On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

Really?

Put yourself in the shoes of an average person. You know nothing more
about ham radio than that it's a hobby that some people enjoy, like
collecting stamps. You may know something about its reputation for
providing communication in times of emergency.

But as this average person, you've seen huge unsightly ham antenna
farms. Yes, I used the word "unsightly". To the average person, the
things that are a delight to the eye of a ham are ugly.

And ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.

Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".

So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime.
It is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

73, Steve KB9X

On 8/10/2014 9:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

As I said previously. People move into areas protected by HOAs
and CC&Rs because they don't want to live next to the "wrong"
kind of people. Unfortunately, Amateur radio operators are also
the "wrong" kind of people that the others in the neighborhoods
are trying to avoid.

--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

In article ,
Foxs Mercantile wrote:

As I said previously. People move into areas protected by HOAs
and CC&Rs because they don't want to live next to the "wrong"
kind of people.

I expect it's more often the case that people move into such areas
because the find a house/condo they like at a price they can afford
in an area that's close to where they work or where there are good
schools. Appearance rules must surely be of much lesser consideration
to most people.


Patty

On 8/10/2014 10:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

Really?

.... ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.

Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".

So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

I'm not asking why average citizens would want to have CC&R's that
forbid skyhooks: each to his own, etc.

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

73,

Bill W1AC


--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)

On 8/10/2014 2:10 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
On 8/10/2014 10:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

Really?

... ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.

Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".

So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

I'm not asking why average citizens would want to have CC&R's that
forbid skyhooks: each to his own, etc.

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

73,

Bill W1AC



Politicians are people and homeowners, also. And they listen to their
voters (at least the smart ones do). When a few NIMBY's raise a big cry
about something, politicians listen.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:10:32 EDT, Bill Horne
wrote:

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

CC&R's originated because municipalities attached conditions to
building permits issued to developers. The developers were expected
to pass on these requirements to the home buyers in the form of a
contract. In effect, they are a private contract to enforce some
zoning restrictions. Later, the various home owners associations
added additional restrictions that would only work in a contract.
http://realestate.findlaw.com/owning-a-home/cc-r-basics.html
Here's a typical CC&R history of one development:
http://www.sanantoniohills.com/sah_history.htm

The benefits to the developers is that CC&R's generally produce higher
property values and gets the planning department off their backs. The
benefit to the city or county is that they don't have to pay anything
to enforce many of their zoning rules. The benefit to the bank and
mortgage holders is that properties with CC&R's tend to have higher
property values. The benefits to the buyer is that CC&R's generally
insure that the neighborhood won't turn into a slum overnight and will
probably increase in property value when it comes time to sell. The
benefits to the politicians are increased contributions from
developers, higher property tax revenues due to somewhat higher
appraised values, and well controlled demographics useful for
campaigning and re-election.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:10:32 EDT, Bill Horne
wrote:

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

Bill, they don't have to "add" anti-antenna CC&Rs. They have been in
there for 50 years from the days when the cable companies paid the
developers put them in to stop private TV antennas -- and new
developments take the "cookie cutter" approach and just copy the
existing ones. The average home buyer doesn't take the time to read
those parts of the purchase contract anyhow -- anything past the price
and interest and "points" is gobbledygook except to the lawyers. Heck,
the "CC&Rs" for my (now former) condo apartment in California even had
references to filing and recording in the wrong county!

My only gripe about the proposed HR-4969 is that it covers CC&Rs and
similar private land use restrictions but does not explicitly cover
rental properties' "landlord's rules" (like the one where I live
now). Anyone for a lawsuit? g

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 6:52:00 PM UTC-5, Phil Kane wrote
they don't have to "add" anti-antenna CC&Rs.
They have been in there for 50 years

You got that right. My house is just about 15 years old yet
the CC&R's still contain boilerplate language that is obviously
preempted by the FCC's rules. Not only that, my home was built
by a very large national builder and they apparently use the
exact same language in all their subdivisions here in Texas.
In a quick search of the land records for my county I found
5 other subdivisions that had only the legal description of the
land changed when they filed the CC&R's. They do cookie cutter
houses and have paperwork to match.

I was wondering though. Given the section on antennas in my
CC&R's is largely illegal now that they where preempted
by the FCC, could one argue that because the section is
illegal, it cannot be enforced?

-= Bob =-

In article ,
KC4UAI wrote:

I was wondering though. Given the section on antennas in my
CC&R's is largely illegal now that they where preempted
by the FCC, could one argue that because the section is
illegal, it cannot be enforced?

Thought 1 - check for a "severability" clause.

Thought 2 - the fact that parts of the section have been preempted,
doesn't mean that they're "illegal" - simply that those specific
sections cannot be enforced. There's no illegality (crime) in those
sections being present in your CC&Rs, but they've been de-fanged.

If your HOA were to try to enforce the preempted sections, and
persisted in doing so even after being formally advised that these
sections have been preempted, you might be in a position to
counter-sue the HOA (for your costs, at least), and perhaps get a
court order enjoining them from further attempts to enforce.

I really doubt that any of this would help you, in dealing with the
application of these rules to antennas which don't qualify for the
OTARD preemption (e.g. ham antennas).

On Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:23:44 PM UTC-5, David Platt wrote:


I really doubt that any of this would help you, in dealing with the

application of these rules to antennas which don't qualify for the

OTARD preemption (e.g. ham antennas).

I figured that this would only let me put up a TV antenna. But I also
know that to the untrained eye, a TV antenna and a VHF/UHF beam might
look pretty similar. But I was also hoping to get the HOA used to
thinking that the antenna restrictions where unenforceable. Then put
up a vertical with a TV antenna on top for loading.

Of course, if we could get congress to exempt ham radio from CC&Rs,
that would be a good thing I think.

For now, I'm going to have to dream about being active on HF with a
reasonable antenna and make do with what I can hide in the attic and
in the ever taller trees in the yard. Someday, maybe, I can move
and do a real antenna farm, but then it will be the wife I have to
contend with and I dare say she's tougher than the HOA.

-= KC4UAI =-