Jeffrey Angus wrote:

f you bought property that clearly states "No out-
side antennas" that means just that. Whether it's
a 70' tower, flag pole, garden sculpture or bird
house.

First let's not that most CC&Rs and/or Home Owner Asocciation terms are not
clearly stated nor are they easy to discover on your own. I used to see
CC&Rs that were recorded on one section of land and then incorporated by
reference to the terms on another plot. Home Owner Associations are often
have their powers set up by the builder, and many buyers don't discover they
are affected by the terms of the HOA until either they run afoul of the
terms or they are affected by the deeds or actions of another supposed
member. It's not likely that hidden terms will go away anytime soon, but I
suggest that a limited life for the existence of cc&rs or Home Owner
Associations might not be a bad idea. The concept of something running with
the land isn't one most folk readily grasp!

In article Art Clemons writes:
Jeffrey Angus wrote:

f you bought property that clearly states "No out-
side antennas" that means just that. Whether it's
a 70' tower, flag pole, garden sculpture or bird
house.

First let's not that most CC&Rs and/or Home Owner Asocciation terms are not
clearly stated nor are they easy to discover on your own.

This is why one must insist on seeing the details before signing.

Alan

Alan wrote:

First let's not that most CC&Rs and/or Home Owner Asocciation terms are
not clearly stated nor are they easy to discover on your own.

This is why one must insist on seeing the details before signing.


If it were that simple, no problem, but convenants and restrictions running
with the land are often well hidden. Truthfully a seller only has to be
able to legally convey the property and use of the land it sits on, any
other deed restrictions are there. Even an attorney who specializes in real
estate can miss well hidden CC&Rs or not notice how significant antennas
being restricted, or not being able to park an RV in the backyard can be
until after it's too late. HOAs can be really problematic, even after
you've lived some place for let's say 2 decades, said association can change
its rules/regulations and produce results which are really undesirable.

The really sad part is that the FCC could decrease restrictions on Antennas
and supporting structures rather easily as it did with satellite dishes and
less than one meter TV antennas, but I suggest that builders and realty
sellers oppose any such change.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:12:54 EDT, Art Clemons
wrote:

The really sad part is that the FCC could decrease restrictions on Antennas
and supporting structures rather easily as it did with satellite dishes and
less than one meter TV antennas, but I suggest that builders and realty
sellers oppose any such change.

The FCC adopted the OTARD rule for TV antennas and satellite dishes
only because The Congress mandated such. We have been trying to get a
similar mandate for many years and it's falling on Congressional deaf
ears.. The FCC was very clear a few years ago that absent such a
Congressional mandate, it will not make such a rule on its own.

As for "hidden" restrictions, many states, including California,
require that the seller (through agent, if that is how the
transaction is made), provide the buyer with a true copy of both the
list of CC&Rs and any HOA rules that affect the property and the buyer
has the option to review and decline to proceed with the purchase,
just as with a title search and home defect inspection.

When we bought this house in Oregon, we had our agent's office request
that info from the county recorder through a title search company
before we even got serious, and we declined several houses which were
nicer and newer because there were such restrictions, including one
brand new townhouse that screamed "CC&Rs" even though they couldn't
find any on file. It's called "exercising due diligence".
-- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On 10/17/11 3:05 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
The FCC adopted the OTARD rule for TV antennas and satellite dishes
only because The Congress mandated such. We have been trying to get a
similar mandate for many years and it's falling on Congressional deaf
ears. ...

They were heavily lobbied by the satellite interest groups who have deep
pockets...Murdoch and his ilk. Hams can't offer them anything comparable
so we're just SOL...

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:12:54 EDT, Art Clemons
wrote:

The really sad part is that the FCC could decrease restrictions on Antennas
and supporting structures rather easily as it did with satellite dishes and
less than one meter TV antennas, but I suggest that builders and realty
sellers oppose any such change.

The FCC says that they lack the authority to override CC&Rs and HOA
agreements as they are between private parties, but that they would
override them if Congress passes a law giving them permission. So,
let's lobby our federal lawmakers to pass such a law. That's the way
the TV industry got the FCC to override CC&Rs and HOAs for TV
receiving antennas.

