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 =-

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

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 =-

On 8/17/2014 9:43 PM, Bill Horne W1AC wrote:
For the low bands, a flagpole is always a good choice, although
adequate grounding radials can get expensive, but they, and a shunt
feed, are easy to pass off as "Lightning protection" required by your
insurance carrier.

But please don't.

And

It does seem, IMHO, to be unwise to set yourself up to create enemies
when you don't have to.

Which is WHY I have consistently taken issue with the almost monthly
articles in QST about how to violate the contract you signed when you
moved into your house.

The FCC Grant to use spectrum is just that. A grant to use a wide
variety of spectrum. It doesn't carry with it all the other things
that some people think it does. Like the right to violate a written
contract, or negate planning and inspection on towers etc.



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

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 20:20:52 EDT, KC4UAI wrote:

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.

I would never advise a client to knowingly violate a law or breach a
contract obligation on the basis "they'll never know the difference".
That's not how I personally practice law. Whether such law or
provision is "reasonable" or not is a different matter.

One thing to consider about whether "they" will catch you or not - it
depends on how much money the HOA wants to invest up front (they can
recover the costs of enforcement after litigation) and the companion
reason - depends on how bad they want to get you. Firms like ours and
our competitors are in the business of determining whether antennas
are active and on what frequencies. With modern technology there is
little need for the extended "stakeouts" of yore.

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On Monday, August 18, 2014 2:45:35 PM UTC-5, Phil Kane wrote:

I would never advise a client to knowingly violate a law or breach a
contract obligation on the basis "they'll never know the difference".

No smart lawyer would tell his client that it was OK to proceed to
violate the terms of a contract. If I was advising somebody, I would
say the same as you and add that they might want to get legal advice
from an attorney before doing anything rash.


Whether such law or
provision is "reasonable" or not is a different matter.


In this case, I don't think my "it's unreasonable" claim
would carry much weight. If we got to the imposition of a fine
stage for this, I'd be unlikely to prevail in court. I know that.


One thing to consider about whether "they" will catch you or not - it
depends on how much money the HOA wants to invest up front (they can
recover the costs of enforcement after litigation) and the companion
reason - depends on how bad they want to get you.

The process the HOA usually goes though is to 1. send a warning letter
giving me 30 days to "fix" any problems. 2. Sending the "official"
notice that they intend to fine me, setting the "final" deadline.
3. Then, they can start assessment of fines and/or fix the problem
themselves at my expense. All this costs them $$ up front as the
management company bills them at each stage.

My general plan is to comply with all warnings I receive within the
specified time. To this end, my current plan is to put up antennas I
don't mind taking down and doing my best to not draw too much
attention to what I'm doing. This means using "natural" supports
(trees, house, fences etc) to hold up some cheap wire and trying to
keep things out of sight as much as I can.

Where I am knowingly violating the terms of the CC&R's (BTW something
that is open to some debate as the Antenna policy is not in the
deed restrictions directly, but in a separate Architectural document
which has not actually been attached to my deed) I am not taking much
of a risk, unless they decide to abandon their standard process for me
and go straight to imposing fines without first requesting that I
comply.

Firms like ours and
our competitors are in the business of determining whether antennas
are active and on what frequencies. With modern technology there is
little need for the extended "stakeouts" of yore.


I'd like to hear about the equipment used for what used to take a
physical presence to figure out.

On 8/19/2014 6:28 AM, KC4UAI wrote:
Where I am knowingly violating the terms of the CC&R's

Ok, I'm a little unclear on the concept here.
What is your basis for knowing violating the terms on a
contract you signed?



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