have CC&Rs, but they were mainly about minimum house size and setbacks; not a word about antennas. Another development in Pahrump had a no-antennas clause in the CC&Rs. And this was not a upscale hoity-toity area: the CC&Rs restricted houses to be mobile homes, i.e., manufactured and trucked to the site. A ham I knew lived here. The house belongs to his current live-in woman friend, so in a sense he did not have much choice in the matter. :-) There is no restriction on antennas on vehicles parked in the driveway, so for VHF and UHF he ran cables out to the antennas on his motorhome. For HF, he ran a long wire from the house to the detached garage using very fine wire. While we were in his back yard, he pointed it out to me from about 10 feet away, and I could not see it! On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:44:10 EST, "Michael J. Coslo" wrote: On Jan 25, 8:22 am, wrote: What I mean is that if your job is at X and your spouse's job is at Y and the decent schools are at Z, there's a practical limit on where you can live and not spend your entire life commuting. On top of that, most people have definite money and time limitations. And I suspect that they have a strong sense of "Right now!" Sometimes "Right now" is imposed on people. My brother-in-law worked for IBM, and he was promoted and transferred every 3 years to a different state. (Inside IBM, the joke is that IBM stands for "I've been moved!") IBM sold his old house for him and paid all of the expenses of buying a new house. But if he didn't buy right away, he would lose out on these benefits in purchasing the new one. My sister and he literally had 2 weeks to finalize their selection of a new house in an unfamiliar city and sign the purchaseagreement. Dick AC7EL |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 26, 1:43 pm, Dick Grady AC7EL wrote:
When I was shopping for my house in Pahrump, NV, I already was a ham so I knew enough to look into CC&Rs against antennas. Whenever I found a likely prospect, I went to the County Recorder's office to look up the deed and any other documents like CC&Rs and easements. The house I finally bought did have CC&Rs, but they were mainly about minimum house size and setbacks; not a word about antennas. Another development in Pahrump had a no-antennas clause in the CC&Rs. And this was not a upscale hoity-toity area: the CC&Rs restricted houses to be mobile homes, i.e., manufactured and trucked to the site. A ham I knew lived here. The house belongs to his current live-in woman friend, so in a sense he did not have much choice in the matter. :-) There is no restriction on antennas on vehicles parked in the driveway, so for VHF and UHF he ran cables out to the antennas on his motorhome. For HF, he ran a long wire from the house to the detached garage using very fine wire. While we were in his back yard, he pointed it out to me from about 10 feet away, and I could not see it! On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:44:10 EST, "Michael J. Coslo" wrote: On Jan 25, 8:22 am, wrote: What I mean is that if your job is at X and your spouse's job is at Y and the decent schools are at Z, there's a practical limit on where yo u can live and not spend your entire life commuting. On top of that, mos t people have definite money and time limitations. And I suspect that they have a strong sense of "Right now!" Sometimes "Right now" is imposed on people. My brother-in-law worked for IBM, and he was promoted and transferred every 3 years to a different state. (Inside IBM, the joke is that IBM stands for "I've been moved!") IBM sold his old house for him and paid all of the expenses of buying a new house. But if he didn't buy right away, he would lose out on these benefits in purchasing the new one. My sister and he literally had 2 weeks to finalize their selection of a new house in an unfamiliar city and sign the purchaseagreement. I'd certainly try to negotiate needed time. If they only have two weeks, I wonder if IBM has a whoops! clause. A person can have their life turned into a train wreck by buying a house that turns into a money pit, or is a a meth neighborhood, or the like. Otherwise it makes a company that forces you do make such gambles a bit less desireable to work for. While this is veering off into OT territory, we all have choices. I won't live in a antenna restricted neighborhood. I'd buy a house in the countryside first, I'd rent and wait. In the end, it's all about choices. For me, some things that I consider choices, other might consider that it is something that they are mandated to do and that they have no choice. That's pretty sad IMO, because I think that people actually have more choices than they think they have. But my hobbies are as important to me as my vocation, so I will live in a place where I can enjoy Ham radio. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 25, 3:44�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
My wife and I looked at over 100 houses before we selected the one I live in now. I have *no* HOA, *no* CC&R's, and *no* problem putting up antennas: I had to fire three agents who hadn't heard me when I told them what *my* requirements were. Thanks for proving the point, Bill. Having to look at 100 houses after telling an agent what you want means something's really wrong somewhere. Having to fire three agents after telling them what you want means something's really wrong somewhere. I don't think the problem was that you were excessively choosy; I think the problem was a lack of suitable houses, so the agents showed you "almost good enough" houses. You had the resources and patience to go through all that. Many folks don't. If you spent just 1 hour per house on research, that's over 2-1/2 weeks work before the actual job of buying and moving begins. Michael is right: the agent represents the *SELLER*, not the buyer. He is legally obligated to disclose _some_ things, but professionally obligated not to disclose anything else that might lower the house's value. Agents are not your friends. I disagree; they can be. But the main point is that the agent, whether a buyer's agent or a seller's agent, doesn't make any money until a sale happens. I think all this is having a negative impact on amateur radio. Here'swhy: 1) Lots of people who live in restricted homes never pursue an interest in amateur radio because they don't want the antenna hassle. Not every restricted home has a suitable attic or yard where an antenna can be hidden. Many restrictions are such that flagpoles, birdhouses, awnings and other things are prohibited too. Plus Gladys Kravitz type neighbors who look for *any* infractions (it only takesone). The effect is particularly strong on young people, who can't just move and whose resources are usually less. 2) Lots of hams who live in restricted homes are much less active amateurs than they would be if they didn't have the hassle. 3) Certain areas become "no-hams" zones, because more and more hams steer clear of them. 4) The publicity and visibility of amateur radio decrease over time, because nobody sees antennas, and hams operating stealth don't talkabout it. How many of us first discovered amateur radio, or found our first Elmer, by seeing his/her antenna(s)? For decades the trend in amateur radio has been to make the licenses easier to get, the equipment less expensive, more reliable and higher performing, and the choices of activities greater. But at the same time, there's been a slow but steady trend to make more and more homes ham-radio-unfriendly. That's not a good thing. I'm not sure how to meet the challenge head-on; we don't have the resources of the satellite-dish folks. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 27, 8:29 am, wrote:
