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.

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

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 Jan 28, 9:32�am, Steve Bonine wrote:
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?

One way is education: make people aware of the real long-term
ramifications of CC&Rs, HOAs, etc. Particularly when they take the form
of an unchangeable contract.

Such education takes time but it does make a difference in the longrun.

American culture has changed a lot during
the past few decades. �When
did we start seeing the McMansions?

Good question! My guess is the late 1980s.

�The idea of "the perfect house" is
much different now than 30-40 years ago.

What would you say has changed? What did it used to be, and what is
itnow?

The public votes with its wallet.

But often it's not an informed vote. Look at how many people got
themselves into a financial disaster by buying too much house. They
didn't *plan* on that!

�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.

I see two factors:

First, the general public often really doesn't understand what they're
getting into. That's been proven time and again.

Second, in my limited experience, CC&Rs tend to *reduce* a home's price
long-term. This mean a restricted house sells for less, making it seem
a better deal.

But what then happens is the owners discover that, with the HOA fees,
pages of rules and lack of flexibility, the place costs more overall.

You may perhaps think my views are pessimistic;
I prefer to consider
them realistic. �As a tiny minority, hams are unlikely to have an
y
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. ï
¿½There are
many things in life that are neither easy nor ideal.

Of course we must know the system and how to work within it. We must
also educate other hams; too many don't know the difference between a
township ordinance, a deed restriction and an HOA rule.

But I think there's more that can be done. Legislation is one
possibility. For example, when asked about extending the OTARD ruling
to include ham radio antennas, the FCC essentially responded that hams
should get Congress to instruct them to do it. IOW FCC won't do it
onits own.

There are anti-restrictive-CC&R groups such as one that opposes no-
clotheslines rules.

And there's the media. More than one person has been allowed to have
their flagpole or religious display because the media made an issue
ofit.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jan 30, 5:24 pm, wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:32 am, Steve Bonine wrote:

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?

One way is education: make people aware of the real long-term
ramifications of CC&Rs, HOAs, etc. Particularly when they take the form
of an unchangeable contract.

Such education takes time but it does make a difference in the longrun.

American culture has changed a lot during
the past few decades. When
did we start seeing the McMansions?

Good question! My guess is the late 1980s.

The idea of "the perfect house" is
much different now than 30-40 years ago.

What would you say has changed? What did it used to be, and what is
it now?

the reason is that people were sold on the idea that:

They aren't making any more real estate.

Square footage is cheap to build, and will appeal to the type of
customer you want looking at your house when you move up to the next
level. After all, you're paying 100K for ht eland, you have to put a
proper house on it.

Oh dear, oh dear, the market is going bonkers, you just have to figure
out how to buy this place before the price goes up again. But once you
buy or build it, the value will just keep going up.

Real estate never loses value, so if you overspend now, you can just
refinance in a couple years. Isn't that worth a couple years of a
tight budget?

That isn't opinion BTW, I heard them all.

snippage

But I think there's more that can be done. Legislation is one
possibility. For example, when asked about extending the OTARD ruling
to include ham radio antennas, the FCC essentially responded that hams
should get Congress to instruct them to do it. IOW FCC won't do it
onits own.

And that's one of the things that I think ARRL does pretty well at.
It's an expensive game, but we gotta do it.


And there's the media. More than one person has been allowed to have
their flagpole or religious display because the media made an issue
of it.

And Hams have to do a good job of working the media. we need to get
the word out, and if we need to ply for sympathy or even get the
public a little worked up for our plight, we gotta do it. And above
all, we have to look the good part. We want avoid looking like the mad
scientist - very hard for me, because I do get excited about this kind
of thing. But I've been on TV and in the papers several times now with
Ham radio activities, so they either like me or I've got entertainment
value! 8^)

-73 de Mike N3LI -