Clint,
Actually, it's exactly like what I said. Please
don't attribute any more to what I said than what
was actually there. You don't have the slightest idea
of how I feel about HOAs so comments like yours only
show an ability to jump to a conclusion without any
supporting evidence. Sort of like reading the "National
Enquirer"(s), entertaining but worthless...
'Doc

receiving antennas can be hidden quite well. Some of us are licensed ham
and enjoy our hobby as you do. Just because we move into a new home in a
new area why should we give up the hobby we so enjoy?

Why, if ham radio is such an importaint part of your life, was it not
included in your plans for a new home?
If I wanted an antenna farm the last place I would look for property would
be in a housing project.
I would be looking at a rual area where there is lots of trees to hang
wire
from and lots of ground to plant towers.

Willee


That is what I am in the process of doing now. As I was a ham when I bought
my first house and was very much into VHF weak signal work I told the real
estate agent the house had to be on a hill and no restrictions. He found me
one that is about 200 feet above most of the county. As I would rather play
radio than mow the grass, the second requirement was no restrictions on the
land.

I am now looking for another house or some land to build on after 25 years
in this house. I have turned down several places just because of the
height. Turned down one just because it was in a development that met most
of the other requirements.

Ya see, Ralph, you got your ducks in a row.
You sat down and thought about what you wanted and went out after it.
Sounds like you got a very good location there.
If you plan to sell your present home I bet there are hams who would like to
buy it
.... if you leave the towers up. (grin)

Willee


"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
...
receiving antennas can be hidden quite well. Some of us are licensed
ham
and enjoy our hobby as you do. Just because we move into a new home in
a
new area why should we give up the hobby we so enjoy?

Why, if ham radio is such an importaint part of your life, was it not
included in your plans for a new home?
If I wanted an antenna farm the last place I would look for property
would
be in a housing project.
I would be looking at a rual area where there is lots of trees to hang
wire
from and lots of ground to plant towers.

Willee


That is what I am in the process of doing now. As I was a ham when I
bought
my first house and was very much into VHF weak signal work I told the real
estate agent the house had to be on a hill and no restrictions. He found
me
one that is about 200 feet above most of the county. As I would rather
play
radio than mow the grass, the second requirement was no restrictions on
the
land.

I am now looking for another house or some land to build on after 25 years
in this house. I have turned down several places just because of the
height. Turned down one just because it was in a development that met
most
of the other requirements.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...

wrote in message ...
That's how much you know about me. I don't sign leases.

'Doc wrote:

The only one you can blame for this problem is your
self. You signed the lease...
'Doc

as much as this person defends the jack-booted thugs of HOA's,
there must be something more to it that we don't know, wouldn't
you say?



All part of the fascist-izing of America.. whatever happened to "a man's
home is his castle"?

I can understand where people have a right to not want someone storing a
dozen rusty cars on their front lawn, or allowing their grass to get 3'
tall.. but as far as antennas, etc.. they have no business telling a
homeowner what to do. It's not right that they should be telling people
what color they can paint their house, what kind of plants or animals they
can or cannot have, etc..




And how would you feel if the condition of the neighbor's house reduced the
value of your house by $30,000?

A homeowner aggress to covenants when they buy the house. They have to sign
the paperwork. If you don't like the terms, look elsewhere.

It is called living in a community, being part of the society. It is done
all the time. You give up the right to drive on the wrong side of the road
when you get your driving privileges.

When I bought my current house, I made sure there were no silly antenna
provisions. It wasn't hard. Also read the terms carefully, "... on the roof
and visible from the front..." says towers are cool, roof mounts are not.

Too many of these tales are 'me, me, me' and don't consider the others
involved. Unless you live in an isolated area, you should consider being
part of the community and not an irritant to the community.

craigm

In article , "craigm"
writes:

It is called living in a community, being part of the society. It is done
all the time.

More of the "give up your individual rights for the good of society" nonsense.

"Community" is 7/9 of "COMMUNISM." Don't forget that!

"Ed Price" wrote:

Read the rest of the ruling. It defines that the
antenna may be located only in your private
area (patio, balcony), not in the public or
mutually owned areas (roof, outside wall).
This makes it none too helpful for apartment
and condo dwellers. Accept it; there are
some hobbies that are incompatible with
high-density dwellings.


How does that chance anything I said, Ed? I said nothing about apartment
and condo dwellers, and nothing about antenna location.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

There are often good communities without
covenants, where your property values do
increase and the sale of a home is relatively
easy. (snip)


I agree, Dee. And, in addition, I've never heard of a house where the
property value went down, or the property actually failed to sell, solely
because of a neighbor's antenna. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I'd
certainly like to see some evidence of it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

I've also yet to have someone post information that can be validated
that a neighbor received a tax abatement [loss of property value]
because a ham had an tower/antenna installation in the neighborhood.

Deacon Dave

Dwight Stewart wrote:



I agree, Dee. And, in addition, I've never heard of a house where the
property value went down, or the property actually failed to sell, solely
because of a neighbor's antenna.

"Dave Shrader" wrote:

I've also yet to have someone post information
that can be validated that a neighbor received
a tax abatement [loss of property value] because
a ham had an tower/antenna installation in the
neighborhood.


Amen to that, Deacon Dave. The "lost of property value" is the most touted
reason for opposition to antennas, but absolutely no evidence is ever
presented to support that claim. In the end, I personally think all this is
the result of cable companies pushing for the removal of television antennas
in exchange for reduced rates on the installation of cable wiring in new
housing developments. Since developers couldn't really justify a restriction
on television antennas if radio antennas were installed in the area, they
adopted rules to eliminate all antennas instead.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

In the end, I personally think all this is
the result of cable companies pushing for the removal of television antennas
in exchange for reduced rates on the installation of cable wiring in new
housing developments.

This is precisely the reason why the federal preemption against TV antenna
restrictions was enacted. There was proven to be widespread collusion of cable
TV companies and developers across the country. The cable companies would
prewire the developments for little or no charge. In exchange, the developers
were required to restrict the installation of antennas or satellite dishes.
Illegal restraint-of-trade.