Art Clemons wrote:

The statement advising hams not to move into a development with either home
associations or CCRs strikes me as poor advice. There are few locales
without one or the other left in the US, and most used boiler plate to bar
antennas.

I'm inclined to disagree with you, but I don't have any more factual or
statistical information than you do to make or refute such a statement.
I wonder if such information exists; is there some compilation of data
that says that xx% of home sales included some kind of restriction?

It also depends on where you are geographically. Here in rural
Minnesota such restrictions do not exist. But not everyone yearns to
live in rural Minnesota . . . especially at this time of the year grin

73, Steve KB9X

In article ,
Steve Bonine wrote:
Art Clemons wrote:

The statement advising hams not to move into a development with either home
associations or CCRs strikes me as poor advice. There are few locales
without one or the other left in the US, and most used boiler plate to bar
antennas.

I'm inclined to disagree with you, but I don't have any more factual or
statistical information than you do to make or refute such a statement.
I wonder if such information exists; is there some compilation of data
that says that xx% of home sales included some kind of restriction?

I just noodled around the ARRL website and couldn't find any statistics.
Here in the Bay Area, anecdotal evidence is very strong that nothing
besides federally protected pizza dishes are allowed.

It also depends on where you are geographically. Here in rural
Minnesota such restrictions do not exist. But not everyone yearns to
live in rural Minnesota . . . especially at this time of the year grin

:-) Which explains why the residents of Lake Wobegon just spent two
weeks here, instead of their customary one-week visit to other cities...


Patty

Steve Bonine wrote:
Here in rural Minnesota such restrictions do not exist.

Ranger TX. 2500 people. And NO building codes. No permits
obviously.

But not everyone yearns to live in rural Minnesota

Nor do they in Ranger, for that I'm thankful. I don't think
I'd like here as much if there were suddenly 25,000 people here.

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

On Jan 23, 10:17�am, Steve Bonine wrote:

I wonder if such information exists;
is there some compilation of data
that says that xx% of home sales
included some kind of restriction?

Good question! But what we need is even more specific, such as how many
homes in a specific price range, etc.

It also depends on where you are geographically.
�Here in rural
Minnesota such restrictions do not exist.
�But not everyone yearns to
live in rural Minnesota . . . especially at this time of the year

I yearn to live in rural Minnesota. Or New York State, Maine, and many
other places - any time of year.

But for most of us, there has to be a suitable job. Or jobs, in
manycases.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Steve Bonine wrote:

I'm inclined to disagree with you, but I don't have any more factual or
statistical information than you do to make or refute such a statement.
I wonder if such information exists; is there some compilation of data
that says that xx% of home sales included some kind of restriction?


I used to do a lot of closings, most developments and housing tracts built
after 1973 had either the original builder or the successor home owners'
association include that as a deed restriction.

The restriction is also provided in models for lawyers to draft such
restrictions so they will stand up in court. I only only of a few locales
in Illinois (a ham lawyer drafted models) where it's not boilerplate.

I'll put it this way, if you want a boring day, go to your local county
recorder's office and try to find a division that doesn't include them one
way or another. Older locales and most big cities don't have said
restrictions, of course, lots are smaller and there are likely to be
offsetting problems like for example fear of children climbing your tower.

Steve Bonine wrote:

Art Clemons wrote:

The statement advising hams not to move into a development with either
home
associations or CCRs strikes me as poor advice. There are few locales
without one or the other left in the US, and most used boiler plate to
bar antennas.

I'm inclined to disagree with you, but I don't have any more factual or
statistical information than you do to make or refute such a statement.
I wonder if such information exists; is there some compilation of data
that says that xx% of home sales included some kind of restriction?

It also depends on where you are geographically. Here in rural
Minnesota such restrictions do not exist. But not everyone yearns to
live in rural Minnesota . . . especially at this time of the year grin

73, Steve KB9X
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. The pea brained real estate sales people somehow
think they're good and preserve property value. But after some point in the
early 80's almost any land subdivision included restrictions, and pretty
universally included language regarding antennas. Before that the language
may have been directed toward "structures" not antennas. It also seems to be
more prevalent regionally. That could have something to do with when a
particular area experienced rapid growth. (like here near Austin, TX)

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 issue.
I also balance it in a way that causes no issues. I have a HF6V in the
backyard, and a 440 vertical back there too. The 440 antenna is somewhat
visible from teh street, the HF6 isn't, obstructed by a tree. The neighbor
can see it, but they know that the moment they say anything is when I go
after them for their barking yip-dogs, which I see as a worse issue than
antennas.

GeorgeC
W2DB

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

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

In article ,
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

[unneeded text deleted]


Or load up your rain gutters.

Guess it's time to mention the "awntenna" again. :-)

http://www.wintertime.com/OH/73.jpg

The folks at "73" got diagrams 1a and 1b reversed, so take
that into account.

Here's a closeup of the indoor verted-vee ("rabbit ears")
backup antenna mentioned in the article:

http://www.wintertime.com/OH/sebastian.jpg

That article was written 24 years ago (yikes!), so I'm sorry
to say that Sebastian is no longer with us. I have a cat now,
but her ears are way too short for HF.

I ended up working around, I think, 130 countries before I
decommissioned the antenna.


Patty