On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:27:04 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Stinger" wrote in message
...
Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an agreement
that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for the
specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone. In
other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house and
having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen
wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair
business.
Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start to
infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^)


Don't need a homeowner's association to prevent those kinds of violations.
Cities have ordinances against them. If someone violates the ordinance you
can file a complaint.

Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from the
street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped
problem.

And as Dee says, these are the kinds of installations that are more
likely to cause interference.


Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. For instance, nobody
wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a
CB
"base station." It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable
television connections, and is a nuisance. I think that's a lot of what

That is a fault of the cable or someone using the cable even if the
amps are illegal and covered by some rather strict laws.
..
All it takes is one poorly shielded device hooked to the cable near a
transmitter. The device can create harmonics and mixing products that
will wipe out a channel, or even the entier service to an area. A
good example would be an attic antenna next door to some one who
hooked their rabbit ears to their TV set with the cable still
connected. The lower antenna is closer to the set and more likely
to cause interference. It is also more likely to couple RF into the
house electrical wiring causing all sorts of problems due to RF in
radios, TVs, stereos, CD players and computers.

I once took out an entier city's cable system with a 2-meter HT as a
demonstration. (a very brief demonstration at the cable office).
Two days later you couldn't find a leak in the system any where in
town.
the
"external antenna" rules are meant to curb.

-- Stinger


Again such CB operation is illegal and they can be just as big or bigger a
nuisance with a mobile operation. Some of these guys have multikilowatt
amps in their vehicles.

Such association rules force the LEGALLY LICENSED operator to use low height
indoor and hidden antennas. Theses types of antennas are far more prone to
generate interference than something well up on a tower.

And it exposes the user to RF fields far greater than normal.
There is a reason I have my 2-meter antennas at 130 feet. Even there
I am limited to 380 watts into the antennas due to exposure limits.
At 30 feet I'd not even be able to stay with in limits using my 50
watt mobile on those antennas. Considering there is 228 feet of coax
from the rig to the antennas I could probably run a KW output and not
exceed the limits.

Actually...when it comes to exposure limits: My TH-5 is at 100 feet.
With 1500 watts into the antenna the RF limits for controlled access
are 6 feet above the ground at the base of the tower. I guess I
should paint a red strip around the tower at 6 feet. As that is slant
distance the height goes up rapidly as you move away from the base of
the tower

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com.



Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Midwest Kid" wrote:

But if you were selling your home and I had a 1980 rusted Honda on blocks
plus a used beer keg as a 'bird bath', do you honestly think that everyone
that looked at your home wouldn't mind me as your neighbor?

Ah yes, the "but if he paints his house orange and puts a giant
unicorn on the front lawn, the resale value of the properties in the
area will drop!" nonsense. Let us suppose this would in fact occur.
The neighbours gang together and nail an invoice to his door, and this
is the "right" thing to do. What about the converse? Suppose someone
instead made their property into a gorgeous work of art that _raised_
the value of the neighbouring properties? Surely this means he can
issue invoices to all the neighbours he has "helped", right?

That is the whole point of covenants. Something that protects me
when I want to sell.

_YOU_ protect your own property. It is why it is yours and not
someone elses. These HOA's and similar entities are the analog of
labour unions for property owners. Complete idiocy, with _ALL_ of the
hideous bad effects of such things. Why have two bosses when one is
bad enough? The protection you refer to is as illusory as the
thousands of unionized workers who lose their jobs every year: "It's
in the contract. So sorry."

Oops!

If you change that link to tower.htm
( http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/Tower.htm ) it should link

I should type what I say...
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/tower.htm

Roger (K8RI)
You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com

WHO are you to tell me or someone else what you consider is "in check"
or not? You deal with your property and the rest of us shall deal with
ours. Your starting to sound like your on the board of some HOA who
enjoys telling their neighbors what they can and cannot do on THEIR
property.

People that purchase a nice house for let's say 200,000+ are not going
to have some junk vehicle sitting in their yard, paint the house bright
pink, etc.. Most HOA's require you to hook up to (how is getting the
kick back)cable, they don't want even the 18" dishes. Well they finally
have lost out on that one. That's only the start.

Trespassers will be dealt with according to the law. That includes HOA
COPS.

Midwest Kid wrote:

wrote in message ...
Thank you.... .......

I am moving into a housing plan with such antenna restrictions. But
what housing plan doesn't have them. There is always someone trying to
tell some else how to live their lives, or knows what's best for you.

You people amaze me. If you don't like covenants, then don't move into the
neighborhood. The whole reason for the rules are to keep everything in
check. Something tells me that neither of you would wants someone putting
up some rusted out, 1970s RV and using it as a shed if the rules made that
'illegal'

CC&R's and HOA's are seldom formed AFTER one buys their house. Their
rules are seldom set in concrete either. When you buy a house the
CC&R's and/or the HOA is right there before you. Read it's terms. If
you don't agree-don't buy. Simple. If they're not soooo bad then join
knowing you can get involved by going to the board meetings and
raising hell. Become a board member forchrissakes. You may not be able
to change things but you can certainly make the vain attempt.
H

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:09:12 -0500, wrote:

WHO are you to tell me or someone else what you consider is "in check"
or not? You deal with your property and the rest of us shall deal with
ours. Your starting to sound like your on the board of some HOA who
enjoys telling their neighbors what they can and cannot do on THEIR
property.