Having to look at 100 houses after telling an agent what you want means something's really wrong somewhere. Having to fire three agents after telling them what you want means something's really wrong somewhere. Yes, there is, but it's what we have to work with. All the agents I worked with were of the big picture on the billboard type. It would veer way OT, but my XYL who works in the flooring industry and has regular contact with contractors and RE agent, could tell you stories that would make you hair stand on end. The closest comparison I can make is that there is a strong "carny vs rube" relationship going on. And they are the carney. You had the resources and patience to go through all that. Many folks don't. If you spent just 1 hour per house on research, that's over 2-1/2 weeks work before the actual job of buying and moving begins. Thanks for proving my point, Jim. I spent a lot of time researching my house. When a house reached "serious status", I took measurements, I talked to the neighbors, I had my lawyer go to the courthouse to check over the deed - in addition to the completely worthless deed insurance they make you buy. And he found an issue that we made the owners pay for. But the point is there is a choice, and if a person lacks the patience to find out what they are buying into, then I don't know how to advise them. There's the old saying about buy in haste and repent at leisure. 1) Lots of people who live in restricted homes never pursue an interest in amateur radio because they don't want the antenna hassle. Not every restricted home has a suitable attic or yard where an antenna can be hidden. Many restrictions are such that flagpoles, birdhouses, awnings and other things are prohibited too. Plus Gladys Kravitz type neighbors who look for *any* infractions (it only takesone). hehe, I was wondering when Gladys would come up... 8^) But you brought us back to Ham radio specifically, so that's great. I agree wholeheartedly. Old Mr Bloom from up the road was my introduction to two way radio. He had a tower with one of those triple vertical dipoles on it that you could switch the pattern on - I forget what they are called. But a friend and I knocked on his door, and politely asked if we could see his radios. He told us to have our parents call him to make sure it was okay, and then we stopped by again to see his shack. Pure magic! Lights and glowing meters and that electronic smell of tubes that whenever I smell tube equipment these days it takes me right back. Otherwise I agree with all those points. For decades the trend in amateur radio has been to make the licenses easier to get, the equipment less expensive, more reliable and higher performing, and the choices of activities greater. But at the same time, there's been a slow but steady trend to make more and more homes ham-radio-unfriendly. That's not a good thing. I'm not sure how to meet the challenge head-on; we don't have the resources of the satellite-dish folks. For as much charm as our introduction to Ham radio was, it is going to be different today. If we decide that we need to get young people interested in Ham radio, it will have to be in a manner in which they are used to. I had an idea about making a 2 meter HT that had texting ability, as well as voice. The texting mode would be PSK-31. Note that PSK31 actually does work with FM - it isn't as useful as the SSB version, but it still works. A kid with a Technician license and his/her friends of like qualifications would use these things similarly to cell phones, but it would be their own channels. After starting, the more adventurous might look into repeater construction. Regular Ham type stuff. Eventually they would likely gravitate to HF if they found that interesting. It would certainly be a different paradigm than what most people who became Hams when very young went through. But we don't have novice class any more, and have to come up with something else. Some Hams I have pitched this to have been vehemently oppose to the idea. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Antennas and CCRS
|
Antennas and CCRS
"Michael J. Coslo" wrote
I had an idea about making a 2 meter HT that had texting ability, as well as voice. The texting mode would be PSK-31. Note that PSK31 actually does work with FM - it isn't as useful as the SSB version, but it still works. A kid with a Technician license and his/her friends of like qualifications would use these things similarly to cell phones, but it would be their own channels. -------------- The beauty of that is that if the kids are close enough to work simplex, all that may be required for an antenna is a small indoor one, and certainly a 5w HT isn't powerful enough to get into a neighbor's electronics. I once had a Ringo AR-2 hanging from a hook in my apartment ceiling. Howard N7SO |
Antennas and CCRS
Michael J. Coslo wrote:
You had the resources and patience to go through all that. Many folks don't. If you spent just 1 hour per house on research, that's over 2-1/2 weeks work before the actual job of buying and moving begins. Thanks for proving my point, Jim. I spent a lot of time researching my house. When a house reached "serious status", I took measurements, I talked to the neighbors, I had my lawyer go to the courthouse to check over the deed - in addition to the completely worthless deed insurance they make you buy. And he found an issue that we made the owners pay for. But the point is there is a choice, and if a person lacks the patience to find out what they are buying into, then I don't know how to advise them. In some states, CCRs can be really hidden. For example a builder may buy a portion of land already subject to restrictions. Doing a normal title search usually won't find the restriction, since the builder will seem to be the first to put Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions on that particular piece of land. Incidentally a careful shopper also has to watch out for easements. I also have to note once again that not every potential home buyer even considers CCRs or understands that a restriction on let's say additional structures might bar a tower even if said tower is attached to the residence. One other problem is numerous municipalities try to ban antennas and fighting that ban can be expensive. Finally let me note that in some states, a ham who loses a legal fight against a Covenant can not only end up liable for his or her legal costs but those of the party who (i.e. the neighbor or HOA) who brought the suit. There's the old saying about buy in haste and repent at leisure. I suspect most folks are more concerned about location, price and size than antennas, that's true even for most hams I suppose. I don't know how much haste is involved, but focus tends to shorten in such circumstances. |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 27, 12:45�pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
