Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================== |