K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

The neighborhood organization was against the ZONING change
from "R" (pure residential) to "R1" (residences plus
aparments). The original plan was for "senior citizen
apartments" which we neighbors did not like.

Why not? You're a senior citizen ;-)

He's a citzen.

There's not a whole lot "senior" about him.

No, Steve, Len is definitely a senior citizen. He's way past retirement
age.

And "forcing" Lennie to live near other's his age would be like
"forcing" him to get an Amateur Radio license...It might "force" him to
realize that he is not the Alpha and Omega of his realm.

Nobody's "forcing" Len to do any of those things. He's free to move if
he doesn't like how the neighborhood has changed.

My point about the whole zoning thing is *not* that Len or his
neighbors
did anything "wrong". The point is that they resisted a change that
others
wanted, even though the people who wanted it told them it was
"progress"
and would be a good thing for the future.

Yet Len heaps abuse on those who resist a change in the Amateur Radio
Service rules, even though the people who want the change say
it is "progress" and will be a good thing for the future.

As for the claim that those of us with licenses aren't affected by
those
changes in any significant way, note that those who already owned
houses in Sun City aren't really affected by the zoning change of R to
R1
in any really significant way.

Of course Len and his neighbors could have bought the land from the
failed developer and thus protected themselves from future development.

Let's see...if the houses cost a half million, the land for each house
might
be worth a hundred thousand. That's only 4.4 million for 44 houses. Say
5 million with all the costs. Divided among how many neighbors?

The rest is easy:

1) The neighbors pitch in and buy the land, to be held by a corporation
formed for the purpose.
2) Developers are invited to submit proposals for development.
3) When a developer comes up with a proposal that meets all the
neighbors'
requirements, that developer is allowed to proceed, subject to a tight
contract
that only turns over title to the land when all conditions are met.
4) Profit!

Yes, a two-
story house or apartment would block my VIEW that I enjoyed
for over 30 years here.

So you think your "right" to a VIEW is more important than
people having a place to live....

So...We get them to raise a privacy wall around the new buildings
and let the mural artists go to work...Then Lennie can have whatever
"view", however myopic, he wants. Maybe one with no antennas and no
faces over 40?

No mirrors?

From: on Dec 8, 4:45 pm

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:


My point about the whole zoning thing is *not* that Len or his neighbors
did anything "wrong". The point is that they resisted a change that others
wanted, even though the people who wanted it told them it was "progress"
and would be a good thing for the future.

Jimmie, you haven't gotten ONE THING right in this very NON-RADIO
subject! Here's the correct chronology:

1. The residential area where I live was zoned ENTIRELY "R"
standing for single-family residences prior to 1960 when
the first development was started. A 15-acre parcel had
been used for freeway base fill from the decomposed granite
common in these Verdugo Hills; that parcel was also zoned
"R."

2. At the time I purchased my house in 1963, the residential
area was half completed up to the next higher cross-street,
that being completed in 1962. The 15-acre parcel remained
vacant, undeveloped.

3. By 1973 the remainder of the residential area was fully
developed, all the way to the top, all the way along Glenoaks
Blvd save for one small open area to the still-undeveloped
15-acre parcel.

4. About 1988, a contractor-developer purchased the 15-acre
parcel and tried various schemes to rearrange this parcel
which had a maximum elevation difference of about 350 feet.
Well before that year the entire area was fully developed
and inhabited, the only easement being the Lutheran church now
named "All Saints" at the intersection of Lanark and Glenoaks.

5. By 1989 the only possible way this first developer could make
any profit at all was to build apartments. Zoning did not
permit apartments so the Zoning Commission was told the
developer he would have to sell the idea to the residents
surrounding that parcel. The first developer tried, using
community meetings at the church. The neighborhood
association opposed that in no uncertain terms.