You go to a real estate agent. � You give them your wish list. �They do the best that they can to meet it. �The chances of them finding a house that meets 100% of your requirements is nil if your wish list is comprehensive. House buying is a tradeoff. �The items on your wish list related to ham radio are no different than anything else. �It's as silly to tell a real estate agent that you absolutely must have three bedrooms as it is to tell them that you absolutely must not have a CCR. I disagree! I think it depends on how you write the requirements. Maybe the house for you actually has four bedrooms. � Maybe the house for you actually has a CCR but it's something that you can live with. �Those are YOUR decisions. �If you never see the potential properties, you won't have the opportunity to make the decision. Again, it's a matter of writing the requirements correctly. Most people do not have the time to investigate hundreds of homes and all the details. If they did, they wouldn't need an agent! There's also the fact that in many situations it's not a one-person decision. If Spouse A has a lot of time and patience but Spouse B does not, looking at lots of homes is liable to cause Spouse B to put pressure on Spouse A to compromise on requirements. The way I would do it is the following: First on the list would be the "must haves". These are minimum requirements that cannot be compromised. For example, if I'm set on a house in certain school districts, there's no point in showing me homes outside those districts. If I'm moving in order to have a better antenna farm, there's no point in showing me houses with less ground or anti-antenna restrictions. Second would be negotiables; things that there could be some compromise on, such as a bathroom near the shack, a multi-car garage,etc. Third, requirements would be written in the most flexible terms possible. If I absolutely must have three bedrooms, the requirement would be "Minimum of three bedrooms" so that a four-bedroom house wouldn't be ruled out - but a two-bedroom house would be. Same for a lot of other things. A no-farm-animals CC&R would be fine; a no- antennas one is a deal-killer. The key is to find a real estate agent who understands what you're looking for and is able to show you a reasonable number of homes; not everything that might conceivably meet your need, but not rule out something arbitrarily because it is 2002 square feet and your max was 2000. And part of that is making absolutely clear what's negotiable and what isn't, and not wasting time on homes that cannot meet the requirements. Ham radio may not be important to everyone, but it's important to me, and what I see are unreasonable rules restricting it. Yes, CCRs are a real issue for ham radio today. �But condemning them as inherently evil isn't going to accomplish anything because it's only a tiny minority of the population that wants to erect a tower in their back yard. �Most everyone thinks CCRs are good and in that environment they're not going away. �Best to understand how to work within the system. The problem is that "the system" is often specifically designed to prevent being worked within. In my township, there is zoning of every property. Zoning is simply a set of government ordinances, and as such can be changed, amended, varianced, or overlaid with special rules. Nothing in the zoning ordinances is unchangeable, and there are strict limits on what zoning can restrict, because the power of government is constitutionallylimited. In similar fashion there are "nuisance ordinances" about things like noise and keeping the property in reasonable repair. There are also building codes for safety reasons. And some properties in my township have deed restrictions, a form of CC&R. These can restrict things much more than zoning can, and can be made unchangeable because they are contracts agreed to upon buying the property - one of which is to require all future owners to do the same. Most deed restrictions cannot be changed or varianced because they're specifically set up not to be. What I see happening more and more is that deed restrictions and similar one-sided unchangeable contracts are being used to replace zoning, nuisance ordinances and building codes. And I think that's a very bad thing which must be resisted however possible. Because if we don't, eventually there won't be anyplace left to have an antenna, let alone a tower. I'm old enough to remember a time when, if you told an American that people were trying to sell homes where you couldn't put a TV antenna on the roof, the response would be "That's crazy; they'll never sell!" And they would have been right. But a little bit here and a little bit there, and now it's not unusual at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Antennas and CCRS
|
Antennas and CCRS
|
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 28, 9:32 am, Steve Bonine wrote:
You may perhaps think my views are pessimistic; I prefer to consider them realistic. As a tiny minority, hams are unlikely to have any effect on the trend to attach CCRs to property. Our part is to point out the inadvertent problem caused by the antenna restrictions, and to see if we can get legislative action. Whether it be that proposed antennas be given a review process, or some other such hoops to jump through, we should be accommodated. And in those neighborhoods there will be some opposition. There is no doubt that some people won't like it. Lot's of people don't like antennas because they've been told they don't IMO. My wife doesn't like antennas, but she really can't tell me exactly why. In the end it 's some vague comment about "ugly". Yet to me, an antenna is a pretty cool looking thing, certainly more attractive than a ceramic yard gnome. I'm sympathetic to the problems of Hams who live in CCR antenna restricted 'hoods, even if I think they didn't have to be there in the first place. So it's going to be a combination of things: Work within the legislative system to mitigate antenna restrictions. Don't live in a neighborhood that has such restrictions in the first place. But if you do, you might become an officer in the HOA for a while. Some times surprising accommodations can be made. And who knows, there were people who made some publicity like the fellow who's HOA wouldn't let him put a nice little weather hut for his kids to stand in while waiting for the school bus. The yard full of pink flamingos he planted were perfectly "legal" however. The HOA relented, he put up the hut, and the flamingos went away.. Same with the fellow they wouldn't allow to put up a flag pole. Often times there are little "things" you can do. But in both of those examples, I would not want to live in a neighborhood where some odd aesthetics make it okay for my children to freeze to death, or make it some sort of crime to display my country's flag, I mean, those are people I don't want to be around at all. -73 de Mike N3LI - |
Antennas and CCRS
On 1/28/2010 8:43 AM, D. Stussy wrote:
Hey Jeff: I thought it was when you stuck the all-metal table knife into the live electrical outlet as a child that did it. That's nothing special: we *ALL* did *THAT*. ;-) Bill "Curly" Horne, W1AC |
Antennas and CCRS
|
Antennas and CCRS
Bill Horne wrote:
During most of the Cold War, hams were a trained corps of radio operators who could be pressed into service quickly if needed: that's why the NTS is patterned after military nets, and why hams had to learn Morse long after it passed from commercial use. The Cold War is over: we won, and now the military thinks we're surplus. Ah, one of the few that truly understood the reasons for Morse Code. (And the decided lack of it now.) American home buyers, fully aware that their futures and their horizons are being altered by international forces they can neither anticipate nor prepare for, are willing to shortchange each other and give up their right to modify their environment, in return for being able to keep anyone else from doing so. The "paradise" they are purchasing is a pale imitation of what it could be, but they'll settle for it never being less. "Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither." We must adapt or perish. And flaunting CC&Rs is not the answer. Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi -- “Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954 http://www.stay-connect.com |
Antennas and CCRS
"Bill Horne" wrote in message
