Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
USA HR-4969
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
USA HR-4969
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 ================== |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
USA HR-4969
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
USA HR-4969
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
USA HR-4969
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 =- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
USA HR-4969
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). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
USA HR-4969
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 =- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
USA HR-4969
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 18:08:49 EDT, KC4UAI wrote:
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. In FCC Docket 96-83, the proceeding that established the FCC's OTARD rules (Section 1.4000) as directed by Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there was specific wording that the "preemption" applied to antennas used exclusively for TV/video reception or for transmission incidental to operation of such systems (subscriber feedback, download ordering, etc.) A "TV antenna" or look-alike used for ham radio is specifically not preempted nor is there any intent to preempt ham radio antennas even if used for TV reception. Good try but no cigar! 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
USA HR-4969
On Friday, August 15, 2014 11:38:58 PM UTC-5, Phil Kane wrote:
In FCC Docket 96-83, the proceeding that established the FCC's OTARD rules (Section 1.4000) as directed by Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there was specific wording that the "preemption" applied to antennas used exclusively for TV/video reception or for transmission incidental to operation of such systems (subscriber feedback, download ordering, etc.) A "TV antenna" or look-alike used for ham radio is specifically not preempted nor is there any intent to preempt ham radio antennas even if used for TV reception. I didn't figure it was "legal", only that it was unlikely for the HOA to know the difference between me using an old TV antenna to top load a small tower and actually using it for TV reception. If it looks like something that the FCC preempted, maybe they wouldn't say anything, or if I actually used it for TV reception at first and drew the objection, rightfully claimed the preemption, they'd unlikely try again and I'd be able to modify things for Ham use without too much worry. Old TV antennas still work on the new TV spectrum and seem like they would be worth at least some amount of top loading if shorted to the support structure. Arranging a shunt feed on the mast for a few bands shouldn't be too hard. The other option I've considered is to just go ask if I can put up a ground mounted vertical in the back yard, with the understanding that only about 20' of antenna might be visible from the road and I would take it down before I sold the house. Then there is the third approach, what I'm doing now. I just put up stuff that I don't think anybody would see and I that I don't mind taking down (i.e. they are cheap wire affairs). So far, that's worked as long as I didn't go too gaudy. The coax trap inverted V dipole with the 20' painter's pole center support was a bit much for them, but I did share a backyard fence with the board president so I didn't expect that to fly. When you get a warning letter, they give you 30 days to comply, then it takes 60 more days to actually get a fine, at least here in Texas. 90 days is plenty of time to cut down some wire if they got insistent about it. -= Kc4uai =- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|