6. In 1990 the matter was brought up for public discussion at
a Zoning Commission open meeting to change the Zoning from
"R" to "R1," the latter designation meaning residential but
multi-family (apartment) structures. The developer
presented his case. The neighborhood association presented
theirs, pointing out that ALL plots surrounding this parcel
were "R." The Zoning Board made some noises saying that
the planned "senior citizen apartments" would be "beneficial
to the community" (none of the Board members lived within
10 miles of this area and knew dink about it first-hand).

7. In the next ten years the first developer became a figure in
bribery (guess who of) and he managed to sell it to a second
development firm. NO "senior apartments" had been built but
the first developer had been forced to annually clear the
15 acre parcel of dry brush per fire code. The second
developer got a much better civil engineer and planned for a
walled community of 44 two-story homes (upscale) with full
drainage and streets and utilities underground. That plan
was shown to the neighborhood association in late 2000 but
got no admiration. The association could do nothing since
that did not interfere with the ORIGINAL "R" zoning.

8. Earth moving began in early 2001 and continued for 9 months
until the 44 plots could begin building. The amount of
earth moved was somewhere between 220 and 250 thousand
cubic yards. The average size of the plots was a quarter
acre...most are smaller, only the "corner" lots being
as large as a third acre. Sell price began at $500
thousand in 2001, highest being $800 thou. All were sold
before building was completed.

Yet Len heaps abuse on those who resist a change in the Amateur Radio
Service rules, even though the people who want the change say
it is "progress" and will be a good thing for the future.

Poor baby, got "abuse" dumped on you?

Jimmie, you ignorant little flyweight arguer, note the above.
Were there ever anything but RESIDENCES involved? No. At the
time the first developer went for the zoning change, 400 acres
of residences were ALREADY surrounding that empty parcel. Except
for the church (off to one corner), COMPLETELY surrounding that
unused for over 28 years parcel. What "progress" would 44 homes,
all single-family units, have brought to an area ALREADY full of
single-family residences filling 400 acres?

Those much-vaunted "senior citizen apartments" were never built.
The payola to convince the Zoning Commission members only enriched
their pockets. The first developer went out of business.

As for the claim that those of us with licenses aren't affected by those
changes in any significant way, note that those who already owned
houses in Sun City aren't really affected by the zoning change of R to
R1 in any really significant way.

Dumb****, I don't live in "Sun City, Arizona." Where I live is
NOT some "retirement community." Home owner ages range from 30s
(couple across the street from me) to 80s (uphill neighbor) to
50s (two houses below) to 40s (corner house two houses above
me).

Of course Len and his neighbors could have bought the land from the
failed developer and thus protected themselves from future development.

Bull****, ignorant slut. YOU could have gotten the story CORRECT
instead of making up a poor verbal assassination attempt. You
could have at least gotten the suburb NAME correct. My byline
with full surface mail address has been in Ham Radio magazine
enough times...as well as in the FCC ECFS.

Can't you get ANYTHING right?!?

There are NO restrictions on antenna structures in my neighborhood
other than FAA regulations...it is a mile and a half from the
closest part of BUR (Bob Hope Airport in Burbank). Two blocks
uphill from me lives an amateur with an HF beam and some wire
antennas...plus at least three other houses with CB verticals.
Many more satellite broadcast antennas here than ham or CB even
though we have both analog and digital TV cable distribution.

Jimmie boy, you TALK a bit too big for not knowing a damn thing
about the subject. I must admit it would have been fun to see
you at an association meeting or Zoning Commission meeting talking
FOR changing residence zoning from "R" to "R1" "in the name of
PROGRESS!!!" I'll bet you would have run, cowering in fear of
the irate association members, unable to stand up to grown ups
who were living there FIRST!

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try, oh please TRY to understand that this newsgroup is about
amateur radio policy, NOT residencial zoning laws.

"residential."

wrote:
From: on Dec 8, 4:45 pm
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

My point about the whole zoning thing is *not* that Len or his neighbors
did anything "wrong". The point is that they resisted a change that others
wanted, even though the people who wanted it told them it was "progress"
and would be a good thing for the future.