... On 1/28/2010 8:43 AM, D. Stussy wrote: Hey Jeff: I thought it was when you stuck the all-metal table knife into the live electrical outlet as a child that did it. That's nothing special: we *ALL* did *THAT*. ;-) Yes, but Jeff held on. Anyone use a hairpin - with each prong in a separate hole? |
Antennas and CCRS
On 1/30/2010 1:03 AM, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Bill Horne wrote: During most of the Cold War, hams were a trained corps of radio operators who could be pressed into service quickly if needed ... Ah, one of the few that truly understood the reasons for Morse Code. (And the decided lack of it now.) Since I'm an "old law" Extra, I think I'm entitled to say that the view from the top of Morse Mountain wasn't worth the climb. I like Morse "now and then", and I have a collection of old telegraph instruments, but I agree that it's no longer practical. However, the question now is "how do we keep ourselves on the Pentagon's and the FCC's good side"? American home buyers, fully aware that their futures and their horizons are being altered by international forces they can neither anticipate nor prepare for, are willing to shortchange each other and give up their right to modify their environment, in return for being able to keep anyone else from doing so. The "paradise" they are purchasing is a pale imitation of what it could be, but they'll settle for it never being less. "Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither." We must adapt or perish. And flaunting CC&Rs is not the answer. I think the problem, in a nutshell, is that it may eventually become the only option. There's little vacant land to be had, and that means builders will be tearing down existing houses to make way for the next generation's McMansions, so even "old" areas will eventually come under CC&R restrictions. The larger question is, as I've said before, "Do we matter anymore"? We're certainly not going to be drafted to pound brass alongside another soldier who is talking to the U.S. on a suitcase satellite while he faxes the daily readiness report, and we're not needed to maintain the broadcast industry's equipment, which is now so reliable that stations don't have to have a licensed engineer on the payroll. The trend, as in all walks of life, is toward the bottom of the educational barrel, with specialist such as we being relegated to "maybe we'll call you" limbo at the same time automated test equipment makes our specialty obsolete. So, what now? We've had this debate before, and I'll repeat my position: either we get a lot better at publicizing ourselves, and a lot better at being available in emergencies so that we have something to brag about, or we resign ourselves to a long decline. Bill, W1AC |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 28, 9:32�am, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: What I see happening more and more is that deed restrictions and similar one-sided unchangeable contracts are being used to replace zoning, nuisance ordinances and building codes. And I think that's a very bad thing which must be resisted however possible. Do you have specific ideas on how this can be resisted? One way is education: make people aware of the real long-term ramifications of CC&Rs, HOAs, etc. Particularly when they take the form of an unchangeable contract. Such education takes time but it does make a difference in the longrun. American culture has changed a lot during the past few decades. �When did we start seeing the McMansions? Good question! My guess is the late 1980s. �The idea of "the perfect house" is much different now than 30-40 years ago. What would you say has changed? What did it used to be, and what is itnow? The public votes with its wallet. But often it's not an informed vote. Look at how many people got themselves into a financial disaster by buying too much house. They didn't *plan* on that! �As you point out, if there was general displeasure with CCRs, houses with CCRs wouldn't sell. �I don't see any evidence that CCRs significantly reduce the sales potential of the property involved, and their growth suggests that the general public views them in a positive light. I see two factors: First, the general public often really doesn't understand what they're getting into. That's been proven time and again. Second, in my limited experience, CC&Rs tend to *reduce* a home's price long-term. This mean a restricted house sells for less, making it seem a better deal. But what then happens is the owners discover that, with the HOA fees, pages of rules and lack of flexibility, the place costs more overall. You may perhaps think my views are pessimistic; I prefer to consider them realistic. �As a tiny minority, hams are unlikely to have an y effect on the trend to attach CCRs to property. �That's why I think it's better to know as much about the system as possible and learn how to work within it. �Yes, it can be difficult to work within it. There are many things in life that are neither easy nor ideal. Of course we must know the system and how to work within it. We must also educate other hams; too many don't know the difference between a township ordinance, a deed restriction and an HOA rule. But I think there's more that can be done. Legislation is one possibility. For example, when asked about extending the OTARD ruling to include ham radio antennas, the FCC essentially responded that hams should get Congress to instruct them to do it. IOW FCC won't do it onits own. There are anti-restrictive-CC&R groups such as one that opposes no- clotheslines rules. And there's the media. More than one person has been allowed to have their flagpole or religious display because the media made an issue ofit. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 29, 10:21�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
On 1/27/2010 8:29 AM, wrote: Having to look at 100 houses after telling an agent what you want means something's really wrong somewhere. Since agents refused to disclose property addresses and insisted on being present at any visit, we had to endure a lot of "non-starter" pitches. I think that's just bad agency. They wasted your time and their own! Having to fire three agents after telling them what you want means something's really wrong somewhere. I won't describe it as "wrong", but it was certainly counterproductive. The Agents I dismissed all assumed that they could show me multi-story houses after I'd said "Only one level" as clearly as possible, or that condos would interest me after I'd told them "No" in plain English, or that I'd be willing to live next to a pile of chromium. They lost the sale because they didn't listen. Amazing, It was more like six months: my wife and I were both holding down full-time jobs, but we chose to dedicate the time and money to finding a home that *WE* wanted, instead of something that a real-estate agent decided on. When did this happen? With websites such as realtor.com available today, it's a different game. 1) Lots of people who live in restricted homes never pursue an interest in amateur radio because they don't want the antenna hassle. Not every restricted home has a suitable attic or yard where an antenna can be hidden. Many restrictions are such that flagpoles, birdhouses, awnings and other things are prohibited too. Plus Gladys Kravitz type neighbors who look for *any* infractions (it only takes one). The effect is particularly strong on young people, who can't just move and whose resources are usually less. It's not the neighbors who matter: IMNSHO, home buyers don't care about CC&R's unless and until a real-estate agent convinces them that such things are important. What I mean is that, in a CC&R/HOA situation, if there exists even one neighbor who knows all the fine print and takes an interest, that neighbor can make all sorts of problems for you over even