wrote:

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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

"Jeffrey D Angus" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I don't think the problem was that you were excessively choosy;

You had the resources and patience to go through all that.

When I decided to move out of the Los Angeles area, My wife and I
spent almost 6 months looking for property online. We had a basic
set of "conditions" to meet (as it were).

I fly out here in June last year to look at the properties and
when I got home told my wife, "I think I just bought the farm."

How many of us first discovered amateur radio, or found our first
Elmer, by seeing his/her antenna(s)?

Slight topic drift, but in my case it was because my dad worked
for North American Aviation. He took me to the employee recreation
park and I wandered into the Amateur Radio Club station. W6UUI.
End of story, I was "ruined".

---------------
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.

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?

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.

American culture has changed a lot during the past few decades. When
did we start seeing the McMansions? The idea of "the perfect house" is
much different now than 30-40 years ago.

The public votes with its wallet. 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.

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. 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.

73, Steve KB9X

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 -

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

On 1/27/2010 8:29 AM, wrote:
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.

At the time, there was a speculative bubble, and many homeowners
expected unreasonable prices for their property. In addition, I had
certain requirements not germane to this discussion due to physical
challenges, and there was also the threat of certain neighborhoods
being used as dumps for potentially toxic waste being dredged up from
Boston's "Big Dig" construction projects. 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.

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.

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.

They showed us whatever they had, including one home where, when we
asked about local stores, the sole occupant - a high school senior who
was staying there until he graduated - told us that if we wanted a Coke
we could just walk over to the prison!

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.

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
agentdecided on.

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.

The main point is that an agent doesn't really care if (s)he meets your
needs. (S)he gets paid to wear a buyer down until the trash heap next
to the Interstate starts to look good, and that's a damned shame, but
it's also capitalism in action. Real-estate agents *know* that they'll
only make a sale out of some small percentage of showings, but they
also know that that percentage is constant, and so they'll show you
everything they can get a commission on. If it's "your" house, they
win, and if it's not, they're that much closer to a sale. It's a tough
business, to be sure, but some agents allow it to dull their common
sense.

I think all this is having a negative impact on amateur radio.
Here's why:

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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 decreases over time,
because nobody sees antennas, and hams operating stealth don't
talk about 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We must adapt or perish.

My 2¢. YMMV.

Bill, W1AC

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.â€
�
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com