On Jan 29, 10:21�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
On 1/27/2010 8:29 AM, wrote:

Having to look at 100 houses after telling an agent what you want means
something's really wrong somewhere.

Since agents refused to
disclose property addresses and insisted on being present at any visit,
we had to endure a lot of "non-starter" pitches.

I think that's just bad agency. They wasted your time and their own!

Having to fire three agents after telling them what you want means
something's really wrong somewhere.

I won't describe it as "wrong", but it was certainly counterproductive.
The Agents I dismissed all assumed that they could show me multi-story
houses after I'd said "Only one level" as clearly as possible, or that
condos would interest me after I'd told them "No" in plain English, or
that I'd be willing to live next to a pile of chromium. They lost the
sale because they didn't listen.

Amazing,

It was more like six months: my wife and I were both holding down
full-time jobs, but we chose to dedicate the time and money to finding
a home that *WE* wanted, instead of something that a real-estate
agent decided on.

When did this happen? With websites such as realtor.com available
today, it's a different game.

1) Lots of people who live in restricted homes never pursue an interest
in amateur radio because they don't want the antenna hassle. Not every
restricted home has a suitable attic or yard where an antenna can be
hidden. Many restrictions are such that flagpoles, birdhouses, awnings
and other things are prohibited too. Plus Gladys Kravitz type neighbors
who look for *any* infractions (it only takes one).

The effect is particularly strong on young people, who can't just move
and whose resources are usually less.

It's not the neighbors who matter: IMNSHO, home buyers don't care about
CC&R's unless and until a real-estate agent convinces them that such
things are important.

What I mean is that, in a CC&R/HOA situation, if there exists even one
neighbor who knows all the fine print and takes an interest, that
neighbor can make all sorts of problems for you over even
minorviolations.

CC&R's are put in place to protect *builders*,
not buyers, because the builder is afraid that someone will erect a
tower or construct an addition or drill for oil before all the lots of
a development are committed, and because builders are vain enough to
believe that their corporate identity is something that makes a
difference to home buyers.

All true, and more. I've read that builders can sometimes get better
deals from lenders by inserting CC&Rs, and that anti-antenna CC&Rs came
from deals with cable-TV companies.

For their part, real-estate agents like CC&R's because they assure a
consistent product that can be turned over repeatedly without the need
to worry about someone's aversion to whirligigs, antennas, lawn
ornaments, or pretty much anything else that a homeowner might add.
CC&R's save them time and trouble, and that means more profit.

I have found that at least some agents don't pay any attention to CC&Rs
unless the buyer makes a big deal about them.

CC&R's are like an automobile purchase contract that obligates the
buyer to never repaint the car, never allow it to rust, never install
custom headlights, never modify the interior, and never hang fuzzy dice
from the mirror.

I've said something very similar in the past. I included always having
to bring the car back to a dealer for service.

They are contracts that benefit only those who are
involved in the *transfer* of property, not in its use: if CC&R's
benefit homeowners by maintaining the "value" of their land, they also
cheapen people's lives by lessening the value of their community and by
denying their children exposure to other ways of living and looking at
the world.

WELL SAID!

Not only that, but they can inhibit the development of real "community
values" by installing artificial ones.

For example, in my neighborhood, the homes were built soon after WW2
and were all practically identical small frame houses. They were almost
the classic little-boxes except that they were all paintedwhite.

Then somebody got the idea to add a front porch. To 1950s architects,
front porches were "old-fashioned" and "not in keeping with the modern
lifestyle". But someone put one on anyway, and liked it. Pretty soon
other folks did the same. Some folks did wrap-around porches that
required variances, and the neighbors came out in support of the
variances - even those who had no porches. Other additions and
variations followed until now no two houses are identical or even that
much alike. And property values are quite good.

Had there been the kind of CC&Rs that are common today, none of that
would have happened.

For decades the trend in amateur radio has been to make the licenses
easier to get, the equipment less expensive, more reliable and higher
performing, and the choices of activities greater. But at the same
time, there's been a slow but steady trend to make more and more homes
ham-radio-unfriendly. That's not a good thing.

I'm not sure how to meet the challenge head-on; we don't have the
resources of the satellite-dish folks.

I'm not sure the challenge _can_ be met "head on": as I've said before,
in this and other forums, Ham Radio was popular when I was young
because the government took extraordinary steps to encourage scientific
education in the post-Sputnik years, feeling that we had to outpace the
"red menace". That translated into lots of publicity for ham radio, a
good amount of "free" equipment for those who participated in MARS, and
preferential treatment during frequency-allocation hearings at a time
when shortwaves were the _only_ means of international broadcasting.

Sputnik went up in October 1957, and I agree that it had an effect.

But the popularity of ham radio in the USA was increasing long before
Sputnik. For example, in the 1930s, the number of US hams almost
tripled, from less than 20,000 in 1929 to over 46,000 by 1936. After
WW2, the growth continued, and really took off after the Novice license
was created in 1951.

OTOH, from 1960 to 1970, the number of US hams grew very slowly, and
actually declined in some years.

During most of the Cold War, hams were a trained corps of radio
operators who could be pressed into service quickly if needed: that's
why the NTS is patterned after military nets, and why hams had to learn
Morse long after it passed from commercial use. The Cold War is over:
we won, and now the military thinks we're surplus.

NTS dates from before the Cold War, and the idea of a trained corps of
radio operators was proven to be valid in both World Wars.

As for Morse passing from commercial use, that didn't happen until the
1990s. The real reasons the Morse Code tests continued until a few
years ago are more complex.

First, there was the international treaty. Until 2003, it required
Morse Code tests for all amateur licenses granting privileges below a
certain frequency. In 1947 that frequency was 1000 MHz, and over the
next couple of decades it was lowered to 30 MHz in a couple of steps.
But until 2003 the FCC's hands were tied because of the treaty.

Second, there was the amateur community's opposition. In 1975 the FCC
proposed a VHF/UHF only nocodetest amateur license, and the reaction in
the comments was an overwhelming "NO!". In 1983 FCC tried again, and
again the reaction was "NO!". In 1991 the FCC did it anyway.

Of course, it's more complicated now. We can, sometimes, help out
during disasters, and even though some hams headed to Haiti in the wake
of the earthquake found themselves getting shot at, in most cases our
assistance is welcomed. We can, sometimes, provide a source of news and
information to both public outlets and individuals during such events,
although American TV networks think nothing of bringing suitcase
satellites into disaster areas. We can, sometimes, provide public
exposure for ham radio, even if only by wearing a T-shirt with an ARES
logo during field day.

All of which are good things.

We can also promote the idea of "radio for its own sake". Many people
do things just for fun, even if they aren't "easy" or "modern". Ask any
backpacker or marathoner.

Long story short: CC&R's are one symptom of a societal shift which is
leading to less demand for all kinds of technical expertise, not just
ham operators. American home buyers, fully aware that their futures and
their horizons are being altered by international forces they can
neither anticipate nor prepare for, are willing to shortchange each
other and give up their right to modify their environment, in return
for being able to keep anyone else from doing so. The "paradise" they
are purchasing is a pale imitation of what it could be, but they'll
settle for it never being less.

I think it's a lot simpler: Many people don't think about them that
much, or even know they exist in many cases.

We must adapt or perish.

Agreed!

But we must not lose the core values either.

73 de Jim, N2EY