In article writes:

IANALB, the way it was explained to me is that Congress is very
reluctant to intercede in what is, in essence, a contractual matter, and
I think that reluctance is justified.

I think homeowners are justified in seeking relief from _government_
regulation of antennas, since such rules are not the sort of thing local
governments do well. Deed restrictions, however, are something I think
the government should stay out of unless there's a _very_ compelling
public interest.

YMMV.

73, W1AC


In some cases, the regulations in CC&Rs are governmental requirements.

Years ago, while looking at houses for sale, I stopped in on a newly
constructed pair of houses on what had been a single large (for the area)
lot. While talking to the selling agent, I learned that there was a
requirement that the houses have no antennas, and that when cable reached
the area, they could not even have TV antennas. (Yes, this was before the
FCC stepped into CC&R issues with broadcst TV antennas.)

I asked why. The explanation was that the city required them to include
those restrictions in order to get the permit to develop as they had.

So, CC&Rs are not always private agreements.


Alan
wa6azp

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:46:28 CST, Alan Larson
wrote:

Years ago, while looking at houses for sale, I stopped in on a newly
constructed pair of houses on what had been a single large (for the area)
lot. While talking to the selling agent, I learned that there was a
requirement that the houses have no antennas, and that when cable reached
the area, they could not even have TV antennas. (Yes, this was before the
FCC stepped into CC&R issues with broadcst TV antennas.)

I asked why. The explanation was that the city required them to include
those restrictions in order to get the permit to develop as they had.

The real reason was that the cable company got to the city to force
the developer to put such a restriction into the CC&Rs. A little
"hand-holding" between the city and the cable companies is not unknown
in this business.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Mar 13, 9:46�pm, Alan Larson wrote:
In article writes:


* In some cases, the regulations in CC&Rs are governmental requirements.

IANAL either.

But it's important to understand what "CC&Rs" really are.

CC&R stands for Codes, Covenants and Restrictions.

In general:

Codes refers to building codes, zoning codes, etc., which
are government regulations. PRB-1 directly affects them.
There are definite limits to government power, and those
codes can be changed, or a variance granted.

Covenants and Restrictions refer to things that are
essentially private agreements or contracts.

In many newer communities, particularly condos, at least
some of the land is jointly owned. This results in special
covenants/agreements as to how the community is run.
These can, in theory, be changed, but it usually requires
agreement of everyone in the agreement, and is almost
impossible to get.

Then there are deed restrictions. These are conditions
that attach to the property itself. They are essentially a
contract between the seller and buyer. For example,
a deed restriction may be written to prevent further
subdivision of a lot by future owners.

The really insidious thing about most deed restrictions is
that many are written to be self-perpetuating. This is done
by including a restriction that says you can't change any
of the existing restrictions. IOW, when you buy the
property, you not only agree to abide by all of the
restrictions for as long as you own the property, but
you also agree to make the next owner agree to all of them
as well.

* Years ago, while looking at houses for sale, I stopped in on a newly
constructed pair of houses on what had been a single large (for the area)
lot. *While talking to the selling agent, I learned that there was a
requirement that the houses have no antennas, and that when cable reached
the area, they could not even have TV antennas. *(Yes, this was before the
FCC stepped into CC&R issues with broadcst TV antennas.)

* I asked why. *The explanation was that the city required them to include
those restrictions in order to get the permit to develop as they had.

In many newer developments, the developer seeks zoning
changes, variances, tax relief, etc. Often they are gotten
as part of a bargaining process, such as the developer
installing and maintaining the roads and water/sewer mains,
etc. The no-antennas clause may have been to get a higher
density than would have normally been allowed, or some
other variance.

* So, CC&Rs are not always private agreements.

It sounds as if, in your case, the restrictions were put
in to make the city happy.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:49:26 CST, wrote:


But it's important to understand what "CC&Rs" really are.

CC&R stands for Codes, Covenants and Restrictions.

CONDITIONS, Covenants, and Restrictions
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Mar 18, 9:05�pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:49:26 CST, wrote:
But it's important to understand what "CC&Rs" really are.

CC&R stands for Codes, Covenants and Restrictions.

* CONDITIONS, Covenants, and Restrictions

Thanks, Phil!

I've always seen it written as "Codes", but after a bit of
thought, "Conditions" makes a lot more sense. Codes are
not usually attached to a specific property; conditions are.

It should be noted that lack of CC&Rs still does not mean
that a ham can simply put up whatever antenna(s) s/he
likes without any concern about building codes, permits,
etc.

This may seem self-evident, but I have seen too many
hams try to do just that, or say that nobody can tell them
what they can and cannot build on their own property.
In most places, that's simply not the case at all.

73 es TNX de Jim, N2EY