minorviolations. CC&R's are put in place to protect *builders*, not buyers, because the builder is afraid that someone will erect a tower or construct an addition or drill for oil before all the lots of a development are committed, and because builders are vain enough to believe that their corporate identity is something that makes a difference to home buyers. All true, and more. I've read that builders can sometimes get better deals from lenders by inserting CC&Rs, and that anti-antenna CC&Rs came from deals with cable-TV companies. For their part, real-estate agents like CC&R's because they assure a consistent product that can be turned over repeatedly without the need to worry about someone's aversion to whirligigs, antennas, lawn ornaments, or pretty much anything else that a homeowner might add. CC&R's save them time and trouble, and that means more profit. I have found that at least some agents don't pay any attention to CC&Rs unless the buyer makes a big deal about them. CC&R's are like an automobile purchase contract that obligates the buyer to never repaint the car, never allow it to rust, never install custom headlights, never modify the interior, and never hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. I've said something very similar in the past. I included always having to bring the car back to a dealer for service. They are contracts that benefit only those who are involved in the *transfer* of property, not in its use: if CC&R's benefit homeowners by maintaining the "value" of their land, they also cheapen people's lives by lessening the value of their community and by denying their children exposure to other ways of living and looking at the world. WELL SAID! Not only that, but they can inhibit the development of real "community values" by installing artificial ones. For example, in my neighborhood, the homes were built soon after WW2 and were all practically identical small frame houses. They were almost the classic little-boxes except that they were all paintedwhite. Then somebody got the idea to add a front porch. To 1950s architects, front porches were "old-fashioned" and "not in keeping with the modern lifestyle". But someone put one on anyway, and liked it. Pretty soon other folks did the same. Some folks did wrap-around porches that required variances, and the neighbors came out in support of the variances - even those who had no porches. Other additions and variations followed until now no two houses are identical or even that much alike. And property values are quite good. Had there been the kind of CC&Rs that are common today, none of that would have happened. For decades the trend in amateur radio has been to make the licenses easier to get, the equipment less expensive, more reliable and higher performing, and the choices of activities greater. But at the same time, there's been a slow but steady trend to make more and more homes ham-radio-unfriendly. That's not a good thing. I'm not sure how to meet the challenge head-on; we don't have the resources of the satellite-dish folks. I'm not sure the challenge _can_ be met "head on": as I've said before, in this and other forums, Ham Radio was popular when I was young because the government took extraordinary steps to encourage scientific education in the post-Sputnik years, feeling that we had to outpace the "red menace". That translated into lots of publicity for ham radio, a good amount of "free" equipment for those who participated in MARS, and preferential treatment during frequency-allocation hearings at a time when shortwaves were the _only_ means of international broadcasting. Sputnik went up in October 1957, and I agree that it had an effect. But the popularity of ham radio in the USA was increasing long before Sputnik. For example, in the 1930s, the number of US hams almost tripled, from less than 20,000 in 1929 to over 46,000 by 1936. After WW2, the growth continued, and really took off after the Novice license was created in 1951. OTOH, from 1960 to 1970, the number of US hams grew very slowly, and actually declined in some years. During most of the Cold War, hams were a trained corps of radio operators who could be pressed into service quickly if needed: that's why the NTS is patterned after military nets, and why hams had to learn Morse long after it passed from commercial use. The Cold War is over: we won, and now the military thinks we're surplus. NTS dates from before the Cold War, and the idea of a trained corps of radio operators was proven to be valid in both World Wars. As for Morse passing from commercial use, that didn't happen until the 1990s. The real reasons the Morse Code tests continued until a few years ago are more complex. First, there was the international treaty. Until 2003, it required Morse Code tests for all amateur licenses granting privileges below a certain frequency. In 1947 that frequency was 1000 MHz, and over the next couple of decades it was lowered to 30 MHz in a couple of steps. But until 2003 the FCC's hands were tied because of the treaty. Second, there was the amateur community's opposition. In 1975 the FCC proposed a VHF/UHF only nocodetest amateur license, and the reaction in the comments was an overwhelming "NO!". In 1983 FCC tried again, and again the reaction was "NO!". In 1991 the FCC did it anyway. Of course, it's more complicated now. We can, sometimes, help out during disasters, and even though some hams headed to Haiti in the wake of the earthquake found themselves getting shot at, in most cases our assistance is welcomed. We can, sometimes, provide a source of news and information to both public outlets and individuals during such events, although American TV networks think nothing of bringing suitcase satellites into disaster areas. We can, sometimes, provide public exposure for ham radio, even if only by wearing a T-shirt with an ARES logo during field day. All of which are good things. We can also promote the idea of "radio for its own sake". Many people do things just for fun, even if they aren't "easy" or "modern". Ask any backpacker or marathoner. Long story short: CC&R's are one symptom of a societal shift which is leading to less demand for all kinds of technical expertise, not just ham operators. American home buyers, fully aware that their futures and their horizons are being altered by international forces they can neither anticipate nor prepare for, are willing to shortchange each other and give up their right to modify their environment, in return for being able to keep anyone else from doing so. The "paradise" they are purchasing is a pale imitation of what it could be, but they'll settle for it never being less. I think it's a lot simpler: Many people don't think about them that much, or even know they exist in many cases. We must adapt or perish. Agreed! But we must not lose the core values either. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Antennas and CCRS
|
Antennas and CCRS
I just saw this over on eham:
