| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Antennas and CCRS
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. 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 |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 22, 12:50 am, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
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. I believe that the stealth concept has some problems. The main one is that it sort of creates civil criminals, at least in our case. But for my money, if the homeowners association says no antennas, then it's no antennas. I live in a thoroughly modern neighborhood, and we don't have antenna restrictions, except for a radius-drop tower restriction - not that a tower is likely to fall that way. NIce well kept houses, and the Ham radio folks all get along with their more normal neighbors. My neighbors actually like to watch my antics. But here is the clue to the whole thing. Either don't live in a neighborhood with antenna restrictions, or if you have deep pockets and want to be a nuisance, get a lawyer and sue. I know that some are going to say "You can't find a development like that. Park Forest, just north oh State College PA begs to differ. No HOA either. Most respectfully, anyone who lives in a development with an HOA just has to know that restrictions are part of the package, even if some seem arbitrary and even capricious. The restrictions allow the tenants to feel superior. We have one in our area that does not allow any outside decorations or drying clothes outdoors. I think you have to agree to keep your garage door shut at all time (except for ingress and egress) Point is, don't live there. Side note. I was doing a public service bike-hike ride support. part of it went on a township road through one of those neighborhoods. Suddenly a van pulls up and a guy hops out. "What are you doing here?" he says. The YL who was manning the station was a little concerned - it looked almost like an abduction. Anyhow, we explained the bike ride we were helping with. He wanted to know why, as the President of the local Homeowners association, he wasn't informed or asked permission to do this. Then he said he was doing to call the police. At that point, I took out my cell phone, and said Fine, I'll even help, Ken (yes I knew him). I'm going to call the Police, the Charity we're doing this for, the newspaper and the local radio stations. Still want to do this thing? He thought better of it, got back in the van, and left. 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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
Michael J. Coslo wrote:
Side note. I was doing a public service bike-hike ride support. part of it went on a township road through one of those neighborhoods. Suddenly a van pulls up and a guy hops out. "What are you doing here?" he says. The YL who was manning the station was a little concerned - it looked almost like an abduction. Anyhow, we explained the bike ride we were helping with. He wanted to know why, as the President of the local Homeowners association, he wasn't informed or asked permission to do this. Then he said he was doing to call the police. At that point, I took out my cell phone, and said Fine, I'll even help, Ken (yes I knew him). I'm going to call the Police, the Charity we're doing this for, the newspaper and the local radio stations. Still want to do this thing? He thought better of it, got back in the van, and left. Actually what you ran into was some officious idiot with no authority attempting to assert authority over you. Let me note that theoretically streets belong to the governmental entity in which said street is located 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 such, private individuals have no right or privilege of passing on who or what moves on a public street. 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 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 with the banning of clothes drying or antennas. |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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. |
Antennas and CCRS
|
Antennas and CCRS
"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. |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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. |
Antennas and CCRS
"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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 - |
Antennas and CCRS
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 - |
Antennas and CCRS
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. |
Antennas and CCRS
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 - |
Antennas and CCRS
Jeffrey D Angus writes:
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. Well, if they did that, everyone would have to throw out their microwave, router, cell phone, radios, garage door opener, car remote, tv and computer, which, I doubt they would be willing to do! -- “Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.” Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954 http://www.stay-connect.com |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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. I don't know of any study showing that antennas lower property values. For that matter I don't know of any showing that outdoor clotheslines lower values either. It's a claim that appeals to those opposed to antennas, but it doesn't seem to have backing in the real world. |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
On Jan 25, 12:39�am, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
I'm not going to argue from a constitutional perspective. A contract is a contract. But people renegotiate contracts all the time. Athletes are one example. Divorce is another - people make a contract "until death do us part" with no escape clause, but then they split up and negotiate who gets what. Somebody mentioned racial CC&Rs - those were contracts when written, but they are unenforceable now. I suspect that CC&Rs restricting people of certain ethnicities, religions, occupations or political views would be unenforceable too. There's a case I read of where grandparents living in an "over 55" community are being told they have to either move out or send their grandchild away, because the grandchild is too young. They are the legal guardians because their child is unable to care for the grandchild and the other parent is gone. Isn't that age discrimination? There's also the "contract of adhesion" idea, a legal term for one side holding all the cards. btw, there's an organization specifically about clothesline prohibitions. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Antennas and CCRS
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 - |
Antennas and CCRS
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:08:31 EST, Patty Winter
wrote: Guess it's time to mention the "awntenna" again. :-) http://www.wintertime.com/OH/73.jpg While the idea seems practicable, I notice that article appeared in the April 1986 issue of 73 Magazine. So I have to ask, was it a joke? Dick AC7EL |
Antennas and CCRS
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:38:29 EST, Rockinghorse Winner
wrote: Jeffrey D Angus writes: 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. Well, if they did that, everyone would have to throw out their microwave, router, cell phone, radios, garage door opener, car remote, tv and computer, which, I doubt they would be willing to do! The average non-technical person has no idea how microwaves, cell phones, door openers and car remotes work. I have mentioned to several people that these things use radio, and they were amazed. At highway construction projects where they are blasting, the signs say "Turn off all two-way radios and cell phones." because people don't realize that cellphones are radios. Dick, AC7EL |
Antennas and CCRS
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 |
Antennas and CCRS
In article , Dick Grady AC7EL wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:08:31 EST, Patty Winter wrote: Guess it's time to mention the "awntenna" again. :-) http://www.wintertime.com/OH/73.jpg While the idea seems practicable, I notice that article appeared in the April 1986 issue of 73 Magazine. So I have to ask, was it a joke? Did you see my comment about working around 130 countries before I decommissioned it? :-) Patty |
Antennas and CCRS
In article , Dick Grady
AC7EL wrote: Guess it's time to mention the "awntenna" again. :-) http://www.wintertime.com/OH/73.jpg While the idea seems practicable, I notice that article appeared in the April 1986 issue of 73 Magazine. So I have to ask, was it a joke? I'd say it's in the "tongue in cheek" category. The final sentence says it: "My gratitude... to all of the above for contributing valuable jargon with which to obfuscate the subject." The awning idea itself is quite practical... a lot of people have made very useful contacts by loading up rain gutters, aluminum window screens, bridges, and so forth. It's described in a not-quite-serious fashion (e.g. as a close-spaced array of curved radiators). The idea of using an actual rabbit, as a "verted" rabbit-ear dipole, is certainly a joke. Actually attempting to transmit via a rabbit would result in severe QRM ("quispy roasted mammal"). -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Antennas and CCRS
Bill Horne wrote:
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. There's an agent for the seller, and there's an agent for the buyer. They should be in a professional adversarial relationship. The seller's agent is out to get the highest price, and the buyer's agent is out to get the lowest. If, as the buyer, you don't think your agent is performing that task, find another agent. Real estate agents most certainly should be your friend. As a buyer, I cannot possibly know the market and keep up with it as well as someone who does that as their full time job. My real estate agent knows vastly more about what questions to ask and what to look for than I do. While a buyer or buyer's agent may not be required to volunteer information, they are required to truthfully answer questions IF you know what questions to ask. To try to interject the slightest bit of ham-radio-related content into this submission . . . if being able to erect an antenna is an important consideration for you when buying a house, find an agent who understands CCRs and related issues. If the agent doesn't understand the issues, they cannot do what you need them to do. If the agent cannot or does not perform, failing to ask the right questions or showing you houses that don't meet your needs, get another agent. You would do the same thing if you explained that you needed a minimum of three bedrooms and the agent persisted in showing you houses with two bedrooms. 73, Steve KB9X |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:30 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com