|
"A.Pismo Clam" wrote:
I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you might find a copy in your local library. (snip) There was legislation proposed last year in the House of Representatives that would have prevented Home Owner Associations, and similar groups, from banning the use of outside antennas by Ham Operators. The idea was to apply the same "reasonable accommodation" rules that previous legislation had done regarding towns and cities. The legislation was supported by several House members, sent to committee for review, and I never heard anything else about it. Perhaps someone else is aware of what actually happened to it. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Jim Higgins" wrote:
It limits you to antennas 1 meter in diameter or across the diagonal. No 6-ele 20M beams here. No, it doesn't have that limit. The first paragraph describes antennas for satellite services and the second paragraph describes antennas for video programming services. The third paragraph... (3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements. ...describes antennas for broadcast television and no size limit is described (only the height limit). By the way, a large 20M beam should receive broadcast television fairly nicely (with a little hardware to cut out the television while transmitting). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Soliloquy" wrote in message 4... I work with a guy that is the president of a Home Owners Association. Talk about an asshole. A woman in his area approached him to get permission to have a yard sale. Of course he vacillated, and she grew angry. He reassured her that her request would be considered by the council. Of course, her request was denied. All those cars parking in front of other people's property would not be fair to the other people. Fair, fair, fair. boy have I tired of this word. This guy seems severely traumatized by the fact that these neighborhood associations no longer have the ability to regulate satellite antennas 39.37" or smaller in diameter. We have trouble with our interloping neighbor even though we don't live in an area covered by these prohibitions. The neighbor is the vice president of the city council in the small borough that we live in near Pittsburgh. We first moved here, she expressed a desire for us to cut down (for safety reasons of course LOL), every freakin tree on our property. She made sure to tell us that the leaves on our property were "our responsibility" to rake up. (hell, I didn't put them there, the trees should have to rake them up). We had the diseased trees removed at a considerable cost, and had the others trimmed. Trees! Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em! Mr. T moved into one of our most exclusive suburbs back in the 80s. Like many new homeowners, he wanted to do some landscaping. In Mr. T's case, landscaping meant shaving everything outside his mansion down to a stubble. Mr. T announced his landscaping decision with a wailing chainsaw. The startled neighbors reacted as strongly as if T had been firing a poorly aimed automatic weapon. Amusing court battles between the Newly Wealthy Thespian and the Inheritors of the Robber Barons ensued. Oh, if only the oil refiners, the meat packers and the industrialists who built the North Shore suburbs had the foresight to see that an environmental vandal might show up right there in their midst!! And all of this happened without CC&Rs. Just as well. I'd pity the fool who'd try to write up Mr. T to a Homeowner's Association. You think that she would have had a geriatric orgasm. Noooo, she found more things to harp about. My son had bought a 1967 Chevy that we parked at the top of our driveway, even though the car was not licensed, as it needed work before it was roadworthy. We were away for the weekend when the local police drove onto our property and tagged our car as abandoned, we had a week to get the car licensed. Enter Classic car plates. We had to get regular plates for our car, then subsequently applied and were issued classic car plates. The car was legal, they couldn't tow it, and there it sat as before her interloping started. But she never quits. We wanted to erect a privacy fence, but in this relatively dilapidated neighborhood, believe it or not, there is an ordinance against them. We had to resort to a shadow box fence. Prior to this, we had the property surveyed, and the front of our property includes a small part of what the neighbors assumed were theirs. Apparently the loss of a small part of their property was too much to bear, as the survey spike was removed and moved closer to our property. Imagine this woman in charge of a homeowners association? I'd rather live in the country in West Virginia (I like West Virginia, very pretty country) with a refrigerator on the front porch and a small junk yard in my front yard than to live in a neighborhood covered by a covenant. Years ago in a telecommunications magazine, I read an article in which an amateur had crafted an antenna, essentially a pole with a narrow skirt, and placed it in the yard. He told the neighbors that it was a birdfeeder, and that the design was to preclude squirrels from climbing it. The only problem was that other neighbors began to ask if he could help them construct similar birdfeeders. Well, at least theirs won't require a buried wire running to them. I have no doubt that most Homeowner's Associations are run by decent and reasonable folk. I'm sure that's true of most small public governments, as well. But what happens when things go bad? Given the sorry state of human nature, it will, sooner or later. There's small time control freaks in private and public life. But we have a better chance with them if we don't sign away our rights. Frank Dresser http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...trictions.html |