http://www.news-record.com/content/2...come_to_the_ne ighborhood_see_you_in_court An extreme case, but it's real. Imagine if a ham moved in.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 31, 1:14 pm, wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:21 pm, Bill Horne wrote: On 1/27/2010 8:29 AM, wrote: Having to look at 100 houses after telling an agent what you want mea ns something's really wrong somewhere. Since agents refused to disclose property addresses and insisted on being present at any visit, we had to endure a lot of "non-starter" pitches. I think that's just bad agency. They wasted your time and their own! Having to fire three agents after telling them what you want means something's really wrong somewhere. I won't describe it as "wrong", but it was certainly counterproductive. The Agents I dismissed all assumed that they could show me multi-story houses after I'd said "Only one level" as clearly as possible, or that condos would interest me after I'd told them "No" in plain English, or that I'd be willing to live next to a pile of chromium. They lost the sale because they didn't listen. Amazing, It was more like six months: my wife and I were both holding down full-time jobs, but we chose to dedicate the time and money to finding a home that *WE* wanted, instead of something that a real-estate agent decided on. When did this happen? With websites such as realtor.com available today, it's a different game. Any game difference is due to the lack of sales, due to a depressed market. I had the same experience here. At the time we bought, the market was in a lull between full sped ahead, but it was still better than now. The real estate agents were very aggressive, and you were bomabarded with houses that were either not applicable or overpriced. The three I went through all had the same tactic. They find out how much the maximum is that the bank will lend you, and then the least expensive house they show you is at the very top, but most will be significantly over. Then what you are supposed to do is to figure out how to finagle that extra amount, usually by taking out another back door loan. One of them actually called me stupid because I refused to pay more than 66 percent of the maximum amount the bank would loan. They had a system, and I wasn't playing the right way. some snippage All true, and more. I've read that builders can sometimes get better deals from lenders by inserting CC&Rs, and that anti-antenna CC&Rs came from deals with cable-TV companies. You hit the nail square on the head there, Jim. When these things started, I doubt that anyone had the idea of discriminating against Hams. We were just collateral damage in the same way that we get inadvertently get involved in anti-cell phone while driving legislation. For their part, real-estate agents like CC&R's because they assure a consistent product that can be turned over repeatedly without the need to worry about someone's aversion to whirligigs, antennas, lawn ornaments, or pretty much anything else that a homeowner might add. CC&R's save them time and trouble, and that means more profit. I have found that at least some agents don't pay any attention to CC&Rs unless the buyer makes a big deal about them. Right, and in most cases people who are interested are interested in more restrictions rather than less. There is a type in this world who is upset by anything out of place, by their view of the back yard being marred by the neighbors clothes drying on the line, or even the style of their house once upon a time, they would be consigned to the eccentric grouch down the road, yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off their lawn, but now they live in neighborhoods where they rule. some more snippage We can also promote the idea of "radio for its own sake". Many people do things just for fun, even if they aren't "easy" or "modern". Ask any backpacker or marathoner. Again, there is something that is very important, and seems to get ignored by so many. I really enjoy being involved with just about all aspects of Amateur radio, but too many people tend to think that their own interested are the ARS's main focus. Contesting, Emergency work, favorite modes. It's all good. But my main personal interest is radio for it's own sake. I build as much as I can, and enjoy making those little pieces of electronic "stuff" do things for me. 8^) The radios themselves have progressed beyond what is practical for me to build mostly - though practicality hasn't stopped me yet, but peripheral construction, system building, and the odd retro project now and then. Yeah, that's cooking with gas! - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Antennas and CCRS
On Feb 1, 8:23 am, wrote:
I just saw this over on eham: http://www.news-record.com/content/2...come_to_the_ne ighborhood_see_you_in_court Imagine if a ham moved in.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Oy! That is *exactly* the reason why I will not live in a neighborhood like that. I just have to imagine that the stress put on a family by having an unusual neighbor like that, has to be much more than any stress from researching, finding and living in a neighborhood where they don't have intrusive restrictions that neighbors can sue you for. What is amazing to me is that the unusual neighbor is engaging in stalking behavior, which apparently puts him on the "right side" in this development. So completely backwards. What's more, the guy is winning, the family he is stalking and harassing and suing is moving away. In my presumably less proper neighborhood, the police would be visiting the fellow, and educating him on the wisdom of not stalking people. It's all a balancing act. My HF dipole, VHF/UHF Jpole, and HF6V are put up as unobtrusively as possible. I've not tried to hide any of them either though, which harkens back to Jeff's original post here. I've spoken with the neighbors and explained about Ham radio. I do admit that I've emphasized the emergency aspect, which is just a whole lot easier to explain to folks, and mentioned that if they get interference to let me know. They've all been cool with it, though they like to come out and chuckle at the gyrations when I replace an antenna. Side note that was part of a learning process for me: Years ago, we lived in a townhouse for a couple years. The neighbor lady was a real pain. Anything she could do to make trouble, she did. This included calling the fire company during a cookout. Double Oy! Finally, in an effort to calm things down, we asked her over to share a meal. Problem solved! While I'll not say she wasn't unusual, all she really wanted was for the neighbors to have some sort of socialization with her. Turns out she is an accomplished children's book writer, and has a wicked sense of humor. I guess the moral of the story as far as I'm concerned is do your research, know your neighbors, and communicate with them about your Hamness. Some times people call me lucky in all this. I think we make our luck. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Antennas and CCRS
Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:23 am, wrote: http://www.news-record.com/content/2...come_to_the_ne ighborhood_see_you_in_court Oy! That is *exactly* the reason why I will not live in a neighborhood like that. With all due respect . . . all neighborhoods are like that. Yes, there certainly are developments that pride themselves on the enforcement of their rules, with people out there measuring the height of your daffodils to be sure they're within the specifications that the homeowners association has established. But I've seen petty neighbor squabbles out in the country. It has a lot more to do with personality clashes between individuals than it does with CCRs. CCRs may make it easier, and they may be a marker that it's more likely, but it can happen anywhere. I guess the moral of the story as far as I'm concerned is do your research, know your neighbors, and communicate with them about your Hamness. Some times people call me lucky in all this. I think we make our luck. You're right. But luck is there, all the same. You could have an unreasonable neighbor who didn't respond to your doing all the right things. If that happened, you would be in a world of hurt with very little recourse. 73, Steve KB9X |
Antennas and CCRS
On 2/1/2010 6:20 PM, Steve Bonine wrote:
