Michael J. Coslo wrote:

Point is, if you live in such a neighborhood, that is what you get.
Don't live in such places if you want to enjoy Ham radio, there are
people who want to control your personal life

I agree with your bottom line, Mike. But we've beat this topic to death
in this newsgroup, and I can pretty much predict where the discussion
will go.

My comment on this general issue is that the non-ham population develops
their impression of hams based on what they see and hear. When they see
hams helping out in the community by assisting with a public event or
teaching radio to the local Boy Scouts, the impression is a positive
one. When they see the guy with a bunch of unsightly antennas whose
house is a blight on the neighborhood, or the one who flaunts the CCR
that they signed, the impression is negative.

Our hobby seems to be cursed with a higher percentage of people who are
oblivious to the concerns of their neighbors or the rest of the general
population. These are the folks who tend to be visible and influence
the impression of ham radio for the general public. Or maybe I'm just
suffering from the same effect; it's not the ham who is cooperating with
the Boy Scouts that I see, but the one with six towers erected on his
city lot.

We need to be more proactive at getting the positive side of ham radio
out into the public eye.

73, Steve KB9X

I see this whole thing rather differently.

I agree that any ham who wants to have a station at home should buy a
house without antenna restrictions. Same as someone who wants to have,
say, a vegetable garden should buy a house without vegetable-garden
restrictions. Etc.

But I think there's a growing mindset that, for a neighborhood to be
"nice", almost everything that someone might find unattractive must be
prohibited. And since there's almost nothing that *somebody* won't find
unattractive, almost *everything* is prohibited, or strictlyregulated.

I can see the point that a ninety-foot tower on a quarter-acre lot is
out of scale. Or when a homeowner lets a place fall to ruin, something
needs to be done.

But when a ham can't have a wire dipole in the back yard of a half-
acre wooded lot, something's wrong. When the satellite TV folks have to
go all the way to the Supreme Court to get preemption to have dishes
the size of a large pizza, something's wrong. When American citizens,
some of them decorated military veterans, are sued and threatened with
eviction for flying the American flag in their own front yards,
something's wrong.

Real estate isn't like other things in that it's not portable and the
supply is limited. For most people, their home is their biggest
investment, and moving is a major event. Many hams simply cannot afford
to move just so they can have an antenna. I suspect that antenna
restrictions are a major cause of low growth in Amateur Radio in the
USA, because why get a license if you can't have a decentstation?

It seems to me that if the rules allow a flagpole, birdhouse, plant
trellis, etc., but not antennas, then what's wrong if one of those
things has a dual function?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
It seems to me that if the rules allow a flagpole, birdhouse,
plant trellis, etc., but not antennas, then what's wrong if
one of those things has a dual function?

And that's my point.

A friend of mine, while living in an apartment, unrolled aluminum
foil in a double folded dipole and thumbtacked it to his ceiling.

And while living in Culver City, after they introduced a limit to
the number of external antennas (rather broadly worded) We just
moved some of the fixed point to point antennas inside the attic.

Interestingly enough, in the original article in QST, when asked
"What are the wires going to the birdhouse for?" He answered. "It's
for a weather station."

Hrmmm, obviously knew the "I have an antenna in violatioin of the
rules" was the wrong answer.

Jeff



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

http://www.stay-connect.com

In article ,
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:

Interestingly enough, in the original article in QST, when asked
"What are the wires going to the birdhouse for?" He answered. "It's
for a weather station."

Hrmmm, obviously knew the "I have an antenna in violatioin of the
rules" was the wrong answer.

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.


Patty N6BIS

Patty Winter wrote:
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Hrmmm, obviously knew the "I have an antenna in violation
of the rules" was the wrong answer.

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."

My point is, what part of no outside antennas permitted don't
people understand?

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

"Jeffrey D Angus" wrote in message
...
Patty Winter wrote:
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Hrmmm, obviously knew the "I have an antenna in violation
of the rules" was the wrong answer.

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."

My point is, what part of no outside antennas permitted don't
people understand?
-----------

I live in a CC&R'ed community, but the CC&Rs were written with an escape
clause which I executed back in 1990. However, none of my neighbors have
ever challenged my property's status despite my 15 antennas (of which 3 are
covered by FCC rulings and state law for TV and satellite reception).
However, I did work out placement with them - but it didn't affect any of
their "city views."

To Jeff: What part of "unenforced CC&Rs" don't people understand? Failing
to complain eventually estops an action when too much time has passed.

In article ,
"D. Stussy" wrote:




To Jeff: What part of "unenforced CC&Rs" don't people understand? Failing
to complain eventually estops an action when too much time has passed.

AFAIK that depends on the locality. I know locally if one CC&R is not
enforced the courts -tend- to want to ignore all of them.

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

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

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

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 -