People that purchase a nice house for let's say 200,000+ are not going
to have some junk vehicle sitting in their yard, paint the house bright
pink, etc.. Most HOA's require you to hook up to (how is getting the
kick back)cable, they don't want even the 18" dishes. Well they finally
have lost out on that one. That's only the start.

Trespassers will be dealt with according to the law. That includes HOA
COPS.

Midwest Kid wrote:

wrote in message ...
Thank you.... .......

I am moving into a housing plan with such antenna restrictions. But
what housing plan doesn't have them. There is always someone trying to
tell some else how to live their lives, or knows what's best for you.

You people amaze me. If you don't like covenants, then don't move into the
neighborhood. The whole reason for the rules are to keep everything in
check. Something tells me that neither of you would wants someone putting
up some rusted out, 1970s RV and using it as a shed if the rules made that
'illegal'

Retired Teacher, Terrible Mechanic, Worse Plumber!
LPFM Page: http://home.att.net/~optcamel/fmradio.htm

wrote in message ...
WHO are you to tell me or someone else what you consider is "in check"
or not? You deal with your property and the rest of us shall deal with
ours.

**** that. If I move into an CC&R addition, I expect people to follow the
rules. I would hope my neighbors would be smart enough to read important
real estate documents. I don't care if my home is $300K. If some ham puts
up a huge antenna and they make an exception, I will be documenting
everything. As soon as that ham puts up a 4-sale sign, my huge ugly tower
will go up. You wouldn't be against _my_ right to do this, right? If the
ham had the balls to even say something about it I would laugh. In other
words the ham would want his tower when it suits _him_, however if he takes
it down to sell the home and a neighbor puts one up...that's just not right.

wrote:
Midwest Kid wrote:

You people amaze me. If you don't like
covenants, then don't move into the
neighborhood. The reason for the rules
are to keep everything in check. (snip)

WHO are you to tell me or someone else
what you consider is "in check" or not? You
deal with your property and the rest of us
shall deal with ours. Your starting to sound
like your on the board of some HOA who
enjoys telling their neighbors what they can
and cannot do on THEIR property. (snip)


It does amaze me, Pappy, how many are so willing to accept, and even
defend, additional restrictions on people's lives and property in this
supposedly free country of ours. These homeowners associations, which are,
in effect, a new layer of government, don't act in a democratic manner and
neither respect, nor even clearly recognize, people's rights.

Instead, these homeowners associations remind me of the communist party
committees found in neighborhoods throughout the former Soviet Union before
it's collapse. Like these homeowners associations, those committees made
neighborhood rules and insured area residents complied with those rules. The
Soviet people gained freedoms after the fall of the Soviet Union and it's
many committees. The American people are losing freedoms as these homeowners
associations, and their CC&Rs, spread.

Some here have advocated just avoiding these homeowners associations, and
their CC&Rs, by moving elsewhere. While that may be a temporary fix (serves
their own self-interests at the moment), I'm sure many in the Soviet Union
thought the same when they first saw the spread of those communist party
committees. But, without open resistence by all, there was no place left to
avoid those committees within just a few years. I sincerely hope the same
cannot be said by young people about these homeowners associations in the
not so distant future. However, everything I've seen suggests that is a
clear possibility.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

wrote in message ...
WHO are you to tell me or someone else what you consider is "in check"
or not? You deal with your property and the rest of us shall deal with
ours.

**** that. If I move into an CC&R addition, I expect people to follow the
rules. I would hope my neighbors would be smart enough to read important
real estate documents. I don't care if my home is $300K. If some ham puts
up a huge antenna and they make an exception, I will be documenting
everything. As soon as that ham puts up a 4-sale sign, my huge ugly tower
will go up. You wouldn't be against _my_ right to do this, right? If the
ham had the balls to even say something about it I would laugh. In other
words the ham would want his tower when it suits _him_, however if he takes
it down to sell the home and a neighbor puts one up...that's just not right.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklins retort to the PHOA
Philadelphia HomeOwners Ass

They told old Ben to go fly a kite !!

From The Antenna In The Wilderness

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...


It does amaze me, Pappy, how many are so willing to accept, and even
defend, additional restrictions on people's lives and property in this
supposedly free country of ours. These homeowners associations, which
are,
in effect, a new layer of government, don't act in a democratic manner
and
neither respect, nor even clearly recognize, people's rights.


[snip]

If respecting people's rights was entirely consistant with human nature,
nobody would have considered writing a few of them down in the various
governmental Constitutions.

So, have many Homeowner's Associations dissolved themselves and handed
their responsibilities to a municipal government?

Frank Dresser