Michael J. Coslo wrote: On Feb 1, 8:23 am, wrote: http://www.news-record.com/content/2...come_to_the_ne ighborhood_see_you_in_court Oy! That is *exactly* the reason why I will not live in a neighborhood like that. With all due respect . . . all neighborhoods are like that. Why do you think so many horror movies have the word "Neighbor" in thetitle? Bill, W1AC Ham radio relevance: I had a knock down, drag out boundary fight with *my* neighbor after I hired a surveyor to stake my land for a tower. It turned out that my "neighbor" had his fence 16 feet onto my land. Trust me: *NEVER* buy the title insurance the bank demands. Get your ownpolicy! (Filter QRM for direct replies) |
Antennas and CCRS
On Feb 2, 3:10 am, Bill Horne wrote:
On 2/1/2010 6:20 PM, Steve Bonine wrote: Michael J. Coslo wrote: On Feb 1, 8:23 am, wrote: http://www.news-record.com/content/2...lcome_to_the_n e ighborhood_see_you_in_court Oy! That is *exactly* the reason why I will not live in a neighborhood like that. With all due respect . . . all neighborhoods are like that. Why do you think so many horror movies have the word "Neighbor" in the title? No problem guys, let's just say that I am incredibly lucky. Then again, some of us may have some part in manufacturing our own luck.Can I say for sure that I'll never have neighbors that accept my Ham radio avocation? Not 100 percent. On the one side of our house is a high-end rental. But we're friends with the landlord, and she makes sure the prospective renters know I'm a Ham. But catch this, if there's a big problem, the renters will go. That probably sounds strange, but it's a networking issue. The XYL was involved in the landlord getting and remodeling the place, and we watch over it for her. BTW, I had my lot surveyed before buying and I hired a lawyer to do my own title search - although I still had to buy the insurance -no choice. The insurance cleared, and the lawyer found some problems. Saved me about 5K for a couple hundred paid to him. |
Antennas and CCRS
On Feb 1, 6:20�pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
Michael J. Coslo wrote: On Feb 1, 8:23 am, wrote: http://www.news-record.com/content/2...come_to_the_ne ighborhood_see_you_in_court Oy! That is *exactly* the reason why I will not live in a neighborhood like that. With all due respect . . . all neighborhoods are like that. I don't think so. I've lived in several neighborhoods that weren't and aren't like that at all. Yes, there certainly are developments that pride themselves on the enforcement of their rules, with people out there measuring the height of your daffodils to be sure they're within the specifications that the homeowners association has established. But I've seen petty neighbor squabbles out in the country. �It ha s a lot more to do with personality clashes between individuals than it does with CCRs. �CCRs may make it easier, and they may be a marker tha t it's more likely, but it can happen anywhere. Agreed - it most certainly can, and does, happen in places withoutCC&Rs. The thing about CC&Rs is that, IMHO, they make such things more likelyand easier. I guess the moral of the story as far as I'm concerned is do your research, know your neighbors, and communicate with them about your Hamness. Some times people call me lucky in all this. I think we make our luck. You're right. �But luck is there, all the same. �You coul d have an unreasonable neighbor who didn't respond to your doing all the right things. �If that happened, you would be in a world of hurt with v ery little recourse. Depends on the situation. Yes, a bad neighbor can make life miserable in almost any situation. But CC&Rs can make it easier for the bad neighbor to do it, and do it *legally*. I think it's very important for hams to be good neighbors, with or without CCRs, HOAs, etc. I think part of that is being knowledgeable about some of the issues. I've known hams (and others) who loudly expressed the idea that it was THEIR property and they could whatever they wanted with it. These folks expressed disdain for building codes, zoning ordinances, etc. Problem is, even a non-attorney like me knows that it doesn't work that way. For example, if a neighbor violates building safety codes in such a way as to create a fire hazard, my property is at risk, and I have a legitimate interest in getting the codes enforced. Same for things like flooding. When an amateur disregards such concepts, it makes us look bad. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Antennas and CCRS
wrote:
I've known hams (and others) who loudly expressed the idea that it was THEIR property and they could whatever they wanted with it. These folks expressed disdain for building codes, zoning ordinances, etc. Problem is, even a non-attorney like me knows that it doesn't work that way. For example, if a neighbor violates building safety codes in such a way as to create a fire hazard, my property is at risk, and I have a legitimate interest in getting the codes enforced. Same for things like flooding. When an amateur disregards such concepts, it makes us look bad. 73 de Jim, N2EY Which goes back to what I said originally: Do we all have to act like having an FCC grant (license) somehow makes us above the law? Back when I was living in Culver City, I'd put a pair of push up masts at opposite ends of the house to string a multi-band dipole between. About 5' above the crest line of the house. Just the poles, I hadn't put the dipole up yet. My neighbor's wife called in tears, "I can see that pole from every window of my house." Later that evening her husband called and threatened me with all sorts of law suits etc. etc. I suggested that if his view was ruined he should consider moving to an area with CC&Rs. Of course, the down side would be their new neighbors would have their yappy dogs put to sleep. I didn't hear another word out of him for 6 months. Although he did show his displeasure by refusing to trim the ivy on his fence for a whole year. Until the city made him cut it back. Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi -- “Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954 http://www.stay-connect.com |
Antennas and CCRS
On Feb 3, 1:39 pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Which goes back to what I said originally: Do we all have to act like having an FCC grant (license) somehow makes us above the law? And my point was that *some* hams think that way. Not all. And it's not about the license grant. What I think is the really bad part is that such comments display an ignorance of the law which weakens their case. Yes, state and local governments cannot regulate radio the way FCC does. No, that does not mean an amateur has carte blanche when it comes to antennas. Back when I was living in Culver City, I'd put a pair of push up masts at opposite ends of the house to string a multi-band dipole between. About 5' above the crest line of the house. Just the poles, I hadn't put the dipole up yet. My neighbor's wife called in tears, "I can see that pole from every window of my house." How? I mean, unless her house only had windows on the side facing your house, she was clearly incorrect. Later that evening her husband called and threatened me with all sorts of law suits etc. etc. I suggested that if his view was ruined he should consider moving to an area with CC&Rs. Of course, the down side would be their new neighbors would have their yappy dogs put to sleep. I didn't hear another word out of him for 6 months. But he eventually got over it, right? Although he did show his displeasure by refusing to trim the ivy on his fence for a whole year. Until the city made him cut it back. Well, I must be lucky, because around here the neighbors ask if theycan help. Shovel each others walks and driveways when it snows, mow each other'slawns when on vacation. Many of the homes share driveways; one pair of families I know put basketball hoops on both sides so the kids can play full court. Some houses have TV antennas, ranging from relics of the 1950s to those little dishes. I have a mast and 80/40/20 inverted V with the center at 40 feet. Some people garden extensively, some play music, some are constantly upgrading their properties, somehang out on their front porches whenever weather permits. Nobody gets upset aboutany of it. On Halloween I can count on at least 100 kids showing up for trick or treat. Then there are the Christmas displays.. Two summers ago the neighbor across the street had a tie-dye party on the front lawn. It was a blast. You can't force that sort of stuff by regulation. We lend each other tools and give away surplus materials. (Neighbor'scomputer monitor failed, I went up to the attic and gave him one of myspares...) CC&Rs? What are they? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Antennas and CCRS
