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.

Just because covenants aren't ideal for your situation doesn't make them a
bad thing. As for your hair-splitting over "broadcasting," it was clear my
intent was "transmitting." -- just as it is clear your intent is to act like
an asshole.

-- Stinger


"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:58:40 -0600, "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. ;^)

I happen to subscribe to Fine Homebuilding Magazine and in one of the
latest issues there is some discussion about people who will not make
any changes to their house without considering resale value. They
could be eight feet tall and planning to remodel the kitchen, but will
they think of raising the height of the countertops to make it easier
on themselves? Nooooo. It will affect resale value. They might be
planning to die in the house but they worry that their heirs will have
a hard time selling.

The same mentality prevails in people who willingly submit to the
whims of the homeowners' association board. If I want to leave my
garage door open while I use my woodworking tools or work on my car, I
don't want the guy across the street getting his panties in a bunch
over it. Likewise, I don't want to be told when to mow the grass.

Of course, in my case, across the street is 80 acres of Sonoran Desert
and my landscaping is whatever grows here. (I gave the lawnmower to
the guy that bought my last house.) And I'm not trying to keep up
with Jones either because where I live, *I'm* Jones. Heh heh.

|
|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.


If you don't want to hear anything, by all means conceal your antenna.
Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for transmitting,
they will work equally poorly for receiving.

|
|Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though.

Broadcasting is done by broadcasting stations. Broadcasting is
one-way communication.

Hobbists; licensed radio amateurs (hams), and CBers (not to be
confused with hams) are operating transmitting stations designed for
two-way communications.

|For instance, nobody
|wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a
CB
|"base station."

Nobody? That is an all-encompassing term. "Few", "some", "not too
many" might be better. Not that I'm in favor of CBers running illegal
stations.

|It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable
|television connections, and is a nuisance.

A "well-shielded" system will not "see" anything of the sort. The
problem will more likely be from some upstanding homeowner, who
wouldn't dare leave his garage door open and violate association
rules, making an illegal tap on the cable.

| I think that's a lot of what the
|"external antenna" rules are meant to curb.

No, most antenna restrictions have nothing to do with the possibility
of interference. The restrictions are for the same reasons as not
wanting the garage door open, the grass an inch too high, painting the
house the wrong shade of white, etc...

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:47:29 -0600, "Stinger"
wrote:

|just as it is clear your intent is to act like
|an asshole.


No, just having a little fun, but some folks take this stuff waaaay
too seriously.

"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/