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 =-