"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. 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 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. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"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 |
"Stinger" wrote in message . .. Frank, I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk cars on the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my neighbor won't. As I said before, cities and communities have ordinances against these things (except the purple roof). Except in decaying neighborhoods, such city ordinances are enforced. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
We've strayed pretty far from radio, so this will be my last post on this
subject. I hardly want to be in the position of defending ALL homeowner's associations. I think the key to being happy with a homeowner's association is to have clear, concise, SPECIFIC covenants that aren't subject to liberal interpretations and that cannot be amended by the board without 100% approval from every single property owner. The ones in my neighborhood follow that model and are just that -- simple, and basically just commonsense good-neighbor policies. There is a neighborhood in our town that did not follow that key, and they do indeed have problems. A bunch of retired busybodies managed to get control of the board, and have become a pain in the neck for working families or people trying to build new homes. I would never have built there. Their problem is that the development was originally designed to be a resort / weekend home development, but retirees have moved in and want to pretend that it's a high-end property. Meanwhile, our neighborhood is great, and is in high demand. Again, the point I am making is that neighborhood covenants are not ALL bad -- just some of them. (But these are the examples I'm seeing time and again on this thread, mostly from people that don't live in covenated neighborhoods anyway). Frankly, I think that anyone that doesn't have their attorney help them review neighborhood covenants before they purchase property deserves exactly what they get. I'll bet most of these people don't have a Will, either, which is an similarly foolish situation. -- Stinger wrote in message ... Stinger, HOA are mostly comprised of residents that never have had a job where they supervised other humans and now is their chance to tell someone what to do. I do agree that no one want's a junk yard in their neighborhood. But I don't agree that the guy next door can/should be able to tell you what you are permitted to do on property you pay the mortgage, taxes and up keep on. He/she or they can frankly go to hell. The plan I (for DOC) "BOUGHT" a home in even has restrictions of 18' satellite dishes, part of the antenna restriction clause. Since the latest FCC decision the HOA can kiss that part good by. And yes, 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? We shouldn't have too. Not all hams have gigantic towers and beams, some of use are satisfied to use a piece of wire to TRANSMIT on. I have and will continue to do so when I move. HOA's bring out the evils in good people, we have to get sneaky and stealthy to enjoy life as we have for many years. I know, I've heard this before. It was our choice to purchase in a plan with restrictions, show me a plan or find me a plot (1/2 acre) of land where there there are no restrictions in the U.S.A.. If the politicians arn't telling you what to do it's some nosey neighbor. Ya'll have a positive day. Stinger wrote: 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. ;^) 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. 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 the "external antenna" rules are meant to curb. -- Stinger |
"Stinger" wrote in message .. . Different strokes for different folks, Frank. In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to covenants that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well. Many areas with restrictive covenants DO decay. The homes get old and out of date. The shingles aren't replaced often enough and so on. The covenants generally do not and cannot force a specific maintenance cyle on people. I seen some very run down areas that had covenants. Yeah the grass was mowed and there weren't any junk cars but the houses looked old and tired. Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights arguments isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights are just fine, thank you. While you have every right to sign away rights, the rest of it will continue to consider it foolish. However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public sector (government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners. I am vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private property to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over the United States. It' just plain wrong. That is not the purpose of eminent domain laws. If the law has been abused in such a manner, then the citizens affected should be filing a class action suit. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Any time i have asked people why they would live with such restrictions,
they always say that they don't want their neighbors having junk cars in their front yard. I have never lived in a neighborhood with a homeowners association. I have also never had the junk car problem. Generally, if you don't live in a slum, you do't have much to worry about. In any case, most towns have "eyesore laws" that cover this. "Fred Garvin" wrote in message ... I never understood why people put up with such bulls^&t. |