Jimmie, you haven't gotten ONE THING right in this very NON-RADIO
subject!

Actually, Len, I got the important stuff completely right!

Here's the correct chronology:

How is it any different from what I wrote?

1. The residential area where I live was zoned ENTIRELY "R"
standing for single-family residences prior to 1960 when
the first development was started.

1960 was 45 years ago. Why do you live in the past? Must things
like zoning never ever change?

A 15-acre parcel had
been used for freeway base fill from the decomposed granite
common in these Verdugo Hills; that parcel was also zoned
"R."

But nobody ever built on it. Those 15 acres were vacant and open -
undeveloped - right? Still zoned "R" but nobody built or lived there.

2. At the time I purchased my house in 1963, the residential
area was half completed up to the next higher cross-street,
that being completed in 1962. The 15-acre parcel remained
vacant, undeveloped.

1963 was 42 years ago. Do you think that the 15 acre parcel had to
remain undeveloped and unchanged forever?

3. By 1973 the remainder of the residential area was fully
developed, all the way to the top, all the way along Glenoaks
Blvd save for one small open area to the still-undeveloped
15-acre parcel.

1973 was 32 years ago. The 15 acre parcel itself was still undeveloped
- right?
Nobody had built anything on it and nobody lived there.

4. About 1988, a contractor-developer purchased the 15-acre
parcel and tried various schemes to rearrange this parcel
which had a maximum elevation difference of about 350 feet.

Ah! Somebody else owned it, and that developer bought it - for *money*.
It became the developer's property, not yours and not your neighbors.
Yet you sought to tightly control what the developer could do with
*his*
15 acres.

Well before that year the entire area was fully developed
and inhabited, the only easement being the Lutheran church now
named "All Saints" at the intersection of Lanark and Glenoaks.

But the area was *not* "fully developed and inhabited" if there was a
15 acre parcel with no residences on it!

5. By 1989 the only possible way this first developer could make
any profit at all was to build apartments.

1989 was 16 years ago, Len.

More important - how was it that the only possible way the developer
could make any money was to build apartments? Were housing prices
so low that single-family homes or duplexes could not be built and
sold?

Is there anything wrong with a developer making a profit by building
homes
for people to live in?

Zoning did not
permit apartments so the Zoning Commission was told the
developer he would have to sell the idea to the residents
surrounding that parcel.

"the Zoning Commission was told the developer"??? What the heck is that
supposed to mean?

Did you mean:

'Existing zoning did not permit apartments so the Zoning
Commission told the developer that he would have to sell
the idea of a zoning change to the residents surrounding
the 15 acre parcel.'

?

The first developer tried, using
community meetings at the church.

So he was upfront and honest about what he wanted to do
with the land that had lain undeveloped for so long.

The neighborhood
association opposed that in no uncertain terms.

Where did the neighborhood association come from? Was
it pre-existing or was it created for the purpose of opposing
that first developer?

And why was it even needed? Couldn't individual citizens
deal directly with their government?

What percentage of the residents were dues-paying members
of the neighborhood association? Was membership voluntary or
mandatory?

6. In 1990 the matter was brought up for public discussion at
a Zoning Commission open meeting to change the Zoning from
"R" to "R1," the latter designation meaning residential but
multi-family (apartment) structures.

1990 was 15 years ago, Len.

The developer
presented his case. The neighborhood association presented
theirs, pointing out that ALL plots surrounding this parcel
were "R."

So you were trying to apply and retain the standards and practices of
1960 to the 15 acre parcel of 1990. You were resisting change, trying
to keep things as they were when you came to the community. Everyone
had to build their house the way yours was built (single family
residences)
and that must never change. By law.

The Zoning Board made some noises saying that
the planned "senior citizen apartments" would be "beneficial
to the community"

Progress! Change! The future, not the past! Yet you wanted the
standards of 1960, not 1990. You wanted everyone to do it the
way you did it, not some other way. IOW, NIMBY.