|
Antennas and CCRS
In article , Bill Horne
wrote: To be sure, there's a value judgement involved: the FCC had to decide that the "value" of television outweighs that of preventing individuals from having to suffer something they consider to be an eyesore. I, on the other hand, think that my antennas deserve as much consideration as a satellite dish, no matter what the content they help to convey. I don't believe that the value judgement was on the part of the FCC. As I recall, its origin was the United States Congress. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html The FCC simply did as they were told, and implemented regulations which enforce the intent of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Actof 1996. The FCC has repeatedly been asked to expand the OTARD rules to cover amateur radio antennas. They have repeatedly responded that they don't feel that they can re-interpret Federal law to do so... it would go well beyond the wording and intent of the cited law. If Congress chooses to change the law (or pass a new one) and give the FCC the explicit authority to override CC&Rs with regard to amateur radio antennas, then I have little doubt that the FCC would once again do as they were told, and enact new regulations. Unless and until Congress acts in this way, the FCC is very unlikely to change the regs... because, I suspect, they're pretty sure that if they did so, somebody would take them to court for misinterpreting the law, and the FCC would probably lose. If you want OTARD expanded to include an exemption for amateur radio antennas, write your Congress-critter. There have been bills introduced several times in the past few years, to do just this... and they've all died for lack of support. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 30, 5:24 pm, wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:32 am, Steve Bonine wrote: wrote: What I see happening more and more is that deed restrictions and similar one-sided unchangeable contracts are being used to replace zoning, nuisance ordinances and building codes. And I think that's a very bad thing which must be resisted however possible. Do you have specific ideas on how this can be resisted? One way is education: make people aware of the real long-term ramifications of CC&Rs, HOAs, etc. Particularly when they take the form of an unchangeable contract. Such education takes time but it does make a difference in the longrun. American culture has changed a lot during the past few decades. When did we start seeing the McMansions? Good question! My guess is the late 1980s. The idea of "the perfect house" is much different now than 30-40 years ago. What would you say has changed? What did it used to be, and what is it now? the reason is that people were sold on the idea that: They aren't making any more real estate. Square footage is cheap to build, and will appeal to the type of customer you want looking at your house when you move up to the next level. After all, you're paying 100K for ht eland, you have to put a proper house on it. Oh dear, oh dear, the market is going bonkers, you just have to figure out how to buy this place before the price goes up again. But once you buy or build it, the value will just keep going up. Real estate never loses value, so if you overspend now, you can just refinance in a couple years. Isn't that worth a couple years of a tight budget? That isn't opinion BTW, I heard them all. snippage But I think there's more that can be done. Legislation is one possibility. For example, when asked about extending the OTARD ruling to include ham radio antennas, the FCC essentially responded that hams should get Congress to instruct them to do it. IOW FCC won't do it onits own. And that's one of the things that I think ARRL does pretty well at. It's an expensive game, but we gotta do it. And there's the media. More than one person has been allowed to have their flagpole or religious display because the media made an issue of it. And Hams have to do a good job of working the media. we need to get the word out, and if we need to ply for sympathy or even get the public a little worked up for our plight, we gotta do it. And above all, we have to look the good part. We want avoid looking like the mad scientist - very hard for me, because I do get excited about this kind of thing. But I've been on TV and in the papers several times now with Ham radio activities, so they either like me or I've got entertainment value! 8^) -73 de Mike N3LI - |
Antennas and CCRS
Not really. The community will reach a point where it looks like it is. The
restrictions try to artificially modify the appearance. I have general dislike for real estate people. I've dealt with enough personally and professionally and have found very few who really get it. Rednecks will have dogs...and pickup trucks. Don't want to deal with those, buy elsewhere. But after moving in, don't force them to get rid of the trucks. (This one I speak from experience...7 long years of listening to these hounds...they finally moved out and that home now has a Mercedes and no dogs) As far as preserving value, that should be fairly easy, if everyone involved is reasonable. It gets bad when you have the one idiot that wants to raise livestock on a 6000 sq ft lot. But the community can take care of that without restrictions. I keep my property nice, because I want to. I absolutely HATE a gun at my head regarding it. Its a Texas thing... And adding to the general angst is where some individuals were conned into thinking the house is their pension plan. No, its a place to live, and don't expect a 25% gain every year, as the real estate agent told you it would. I guess my, and others perspectives would be different if there were some areas built out without the absolute ban on antennas, specifically. But these people writing the restrictions seem to have a font of boilerplate that is bad. And why is it recently that it has become so bad? To my view, homes built pre-1980 or so are easier on the restrictions. All of the "new" construction is where it is severe. And in an area like Austin Texas the construction has been intense over the past 15 years. (the saying goes...everytime they raise taxes in California a new subdivision is built here) Take care. GeorgeC W2DB "Steve Bonine" wrote in message ... George Csahanin wrote: The pea brained real estate sales people somehow think they're [CCRs] good and preserve property value. From the perspective of a property owner, restrictions generally do preserve property values. From your perspective as a ham, they are horrible things that prevent you from exercising your rights and enjoying your hobby. Both contingents can mount persuasive arguments to support their opinion. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com