"Stinger" wrote in message ... [snip] Frankly, I think that anyone that doesn't have their attorney help them review neighborhood covenants before they purchase property deserves exactly what they get. I'll bet most of these people don't have a Will, either, which is an similarly foolish situation. -- Stinger Richard Oulton is an attorney. And mo http://www.ccfj.net/flyoldgloryOulton.html Frank Dresser |
When I lived in Austin, a ham on the air gave me an
excellent possible solution to the problem of annoying home owner association self-appointed gods. He had lived in such a "anti-antenna" residence at one time that didn't allow him to erect any outside antennas. Therefore, he put a dipole up in his attic, took ALL filtering out of line that he possibly could and put the largest amplifier his money could buy inline and began blasting away. Of course he got knocks on the door, and people beginning to complain, but they no longer had a legal leg to stand on due to the FCC's requirements that nearly all electrical gizmos and doo-dads "accept any interference that results from other nearby operating .... blah blah blah..." The ham then told the home owners that this was the result of having to move an antenna to the inside of his attic to remove it from site, and gave them some mumbo-jumbo jargon about why it causes more interference than having it outside and high in the air (referring to his antenna). Of course, he simply didn't mention the huge planet-busting amplifier or the fact that he removed all his filtering that he possibly could. The home owners, believe it or not, made an exception for him, after all the residential complaints about televisions, telephones, baby monitors, answering machines and everything else getting tore up constantly from RFI. I recommend more hams doing this if thier home owner gods become assholes as well. Clint |
Clint, ----clipped--- I recommend more hams doing this if thier home owner gods become assholes as well. Clint I wouldn't. I'd recomend that if you can't abide by the rules that you said you would, then either don't sign the contract, or move. All these little tales say more about the person's moral fortitude than it does the HOA's policies... 'Doc |
Mark: I certainly believe in buying a nice receiver, but honestly, the
difference in performance I got switching from a horizontal loop near the house to a "Doty style" antenna that's 225 feet away from the house was more dramatic than you'd find if you compared the performance of my best military receiver with a decent portable if they both used the same antenna. Very interesting. Had you compared the performances of the mentioned receivers on each antenna? In other words, did you find that the "Doty" helped the portable more than it helped the military receiver? Or something like that. Bill, K5BY |
Hi
I agree with you, however, all the new homes have these restrictions, why ? answer, to get a loan the banks want the restrictions and the builder wants them so nobody gets out of line before he sells out all the homesites. Otherwise he gets stuck with unsold lots and homes and can't pay the loans he got. It I wanted to drive north or south of the city I live in I could get a nice lot, build a nice house and do anything I want. Problem is the schools are not as new and up to date compared to those in my county I currently live in. Also the commute is something to think about and utilities available. I would NEVER live in a place that tries to tell me how to run my house or yard. I'd tell them to go F%^K themselves and move. I never understood why people put up with such bulls^&t. |
"'Doc" wrote in message ... Clint, ----clipped--- I recommend more hams doing this if thier home owner gods become assholes as well. Clint I wouldn't. I'd recomend that if you can't abide by the rules that you said you would, then either don't sign the contract, or move. All these little tales say more about the person's moral fortitude than it does the HOA's policies... 'Doc ...kinda like sympathizing with HOA's that also frequently ban flying an american flag as well. Clint |
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? Clint |
"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.. |
"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.. Brenda obviously never had a neighbor whose hobby was arc-welding hot-rod chassis from 6PM till midnight, or who thought having a few roosters was cute, or who installed a couple of 55-gallon drums in their backyard so that they could burn the insulation off of (likely stolen) wire to reclaim the copper, or who painted their house purple and pink, or whose brother & significant other lived in a 5-level treehouse overlooking her back yard for two years. (BTW, Tarzan & Jane actually complained about RFI to their boom box from my all-band vertical!) All these antics happened in the last 20 years to me. However, as I don't appreciate CC&R's, and the Bulgarian border guard mentality of those who enforce them, I try to overlook my neighbors' eccentricities. And I have no sympathy for anyone who contracts into a CC&R situation, and then expects special dispensation for themselves. Ed WB6WSN |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "Jim Higgins" wrote: It limits you to antennas 1 meter in diameter or across the diagonal. No 6-ele 20M beams here. No, it doesn't have that limit. The first paragraph describes antennas for satellite services and the second paragraph describes antennas for video programming services. The third paragraph... (3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements. ...describes antennas for broadcast television and no size limit is described (only the height limit). By the way, a large 20M beam should receive broadcast television fairly nicely (with a little hardware to cut out the television while transmitting). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ 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. Ed WB6WSN |
Wow, a refreshing ray of truth and logic shines thru the smog.
