Right, but my point was, and still is, "What part of no don't you
understand?"

I know there's a few real lawyers involved specifically with antenna
issues and
amateur radio, but why is it everyone else jumps in their favorite
armchair and
puts on their lawyer hat and immediately tries to find every possible
excuse to
get around the "no antennas" clauses they've agreed to?

There are additional issues now regarding RF radiation. This trapped
vertical
I referred to in the March 2010 QST for example. How would his neighbor
upstairs feel about sitting on top of an active radiator putting out
somewhere
in the neighborhood of 100 watts?

People tend to go sideways about cell phone towers within sight of a school
yard. That's a LOT less radiated power than 100 watts under your feet.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi

"Jeffrey Angus" wrote

People tend to go sideways about cell phone towers within sight of a
school
yard. That's a LOT less radiated power than 100 watts under your feet.

.....But at a *much* lower frequency. Or doesn't that matter? Anyway, there
are guidelines, for hams, with regard to ERP and required distance. No
responsible ham would transmit 100 watts physically nearby on any frequency.
I made sure I included the adjective "responsible."

Once again, we don't know what is in that fellow's contract. In one place I
lived it said "no antennas without permission," and that was before the FCC
mandate to allow tv antennas and small satellite dishes. As I wrote once
before, I didn't ask, I erected an antenna, and no one ever complained.