|
More CC&R stuff
March 2010 issue of QST, page 35:
"After moving in, I was told this CR also applied to any outside antennas, because the might possibly be visible to the neighbors. Drat -- time to come up with a compact stealth mode antenna..." Here we go again. Another signed contract and another evasive maneuver around it. Now while it is my understanding that the whole purpose behind the PRB-1 thing was to keep cities from preemptively banning any antenna structure. It does not allow you to just ignore contracts that you sign. Am I missing something 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 |
More CC&R stuff
"Jeffrey D Angus" wrote
Now while it is my understanding that the whole purpose behind the PRB-1 thing was to keep cities from preemptively banning any antenna structure. It does not allow you to just ignore contracts that you sign. Am I missing something here? Maybe. 1) How is the contract worded with regard to antennas? 2) No CC&R can prevent a homeowner (of a single family free-standing house) from erecting a television receiving antenna (within limits), so all it'd take is disguising a ham antenna as a tv antenna and he may not be breaking the terms of the contract. Of course a tv antenna might look odd if he lives too far from any tv transmitting antennas. Howard N7SO |
More CC&R stuff
On 2/13/2010 2:52 PM, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
March 2010 issue of QST, page 35: "After moving in, I was told this CR also applied to any outside antennas, because the might possibly be visible to the neighbors. Drat -- time to come up with a compact stealth mode antenna..." Here we go again. Another signed contract and another evasive maneuver around it. Now while it is my understanding that the whole purpose behind the PRB-1 thing was to keep cities from preemptively banning any antenna structure. It does not allow you to just ignore contracts that you sign. Am I missing something here? Jeff, You are missing the fact that the Commissars of The Public Morality want to turn all ham operators into subservient sheep who must humbly beg their betters for the privilege of doing something unusual. Anyone who does anything that's not expected is a danger to the Public Morality! You must conform! Gotta go; there's a helicopter circling overhead and I can't hear myselfthink. Bill, W1AC -- (Filter QRM for direct replies) |
More CC&R stuff
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 |
More CC&R stuff
"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. |
More CC&R stuff
On Feb 13, 1:52 pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
March 2010 issue of QST, page 35: "After moving in, I was told this CR also applied to any outside antennas, because the might possibly be visible to the neighbors. Drat -- time to come up with a compact stealth mode antenna..." I read this too, but if the contract says what he claimed it seems as if the FCC overruled the contract at least for some kinds of broadcast reception. For instance, they cannot forbid small satellite TV dishes. However, his solution is still not legal as the FCC specifically did not address ham radio antenna restrictions in private contracts in their OTARD rules. See: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Here we go again. Another signed contract and another evasive maneuver around it. PRB-1 does not void any private contracts (CC&Rs, lease agreements etc) like this and yes he seems to be violating the terms of his lease. Not that I would recommend breaking terms in contracts, his solution was interesting and does get him on the air. Am I missing something here? It doesn't look like it. My reading of the QST article seems to say that this guy is in violation of his lease as he understands it and as the landlord explained it when he asked. Now the landlord may be partially mistaken (that TV reception satellite antennas are really effectively banned by his lease), but everybody (the tenant and the landlord) both seem to agree that the lease restricts ham radio antennas. Clearly they would both believe that the stealth antenna is a violation of the lease, which puts the ham on bad legal footing. Personally, I'd not recommend willingly violating *any* contract terms without legal advice about the risks you are taking. Sure the landlord may not care in the long run but you *don't* want to end up in a legal battle if you can possibly avoid it. They are costly, time consuming and usually frustrating for all involved (except for the lawyers of course who get to bill by the hour.) If a ham wants to take the legal risk and put up stealth antennas to get on the air, I’m not going to complain. I may even come over and help you with the setup… I just don’t recommend taking legal risks… -= bob =- |
More CC&R stuff
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:11:21 EST, KC4UAI wrote:
Personally, I'd not recommend willingly violating *any* contract terms without legal advice about the risks you are taking. [snip] If a ham wants to take the legal risk and put up stealth antennas to get on the air, I’m not going to complain. I may even come over and help you with the setup… I just don’t recommend taking legal risks… If you help him put up an antenna which is contrary to his CCRs, wouldn't that make you an accomplice? And maybe equally liable to be sued? You'd best check this out with your lawyer beforehand. |
More CC&R stuff