Why indeed would someone agree to something they did not intend to abide by? (excluding all women, of course) Willee "'Doc" wrote in message ... Pappy127, You are absolutely right! I don't know anything about you. The point being, that if you sign an agreement with the knowledge that you do not intend to abide by that agreement, then you shouldn't be upset when you are penalized for breaking the agreement. Is that so hard to understand? 'Doc |
wrote in message ... And yes, 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 |
What Ed is saying is: If you enjoy a hobby that requires an antenna or
anything outside your home forget it, buckle down to raising fish and sell the radio hobby stuff. That will be the day I turn my home over the HOA Cops, agreement or not. If homeowners keep buckling down to these people next thing you will be paying their mortgage and taxes. Go Bless America for the freedoms our proud veterans fought for. Ed Price wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "Jim Higgins" wrote: It limits you to antennas 1 meter in diameter or across the diagonal. No 6-ele 20M beams here. No, it doesn't have that limit. The first paragraph describes antennas for satellite services and the second paragraph describes antennas for video programming services. The third paragraph... (3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements. ...describes antennas for broadcast television and no size limit is described (only the height limit). By the way, a large 20M beam should receive broadcast television fairly nicely (with a little hardware to cut out the television while transmitting). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ 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. Ed WB6WSN |
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 |
"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. |
WShoots1 wrote:
Mark: I certainly believe in buying a nice receiver, but honestly, the difference in performance I got switching from a horizontal loop near the house to a "Doty style" antenna that's 225 feet away from the house was more dramatic than you'd find if you compared the performance of my best military receiver with a decent portable if they both used the same antenna. Very interesting. Had you compared the performances of the mentioned receivers on each antenna? In other words, did you find that the "Doty" helped the portable more than it helped the military receiver? Or something like that. Bill, K5BY The only "portable" I'm using these days is an AOR 7030+ that's been mounted in a custom cabinet for portable operation. It wouldn't be a fair comparison. I've had three antenna systems over the last several years, and did a head to head check between the two antennas I had a few years ago with a Dak portable, and an R8. I think even Drew, who wrote those gushing ads for the DAK would agree the R8 is a much better radio, but when hooked to a 50-60 ft random wire stapled to the rafters of my attic, it couldn't hear signals the DAK could pick up with my 150 foot horizontal loop. The strongest signal on the attic antenna at those frequencies was RFI from all the electronic stuff in my house. The Loop antenna probably cost about $10 more to build than the attic random wire because it used more wire and I needed some rope to hold it up. And that's really my point - while a nicer radio is still worth having, most people will get the most bang for the buck from improving the antenna design and location. My only notes about the performance difference between the first two antennas are the Loop seemed to have double the signal strength, and half the noise floor of the attic wire. My "Doty" style antenna is just 65 feet long, but because of the distance from the house, the underground coax, and the impedance matching transformer, my Harris indicates the s/n ratio averages more than 20db better than the loop. Regards, Mark |
"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/ |
what i dont understand is if you guys dont like the deed restrictions
you are legally free not to sign the deed and move to another area why should the federal government step in and tell some city or housing community that the CONTRACT you knowingly and willing signed is worthless you guys and your wives all want the nice classy neighborhoods and gated communities with the fine trimmed lawns and lexus in every driveway but you think your special cause you want to have an outside antenna well how would you feel if your next door neighbor paintes his house the most aful shade of slime yellow you ever saw? you would be down to the community meeting griping your heads off so either live with the contract your signed or move |
