In article ,
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Patty Winter wrote:

But *is* it a violation? If the HOA people considered it a
birdhouse, and if tall birdhouses are allowed, then maybe
he didn't violate the CCRs. Or at least only in spirit, but
not according to the letter of the CCRs.

I'd wager that the CCRs didn't specifically say, "No outside
antennas with the exception of those that look like bird
houses."

Of course not. But they may do just the opposite: they may talk
about antennas that look like antennas. Or more likely, they're
just very vague.


Patty

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.

"Steve Bonine" wrote

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.

Hams must be careful to realize that earning an amateur radio license and
the ability to operate a radio station is a privilege, not a right. There
are plenty of other examples in life that are analogous, such has having a
driver license. There is, however, that famous clause in the Constitution
regarding "the pursuit of happiness." But moving right along....

I was fortunate to be able to erect some kind of antenna in the two CCR
developments I lived in in southern AZ over the course of 23 years, even
though the "anti-antenna" statement was in the CCR books. No one ever said
'boo' about my antennas. But, then, my neighbors liked me. And, I never
asked permission. And I always used my electric clothes dryer.

Howard

On Jan 23, 1:14 pm, wrote:

I think the bigger issue is this: Why is there such interest in
restricting what other people can do?

IMO, a couple things. One big thing was that antennas kind of got in
there as collateral damage. This is pure conjecture, but the biggest
beneficiary of antenna restrictions was the cable TV industry. Even
though they had a superior product, if you couldn't put up a TV
antenna, it seals the deal. No exceptions were made until the sat TV
people made a very similar product with an antenna that is pretty
unobtrusive.

Second thing is perhaps one of the less pretty parts of human nature.
A lot of people believe that they know what's best, and they have no
problem imposing what they know on other people. If a contract in
development A has one page of activity restrictions and development B
has three, then by their logic, Development B simply has to be
"better". That's my guess anyhow.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Jan 23, 4:35 pm, Patty Winter wrote:

But *is* it a violation? If the HOA people considered it a birdhouse,
and if tall birdhouses are allowed, then maybe he didn't violate the
CCRs. Or at least only in spirit, but not according to the letter of
the CCRs.

In some 'hoods, the Birdhouse might be the wrong color. And perhaps as
a birdhouse it is fine. But certainly as antenna it is probably not.

-73 cd MIke N3LI -

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.

On Jan 24, 1:12 pm, George Csahanin wrote:
After having been the architectural control committee where I live,
and
researching CC&R's extensively I hate to tell you that these things are
almost everywhere now.

You betchya! We have neighborhoods in my area that dictate almost
every facet of your domicile, from yard appearance to house color and
style.

And believe it or not, there is a fairly early development around here
that has as one of it's restrictions,a racial clause. As you might
guess, that one isn't enforced, but it is abhorrent and while early
mortgage holders still have their signed documents to that effect - it
isn't enforced.

So the amateur is faced with no operation or bending the rules. Jeff may
be
in a nice situation there, but I see it as less than black and white issu
e.

And yet I can find dozens of available, nice houses in our area that
allow me to put up what I want.

Implied in all of the CCR issues is the unstated part that the
prospective station operator wants to live in the nice subdivision,
with other people of like mind and status, but want's that one little
change that will allow him to do what he wants to do. He doesn't want
to live somewhere else.

I chose a different path. I live where I'm allowed to put up antennas.
I'm violating no laws or covenants. If other people's situation
differs, its more likely to be a matter of that they care more about
whatever attracted them to their neighborhood than they care about
amateur radio.
- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Jeffrey D Angus writes:

I was reading the Feb 2010 copy of QST at dinner this evening.
And right there in the "Up Front" section was a wonderful
article about "How I defied the CCR I signed when I bought my
condo and put up an antenna in contradiction to the rules I
agreed to."

Do we all have to act like having an FCC grant (license)
somehow makes us above the law?

Sooner or later, the homeowner associations are going to
catch on about bird houses, flag poles and the like and
just simply write into the rules, "No transmitting or
receiving equipment."

And we'll have brought it on ourselves by constantly showing
our inability to follow the rules.

Well, if they did that, everyone would have to throw out their
microwave, router, cell phone, radios, garage door opener, car remote,
tv and computer, which, I doubt they would be willing to do!



--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

Steve Bonine writes:

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.

I saw the convenants and restrictions before signing the papers ( a law
here in California), but had no choice given my geographical and
financial needs.

I'm not going to argue from a constitutional perspective. A contract is
acontract.

Nevertheless there are creative ways to erect an antenna and get on the
air unobtrusively. One option is a portable antenna you can put up at
night and take down during daylight hours. I leave it to you to decide
how to implement this.

Another option is an indoor antenna. When I put up my indoor 20 m
dipole in 2008, it performed pretty poorly. Now that conditions have
improved, I'm actually able to work some DX, and can work most of the
stations I hear. As the cycle 24 progresses, I'm sure the indoor system
will be more thanadequate.

Another option is using a *dummy* satellite feedline as an endfed 1/2
wavee or random wire antenna.

Or load up your rain gutters.

LeeNY6P

Steve Bonine wrote:

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.


I don't know of any study showing that antennas lower property values. For
that matter I don't know of any showing that outdoor clotheslines lower
values either. It's a claim that appeals to those opposed to antennas, but
it doesn't seem to have backing in the real world.