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

"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

In 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.

First, we have the OP saying he "was told" about this (apparent)
interpretation of the CR; maybe that's not what it says at all.

Further, he says that the reason for this (apparent) interpretation was
that the antennas "might possibly be visible to the neighbors."

Making an antenna which was not visible would appear to meet the
requirement of this (apparent) interpretation.

--
Bert Hyman W0RSB St. Paul, MN

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)

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.

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 =-

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.

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 =-

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.