On Feb 17, 6:53 am, Dick Grady AC7EL wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:11:21 EST, KC4UAI wrote: Personally, I'd not recommend willingly violating *any* contract terms without legal advice about the risks you are taking. [snip] If a ham wants to take the legal risk and put up stealth antennas to get on the air, I’m not going to complain. I may even come over and help you with the setup… I just don’t recommend taking legal risks… If you help him put up an antenna which is contrary to his CCRs, wouldn't that make you an accomplice? And maybe equally liable to be sued? You'd best check this out with your lawyer beforehand. I'm pretty sure that helping somebody assemble an antenna doesn't present much of a legal risk for me. There is no criminal issue so I don't think I would have to worry about my DA charging me with being an "accomplice" to a crime because the contract violation is a civil matter and not a crime. If you wanted me to help you assemble a small tower in your backyard, contrary to your CC&R's, the HOA is going to deal with you, the property owner not me. The HOA has no reason to fine me or legal standing to place leans on my property for a CC&R violation on your property. I suppose you could try and sue me, but I seriously doubt any jury in the world would hold me responsible for just helping you assemble something. I you could try and sue me for that. Of course, my point really is that you should fully understand the risks you are taking when you start violating contracts you have signed. Sometimes the possible consequences make it not worth taking the risk. -= bob =- |
More CC&R stuff
Dick Grady AC7EL wrote:
If you help him put up an antenna which is contrary to his CCRs, wouldn't that make you an accomplice? And maybe equally liable to be sued? You'd best check this out with your lawyer beforehand. First let's note that CC&Rs are theoretically contractual obligations. While the terms of a contract may be enforced through either arbitration or legal process, there can be no criminal liability and hence no chance of being an accomplice. 2nd, the individuals who need to consult attorneys are those who want to either enforce the terms of CC&Rs or to avoid their effect. 3rd, I'ld suggest finding out which restrictions apply to a piece of land before purchasing said property, but there are always exceptions which vary by state. Some conditions cannot be enforced, while at other times if a period of time has passed without enforcement, enforcement also isn't possible. 4th, the ideal solution would be for Congress to direct the FCC to exempt amateur installations from most such contractual obligations, and then have the FCC do so, as it did for TV antennas and dishes less than one meter in diameter. I don't see that happening in the near future, but we as hams can always hope. |
More CC&R stuff
Actually where iam from Maine you would be held accountable as well as
you gave him help or advice in doing something you know is against the home owners rules. for where he lives. they could take him and you to court or he could just take it down and they do nothing:) -- AL'S COMPUTERS "KC4UAI" wrote in message ... On Feb 17, 6:53 am, Dick Grady AC7EL wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:11:21 EST, KC4UAI wrote: Personally, I'd not recommend willingly violating *any* contract terms without legal advice about the risks you are taking. [snip] If a ham wants to take the legal risk and put up stealth antennas to get on the air, I’m not going to complain. I may even come over and help you with the setup… I just don’t recommend taking legal risks… If you help him put up an antenna which is contrary to his CCRs, wouldn't that make you an accomplice? And maybe equally liable to be sued? You'd best check this out with your lawyer beforehand. I'm pretty sure that helping somebody assemble an antenna doesn't present much of a legal risk for me. There is no criminal issue so I don't think I would have to worry about my DA charging me with being an "accomplice" to a crime because the contract violation is a civil matter and not a crime. If you wanted me to help you assemble a small tower in your backyard, contrary to your CC&R's, the HOA is going to deal with you, the property owner not me. The HOA has no reason to fine me or legal standing to place leans on my property for a CC&R violation on your property. I suppose you could try and sue me, but I seriously doubt any jury in the world would hold me responsible for just helping you assemble something. I you could try and sue me for that. Of course, my point really is that you should fully understand the risks you are taking when you start violating contracts you have signed. Sometimes the possible consequences make it not worth taking the risk. -=ob = |
More CC&R stuff
On Feb 18, 7:09 am, Art Clemons wrote:
4th, the ideal solution would be for Congress to direct the FCC to exempt amateur installations from most such contractual obligations, and then ha ve the FCC do so, as it did for TV antennas and dishes less than one meter i n diameter. I don't see that happening in the near future, but we as hams can always hope. Which is pretty much the intent of HR 2160, albeit in a round about sort of way. http://www.arrl.org/?artid”29 I'm guessing that this bill will never make it out of committee, and even if it did, there is no real hope of it directly helping this situation unless the report it commissions spurs congress to act. We've had some efforts at the Texas state level to make a state law that applies the PRB-1 language to private contracts and CC&R's but these usually never make it very far. Other states may have had more luck with this, I don't know. In Texas they where strongly opposed by the HOA management company lobby and I suspect that the same folks would come out of the wood work to oppose any efforts at the federal level. Best we can do at this point is to try and lobby our congressmen to support HR 2160 and senators to support SB 1755. See the ARRL’s information http://www.arrl.org/govrelations/ page for details on how best to help. Even if you don’t have CC&R problems now I would recommend any ham (or other interested party) urge your elected officials to support this. I would love to have a better legal position when trying to talk the HOA into letting me put up some antennas. Right now I have to pretty much beg and take what they give me. -= Bob =- |
More CC&R stuff
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:32:02 EST, KC4UAI wrote:
