On Jan 23, 1:35�am, Art Clemons wrote:
�Let me note that theoretically
streets belong to the governmental entity in which said street is locat
ed or
some entity which the governmental entity is part of (i.e you
can have a
state or county road in a small township, it might not belong to the
township, but it sure does belong to some governmental entity) and as s
uch,
private individuals have no right or privilege of passing on who or wha
t
moves on a public street.

The key word there is *public*. In some developments the streets are
part of the development, a osrt of common driveway. Some local
governments like this because it relieves them of the responsibility of
snow removal, repair, etc.

The statement advising hams not to move into a development
with either home
associations or CCRs strikes me as poor advice. �There are
few locales
without one or the other left in the US, and most used boiler
plate to bar
antennas. �

I disagree 100%!

In many parts of the USA, there are plenty of homes that allow
antennas. From my limited experience, they are usually older
(pre-1970s) homes in established neighborhoods.

I think what happens in many cases is that people limit themselves to
new construction, townhomes, or similar planned communities where rules
and limitations are all part of the boilerplate. In some parts of the
country, where growth has happened mostly in the past 20-30 years, much
of the housing stock is like that. Particularly the less- expensive
homes, oddly enough.

When I moved to my current house 10 years ago, one of the first things
I did was to explain to the Realtor what was Not Acceptable. One of
those things was a place with no-antennas restrictions. Another
requirement was that I and my RE lawyer be able to see any deed
restrictions, covenants, etc. before making an offer.

I personally would love to see CCRs and home owner
associations expire after
some extended period of time like ten years, we thus would not end up w
ith
the banning of clothes drying or antennas. �

The problem is that most of them are specifically set up to be self-
perpetuating, and to make changing the rules all but impossible.

And even if every amateur now licensed decided to never buy another
restricted home, we'd still have the problem of hams who currently live
in them, and of people who live in them and who want to be hams.

I think the bigger issue is this: Why is there such interest in
restricting what other people can do?

73 de Jim, N2EY