Dick Grady, AC7EL

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:23:20 EDT, wrote:

So,
let's lobby our federal lawmakers to pass such a law. That's the way
the TV industry got the FCC to override CC&Rs and HOAs for TV
receiving antennas.

There has been a bill to that effect introduced in the last three (or
is it four now) sessions and it dies in committee. One of the
powerful leaders of the House is a ham. The League is on top of it.
Bottom line -- Money talks.
-- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On 10/18/2011 4:59 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:23:20 EDT, wrote:

So,
let's lobby our federal lawmakers to pass such a law. That's the way
the TV industry got the FCC to override CC&Rs and HOAs for TV
receiving antennas.

There has been a bill to that effect introduced in the last three (or
is it four now) sessions and it dies in committee. One of the
powerful leaders of the House is a ham. The League is on top of it.
Bottom line -- Money talks.

OK, I'm going to be the one who opens the box Pandora left lying around:
get ready for some fireworks.

I'm going to ask a serious, and seriously discomfiting, question -

Do Hams _DESERVE_ special treatment?

I'm not going to mince words: if we're going to overcome HOA/CC&R
restrictions, we need to have a real, believable, valid argument that
can convince legislatures and neighbors that we deserve it, and I can't
think of one: there are hams seriously dedicated to public service and
EmCom, but their numbers are small, and I don't think that hams have
enough of a claim on the government's pool of good will to warrant being
given special privileges to rescind contract provisions which we don't like.

I've written about this before, and it's as applicable to this debate as
to arguments about what frequency assignments we're "entitled to", or
being excepted from the laws against having a radio that can listen to
the police channels, or to getting a discount on vanity license plates.

I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see how ham radio can dig itself
out of the hole that changing technology and computer-synthesized
frequency-agile public safety radio networks have put us in.

* It's not enough to say that we know Morse code: even if it were still
required, it wouldn't be relevant.

*It's not enough to say that we know things that others don't: the
expertise which used to be required to make disparate networks and
radios inter-operate has been programmed into LSIC chips inside public
safety transceivers, and changing them to form a new team is a matter of
a few minutes time.

* It's not enough to claim that we can carry messages: public safety
agencies have had the capacity to communicate outside of disaster areas
for years, and "Heatlh and Welfare" traffic is a "feel good" capability
that doesn't translate into votes.

I'm not saying that ham radio is dead: that's not the question here. The
question is if "we" deserve special consideration from the government
because we're hams.

Look, guys, Pandora left a box behind!

Bill, W1AC

--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM to email me directly)

On 10/18/11 9:22 PM, Bill Horne wrote:

I'm not saying that ham radio is dead: that's not the question here. The
question is if "we" deserve special consideration from the government
because we're hams.

I agree with your contention. No, ham radio is not dead . . . but we
cannot expect any special treatment based on knowledge or abilities that
we can provide. Part of this is progress in technology and part of it
is our own fault.

Developments in technology have reduced the need for what we can offer.
Mother Nature still reminds us that our fine technology is at her
pleasure, but not often. Hurricane Katrina illustrated the frailty of
modern communications, but it also illustrated how things have changed
in the role of ham radio in disasters. We no longer are a significant
carrier of health and welfare traffic.

There are groups that do a good job of public service and obtaining
recognition, but they're rare and getting rarer. The general public,
and by extension the legislators who make our laws, perceive ham radio
in the same way that they knew Citizens Band in its day, and that
perception is painfully accurate. If we don't provide a benefit to the
public, why should the public make any effort to reward us?

73, Steve KB9X

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:12:54 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:


The really sad part is that the FCC could decrease restrictions on
Antennas and supporting structures rather easily as it did with
satellite dishes and less than one meter TV antennas, but I suggest tha
t
builders and realty sellers oppose any such change.

You can make a mighty fine HF antenna system and disguise it as an OTA
receiver antenna.

I specifically asked for no deed restrictions when I went house hunting
and my realtor found me a great neighborhood full of non-judgmental gear-
heads and garage bands. We block off cul-de-sacs and have block parties;
not exactly Leisure World...