"Stinger" wrote in message
.. .
Sit on a cactus or something, Wes? You seem a little edgy.

Nobody is forced to buy into a neighborhood with covenants. One can do
exactly what you have done and buy some distance from your neighbors.
That's great if it works out for you.

However, my case is obviously different from yours. The home where I now
live is not the home I will own when I retire. I won't need nearly as
many
bedrooms, etc., and it will be out on an acreage I own (that's currently a
little farther than I care to commute to my job). Living in a good
neighborhood with covenants makes sense for me right now, because I do
want
to protect the hefty investment I've made in my home, specifically because
I
do intend to sell it someday.


There are often good communities without covenants, where your property
values do increase and the sale of a home is relatively easy. This lets you
"have your cake and eat it too". You could put up that antenna now and take
it down when it is time to sell.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"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.