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.

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 -

On Jan 23, 1:35�am, Art Clemons wrote:
�Let me note that theoretically
streets belong to the governmental entity in which said street is locat
ed or
some entity which the governmental entity is part of (i.e you
can have a
state or county road in a small township, it might not belong to the
township, but it sure does belong to some governmental entity) and as s
uch,
private individuals have no right or privilege of passing on who or wha
t
moves on a public street.

The key word there is *public*. In some developments the streets are
part of the development, a osrt of common driveway. Some local
governments like this because it relieves them of the responsibility of
snow removal, repair, etc.

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 disagree 100%!

In many parts of the USA, there are plenty of homes that allow
antennas. From my limited experience, they are usually older
(pre-1970s) homes in established neighborhoods.

I think what happens in many cases is that people limit themselves to
new construction, townhomes, or similar planned communities where rules
and limitations are all part of the boilerplate. In some parts of the
country, where growth has happened mostly in the past 20-30 years, much
of the housing stock is like that. Particularly the less- expensive
homes, oddly enough.

When I moved to my current house 10 years ago, one of the first things
I did was to explain to the Realtor what was Not Acceptable. One of
those things was a place with no-antennas restrictions. Another
requirement was that I and my RE lawyer be able to see any deed
restrictions, covenants, etc. before making an offer.

I personally would love to see CCRs and home owner
associations expire after
some extended period of time like ten years, we thus would not end up w
ith
the banning of clothes drying or antennas. �

The problem is that most of them are specifically set up to be self-
perpetuating, and to make changing the rules all but impossible.

And even if every amateur now licensed decided to never buy another
restricted home, we'd still have the problem of hams who currently live
in them, and of people who live in them and who want to be hams.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

The key word there is *public*. In some developments the streets are
part of the development, a osrt of common driveway. Some local
governments like this because it relieves them of the responsibility of
snow removal, repair, etc.

This is a tricky proposition. If the private way is open to the public only
reasonable restrictions are allowed. Thus restricting hours large trucks
may make deliveries might be reasonable but the private way also has to give
notice that it's private unless it's patently obvious. Thus, you can't
parade in someone's driveway without permission and meeting all legal
requirements for a parade. I further note that HOAs usually don't want to
own roads and streets precisely because then they have to be paid for by the
HOA's membership rather than tax dollars.

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 -

Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
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.

It would be useful to read the specific rules. The article doesn't say
the rules prohibit antennas, it just says they *concern* antennas. It
is very possible that the rules don't prohibit antennas outright, just
restrict their appearance. Obviously W0ES's arrangement complies with
the aesthetic requirements of the rules!

================================================== ==================

While one has to live with the rules one agrees with... one also has to
suspect the widespread deployment of such rules is destructive to our
hobby. An existing ham may or may not have the option of selecting a
home without CC&Rs when looking for a place to live. A young person
considering taking up ham radio is not going to be having much luck
getting his parents to move so he can have some antennas -- he's
probably going to give up on ham radio & take up Linux instead.

It's not difficult to see other hobbies suffering from this aesthetic
intolerance as well. Amateur auto mechanics, for one. People who are
*not* hams are beginning to get fed up with this as well.

--

Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

In Jeffrey D Angus
wrote:

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."

There's nothing to suggest he violated any conditions.

Such rules are generally for esthetic reasons, and he probably
followed them to the letter.

--
Bert Hyman W0RSB St. Paul, MN