Dennis Kaylor wrote: what i dont understand is if you guys dont like the deed restrictions you are legally free not to sign the deed and move to another area why should the federal government step in and tell some city or housing community that the CONTRACT you knowingly and willing signed is worthless you guys and your wives all want the nice classy neighborhoods and gated communities with the fine trimmed lawns and lexus in every driveway but you think your special cause you want to have an outside antenna well how would you feel if your next door neighbor paintes his house the most aful shade of slime yellow you ever saw? you would be down to the community meeting griping your heads off so either live with the contract your signed or move Dear HOA's COPS, NO, it's not time to move. It's time to get sneaky and stealthy with your antennas, find me if you can. But there isn't a darn thing you can do about it as long as it's not in the public's eye. By the way, my Dish Networks dish is going up. Thank you FCC for making them LEGAL. But is was going up regardless, just like the others have in this housing plan with such antenna restrictions. HOA's that restricted antennas made cable the only way your could receive any tv stations. That was illegal from the start. As I have said, I am moving into such a housing plan. "WE" don't own a lexus or similar vehicle and I haven't seen one in the plan. The majority of people there seem to be down to earth everyday nice people, until you get to the HOA Cops, which every housing plan with HOA restrictions of any kind has. Normal people who reside in a nice house isn't going to paint their house some weird color, park junk vehicles, let their grass turn to weed or put up gigantic towers and antennas, etc.. By the way, I haven't signed any such agreement when I bought the house. I do know that such HOA "BS" does exist just to please the people residing there that doesn't trust their neighbors. They are the ones that should move. "TRUST" is the word. I did some checking and the first house sold in the plan was to a nice family (mechanic) with two children. He/they have an immaculate looking yard and house. He is a scanner enthusiast and has his antennas located in his attic, aside from his dish which is located on the back of roof. Where there's a will there is a way. "God Bless America" for the freedoms we still have. Have a positive day. |
wrote in message ... What Ed is saying is: If you enjoy a hobby that requires an antenna or anything outside your home forget it, buckle down to raising fish and sell the radio hobby stuff. That will be the day I turn my home over the HOA Cops, agreement or not. If homeowners keep buckling down to these people next thing you will be paying their mortgage and taxes. Go Bless America for the freedoms our proud veterans fought for. A very good example of the viewpoint of a rogue who tries to cloak her improprieties in the blood of patriots and the silk of religion. The fundamental civility of our society is based on our ability to enter into contracts. We promise something and the other party promises something. A contract is simply a permanent record of the defined promises. You are expected to uphold your promises. What I am saying is quite simple; if you don't like the terms of a contract, then don't enter into it. Ed WB6WSN |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "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/ It doesn't change anything you said. I posted my comments to amplify and clarify your (and earlier poster's) comments, not as a refutation. Try not to view everything as a challenge. Ed WB6WSN |
Normal people who reside in a nice house isn't going to paint their
house some weird color, park junk vehicles, let their grass turn to weed or put up gigantic towers and antennas, etc.. Hams are not normal people, they want gigantic towers and antennas. |
That is right .... put up the bigest antenna as high as you can get it.
If it stays up more than 6 months then it was not big or high enough! Willee "Ralph Mowery" wrote in message ... Normal people who reside in a nice house isn't going to paint their house some weird color, park junk vehicles, let their grass turn to weed or put up gigantic towers and antennas, etc.. Hams are not normal people, they want gigantic towers and antennas. |
Ralph Mowery wrote: Normal people who reside in a nice house isn't going to paint their house some weird color, park junk vehicles, let their grass turn to weed or put up gigantic towers and antennas, etc.. Hams are not normal people, they want gigantic towers and antennas. Ralph, just what is your ham call??? |
"Dennis Kaylor" wrote:
what i dont understand is if you guys dont like the deed restrictions you are legally free not to sign the deed and move to another area why should the federal government step in and tell some city or housing community that the CONTRACT you knowingly and willing signed is worthless (snip) Dennis, either you don't live in a town like this or CC&Rs simply haven't reached your community yet. The major industry in this town is tourism. Because of that, any house built within the last twenty years has a CC&R antenna restriction. Even worse, real estate agencies, hoping to cash in on the tourist trade, have purchased most of the older properties, adding CC&Rs antenna restrictions to those. At this point, unless one is willing to move twenty to thirty miles outside the area, CC&Rs antenna restrictions have become an almost inescapable fact of life. Perhaps you consider that acceptable. However, I don't happen to think people should have to move miles away from work, schools, or shopping, just to have an antenna. And, indeed, many people are not going to do so - which means they will simply have to give up radio as a hobby or recreation instead. you guys and your wives all want the nice classy neighborhoods and gated communities with the fine trimmed lawns and lexus in every driveway but you think your special cause you want to have an outside antenna (snip) Obviously CC&R antenna restrictions haven't reached your community yet. We're not just talking about gated communities or luxury properties. In this area, these restrictions can be found on even the cheapest properties. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com