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

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, 8:10�pm, "Michael J. Coslo" wrote:

A person who lives in a place with an
HOA at some level wants to live there and is accepting of that fact.

Maybe.

Or maybe they don't have much choice.

Real estate is different from other things in that it's not portable.
Plus you can only buy what people want to sell.

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.

The result is that, in at least some cases, there aren't so many
options to buy a non-restricted place. Particularly when there's atime
limit.

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.

There's also the case of the person who was not informed of the rules
and limitations.

Some years back I considered moving, and looked at a number of homes in
my area. All of them had nice fact sheets and disclosure sheets to look
at and take away. None of them - absolutely none - mentioned an HOA,
CC&Rs, etc. Most of them had some CC&Rs, but the unsuspecting homebuyer
wouldn't know that until closing - if then. When your old house is sold
and your stuff is on the truck and you're at the closing, it's just too
late.

Some might say "do your research first!" and that's good advice. But
back when I was looking, the RE market was so hot around here that a
house would go on sale at noon and have three no-contingency offers,
often at or above the asking price, before the sun went down.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jan 25, 8:22 am, wrote:
On Jan 24, 8:10 pm, "Michael J. Coslo" wrote:



A person who lives in a place with an
HOA at some level wants to live there and is accepting of that fact.

Maybe.

Or maybe they don't have much choice.

I just don't know, Jim. Perhaps I have a different idea of choice.

I'd rent before living in a HOA development.


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!"

I waited until a combination of market prices, interest rates and
availability showed me the house I wanted.
There are some canards going around about houses. One is that you have
to have a house immediately and anything other than buying a house now
is throwing money away. That perception on many people's part's has
led them to making bad decisions.

I bought my house in 1994. Until that time, I lived in a mobile home.
We looked at houses the entire time, but saved money and waited until
the right house came along. It was a nice house that came on the
market during a mini-slump. It had sat for some months, so the sellers
were "motivated". We got the house at 75 percent of it's appraised
value, at a good interest rate, and it was in that neighborhood that
doesn't restrict antennas. Then we didn't refi except to reduce the
interest rate. It'll be paid off later this year. I live 2 miles from
work, and the kid walked to school until he went to high school.

I point his out because it's apparently quite different than what most
people think is the way to go about doing the house thing. Some may
say I got lucky. Luck had nothing to do with it. I just waited and
pounced when the time was right. Anyone can do that.

Now some people have issues with living in mobile homes, or fear that
any money spent on anything other than a mortgage is wasted. They have
to have a house, and they have to have it now. Okay, then they have to
put up with the idea of buy in haste, repent at leisure.

Some years back I considered moving, and looked at a number of homes in
my area. All of them had nice fact sheets and disclosure sheets to look
at and take away. None of them - absolutely none - mentioned an HOA,
CC&Rs, etc. Most of them had some CC&Rs, but the unsuspecting homebuyer
wouldn't know that until closing - if then. When your old house is sold
and your stuff is on the truck and you're at the closing, it's just too
late.

That's putting yourself in a bad situation. Remember, the real estate
agent is not your friend. After firing several agents, for reasons
like continually showing me houses outside my price range, (that I
determined, not them) and not disclosing HOA and other important
stuff, I was pretty well convinced of that. They are the sellers
friend, and the more they can get out of you, the better they serve
their customer. If that means allowing the buyer to think that
something is true while it isn't, they are happy to do that.

My point is that there are always options for a Ham, if people think
they just have to take whatever comes along, well, they've taken an
option that isn't Ham oriented.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On 1/25/2010 2:44 PM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

That's putting yourself in a bad situation. Remember, the real estate
agent is not your friend. After firing several agents, for reasons
like continually showing me houses outside my price range, (that I
determined, not them) and not disclosing HOA and other important
stuff, I was pretty well convinced of that. They are the sellers
friend, and the more they can get out of you, the better they serve
their customer. If that means allowing the buyer to think that
something is true while it isn't, they are happy to do that.

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.

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 remember one occasion, when I was asked to put a deposit on a home I
was considering: the agent looked at the paper, and said, "The deposit
isn't five hundred, Bill, it's five thousand", and I replied, "You're
right, it's not five hundred: it's Five dollars". He tried to stare me
down, and then said "I don't think you're serious about buying this
house, and I won't convey that offer", to which I replied "You'll
convey the offer or I'll have your license on a plate"!

The agent had a counter-offer for me within two hours. You have to
remember that these guys are salesmen, and they get paid to move the
product: the moment you let them dictate to you, you lose.

HTH. FWIW. YMMV.

Bill, W1AC

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

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

"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