(none of the Board members lived within
10 miles of this area and knew dink about it first-hand).

So they were outsiders who were trying to impose change on
you, without having "paid their dues" by being part of the
community.

Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.

None of the Zoning Commission folks lived in your area. None
of the FCC Commissioners is a radio amateur or an engineer.

An outside nonresident developer tried to push change on
those who lived there. An outside unlicensed retired-from-
regular-hours gadfly (you) keeps trying to push change on
amateur radio (not just Morse Code test elimination but
other things like age limits and one license class).

The neighborhood association tried to present what its
members wanted - just as the ARRL tries to present what
its members want....

Pretty clear what the connection is!

7. In the next ten years the first developer became a figure in
bribery (guess who of) and he managed to sell it to a second
development firm.

"became a figure in bribery"??? That's a serious charge of criminal
wrongdoing, Len. Do you have any evidence?

Was he indicted? Brought to trial? Found guilty?

NO "senior apartments" had been built but
the first developer had been forced to annually clear the
15 acre parcel of dry brush per fire code.

So you managed to hold back "progress" for a while.

The second
developer got a much better civil engineer and planned for a
walled community of 44 two-story homes (upscale) with full
drainage and streets and utilities underground.

So the new developer had to meet standards *you* didn't have to
meet (are your utilities all underground?) Not because they
were necessary to the functioning of the houses but because
*the neighbors* had to be placated.

That plan
was shown to the neighborhood association in late 2000 but
got no admiration. The association could do nothing since
that did not interfere with the ORIGINAL "R" zoning.

So the second developer, even though he could have built apartments
under the revised zoning, chose to build single-family homes instead.

So in a way the neighborhood association *won* and held back change!
The standards of 1960 were applied to 2000! But you're not *still* not
happy!

8. Earth moving began in early 2001 and continued for 9 months
until the 44 plots could begin building. The amount of
earth moved was somewhere between 220 and 250 thousand
cubic yards.

Would all that dirt moving have been necessary if apartments had
been built?

The average size of the plots was a quarter
acre...most are smaller, only the "corner" lots being
as large as a third acre.

You described them disdainfully as "itty-bitty", Len. As if there's
something wrong with using land efficiently.

Sell price began at $500
thousand in 2001, highest being $800 thou. All were sold
before building was completed.

Yet you're *still* not happy!

Why didn't the neighborhood association just buy the land?

Yet Len heaps abuse on those who resist a change in the Amateur Radio
Service rules, even though the people who want the change say
it is "progress" and will be a good thing for the future.

Poor baby, got "abuse" dumped on you?

Anyone who disagrees with you gets abuse dumped on them, Len.
It's what you do here.


[abusive nonsense deleted]

note the above.

I did - put in plenty of notes.

Were there ever anything but RESIDENCES involved? No.

Why is that important?

At the
time the first developer went for the zoning change, 400 acres
of residences were ALREADY surrounding that empty parcel. Except
for the church (off to one corner), COMPLETELY surrounding that
unused for over 28 years parcel.

So what? Is there any magic requirement or law of nature that says
that parcel has to be like all the others around it? That its little
boxes
on the hillside have to be like all the other little boxes on that
hillside -
all made out of ticky-tacky and all looking just the same?

What "progress" would 44 homes,
all single-family units, have brought to an area ALREADY full of
single-family residences filling 400 acres?

New people. New architecture. More tax revenue. More diversity.
Apartments would have brought even more, but you resisted them.

What "progress" will removing the Morse Code test bring to
the HF/MF amateur radio bands?

What "progress" will reducing the number of license classes
to just one bring to amateur radio?

What "progress" will rejecting young people bring to
amateur radio?

Those much-vaunted "senior citizen apartments" were never built.

So, you won! Youshould be happy, but you sound miserable, because
the new houses block your view.

The payola to convince the Zoning Commission members only enriched
their pockets. The first developer went out of business.

Do you have any evidence of "payola"?