We've had some efforts at the Texas state level to make a state law that applies the PRB-1 language to private contracts and CC&R's but these usually never make it very far. A couple of years ago in Nevada, a bill was proposed to incorporate PRB-1 into state law, and also to extend it to CCRs. There was much opposition to the CCR part by builders, HOAs, etc. Finally, the sponsors deleted the CCR part, so that they could get the PRB-1 part into state law. The bill finally passed with the PRB-1 only. The thinking was, let's get PRB-1 passed, and fight for the CCR part another year. We're still waiting. |
More CC&R stuff
"Art Clemons" wrote in message
... Dick Grady AC7EL wrote: If you help him put up an antenna which is contrary to his CCRs, wouldn't that make you an accomplice? And maybe equally liable to be sued? You'd best check this out with your lawyer beforehand. "Accomplice" is a meaningless word with regard to civil contracts. First let's note that CC&Rs are theoretically contractual obligations. .... 4th, the ideal solution would be for Congress to direct the FCC to exempt amateur installations from most such contractual obligations, and then have the FCC do so, as it did for TV antennas and dishes less than one meter in diameter. I don't see that happening in the near future, but we as hams can always hope. Don't forget state law. For example, here in California, we had a statute protecting satellite dishes a year before the FCC imposed their federal position. |
More CC&R stuff
Andy wrote:
Actually where iam from Maine you would be held accountable as well as you gave him help or advice in doing something you know is against the home owners rules. for where he lives. they could take him and you to court or he could just take it down and they do nothing:) I'm offering no legal advice, but I strongly suggest you see a competent lawyer admitted to the bar in Maine about this. It's hard to see just how a 3rd party not contractually bound to the terms of a CC&R can be reached legally. There's no cause of action available with the possible exception of an attorney who completely mis-understood and gave really poor advice about Maine law, advice so poor that it constitutes malpractice. The property owner of property subject to a Covenant, Condition or Restriction can be reached legally under contract law, but not others. CC&Rs are treated as contractual obligations even if truthfully, most people don't realize they're entering into such a contract. I'll be honest, I don't see how a 3rd party can be sued under existing US law over a contractual obligation of another. If Maine has such a legal system, I'ld be really shocked. |
More CC&R stuff
Dick Grady AC7EL writes:
A couple of years ago in Nevada, a bill was proposed to incorporate PRB-1 into state law, and also to extend it to CCRs. There was much opposition to the CCR part by builders, HOAs, etc. Finally, the sponsors deleted the CCR part, so that they could get the PRB-1 part into state law. The bill finally passed with the PRB-1 only. The thinking was, let's get PRB-1 passed, and fight for the CCR part another year. We're still waiting. No surprise. In general, the Hill's response to an effective bill that upsets powerful folks [And make no mistake, the homebuilders are a powerful lobby group..] is to pass a watered-down bill that accomplishes little. That way, when Your Gal/Guy is stumping for reelection, [s]he can hold the bill up as a legislative accomplishment. There's every reason to believe that state legislatures work in a similar manner. -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
More CC&R stuff
On Feb 20, 9:15�am, Art Clemons wrote:
I don't see how a 3rd party can be sued under existing US law over a contractual obligation of another. I'm not a lawyer either. But it *might* be possible to go after the thrid party legally if and only if it could be shown that the third party knew of the existence of the contractual obligation from the beginning, and willfully conspired with the property owner to violate it. But that's a very hard thing to prove in many cases. For example, suppose A hires the B Fence Company to put up a fence on A's property, in an area where fences don't require building permits or inspections. A tells B where to build the fence. But it turns out that A misunderstood where the property line is, and the fence is built on C's property. (C was away from home and doesn't see the fence until the job is done). I don't think C can sue B over the fence; instead, C has to go after A. C can also remove and sell the fence - it is now C's fence because it was built on his property. A still has to pay the B Fence Company because the contract is between the two of them, and as long as B built the fence where instructed by A, that part of the contract wasfulfilled. Not an exact analogy but you get the idea. While I'm not a lawyer, things like this prove the need for thorough research before signing anything. Being told at closing that there are CC&Rs is way too late, IMHO 73 de Jim, N2EY |
More CC&R stuff
wrote:
While I'm not a lawyer, things like this prove the need for thorough research before signing anything. Being told at closing that there are CC&Rs is way too late, IMHO Which goes back to my original point behind all this. We as Amateur Radio operators must take the time to fully research a piece of property before we buy it. And we've got to understand that having a license does not give us a free pass on violating signed contracts. Sadly, I see way too many "Look how I got around the CC&R I signed with my stealth antenna installation." Seeing these repeatedly published in a national magazine makes me wonder if there's actually some tacit approval of this. Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi -- “Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.†ť Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954 http://www.stay-connect.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com