As for the claim that those of us with licenses aren't affected by those
changes in any significant way, note that those who already owned
houses in Sun City aren't really affected by the zoning change of R to
R1 in any really significant way.

[abuse deleted]

I don't live in "Sun City, Arizona."

Nobody said you did.

Where I live is
NOT some "retirement community."

Aren't you "retired from regular hours", Len?

Home owner ages range from 30s
(couple across the street from me) to 80s (uphill neighbor) to
50s (two houses below) to 40s (corner house two houses above
me).

But nobody younger than 30s, and most are 40s and up.

Of course Len and his neighbors could have bought the land from the
failed developer and thus protected themselves from future development.

[more abuse deleted]

YOU could have gotten the story CORRECT
instead of making up a poor verbal assassination attempt.

What *are( you talking about, Len?

Was it impossible for the neighbors to have bought that 15 acre parcel?

400 acres of surrounding properties - maybe 800 homes - couldn't buy
that 15 acre parcel? Why not?

You
could have at least gotten the suburb NAME correct. My byline
with full surface mail address has been in Ham Radio magazine
enough times...as well as in the FCC ECFS.

Can't you get ANYTHING right?!?

So I made a little mistake about the name. Big deal. I got all the
important facts right!

There are NO restrictions on antenna structures in my neighborhood
other than FAA regulations...it is a mile and a half from the
closest part of BUR (Bob Hope Airport in Burbank).

But *you* don't have any radio antennas above the roofline, do you?

Two blocks
uphill from me lives an amateur with an HF beam and some wire
antennas...plus at least three other houses with CB verticals.
Many more satellite broadcast antennas here than ham or CB even
though we have both analog and digital TV cable distribution.

Who was talking about antennas?

Jimmie boy, you TALK a bit too big for not knowing a damn thing
about the subject.

I got all the important stuff right, Len.

I must admit it would have been fun to see
you at an association meeting or Zoning Commission meeting talking
FOR changing residence zoning from "R" to "R1" "in the name of
PROGRESS!!!" I'll bet you would have run, cowering in fear of
the irate association members, unable to stand up to grown ups
who were living there FIRST!

That's where you're wrong, Len.

This summer I did major renovation work to my residence. Needed a
variance
to do some of it, and permits to do all of it. Went before the local
Board and
got everything I wanted in the variance, and all the permits. Plus the
neighbors
are happy and supportive.

And I have my antennas.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try, oh please TRY to understand that this newsgroup is about
amateur radio policy, NOT residencial zoning laws.

Then why did you bring it up?

Fact is, you thought those 15 acres would be undeveloped forever. You
thought you had some rights to keeping them as they always were.

And you were wrong.

But what really ticks you off is the realization that *you* are just
like
the developers you despise.

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the regulations that
would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the
regulations that would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for HF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during the
larger voice contests. With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for HF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band.

I'm an enthusiastic user of CW, but I fully support such a plan. Let "market
forces" and usage-centric gentlemens agreements determine band usage.

Morse users currently can use that mode on literally all the amateur-allocated
frequencies with the exception of the five channels on 5Mhz. On a "larger" CW
contest weekend they could (perfectly legally) use any frequency (that was not
occupied) for CW contesting.

Why should CW be alone in such a generous allocation?

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans forHF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band.

I'm an enthusiastic user of CW, but I fully support such a plan. Let "market
forces" and usage-centric gentlemens agreements determine band usage.

Morse users currently can use that mode on literally all the amateur-allocated
frequencies with the exception of the five channels on 5Mhz.

And 220 FWTW.

On a "larger" CW
contest weekend they could (perfectly legally) use any frequency (that was not
occupied) for CW contesting.

Why should CW be alone in such a generous allocation?

73, de Hans, K0HB

Now that's a finely crafted troll!

Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the
regulations that would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for HF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during the
larger voice contests.

Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through.

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the
regulations that would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for HF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during
the
larger voice contests.

Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through.

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.
________________________________________________
End Quote



No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE