Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() In article , Jeffrey D Angus wrote: Patty Winter wrote: But *is* it a violation? If the HOA people considered it a birdhouse, and if tall birdhouses are allowed, then maybe he didn't violate the CCRs. Or at least only in spirit, but not according to the letter of the CCRs. I'd wager that the CCRs didn't specifically say, "No outside antennas with the exception of those that look like bird houses." Of course not. But they may do just the opposite: they may talk about antennas that look like antennas. Or more likely, they're just very vague. Patty |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
George Csahanin wrote:
The pea brained real estate sales people somehow think they're [CCRs] good and preserve property value. From the perspective of a property owner, restrictions generally do preserve property values. From your perspective as a ham, they are horrible things that prevent you from exercising your rights and enjoying your hobby. Both contingents can mount persuasive arguments to support their opinion. |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Steve Bonine" wrote
From the perspective of a property owner, restrictions generally do preserve property values. From your perspective as a ham, they are horrible things that prevent you from exercising your rights and enjoying your hobby. Both contingents can mount persuasive arguments to support their opinion. Hams must be careful to realize that earning an amateur radio license and the ability to operate a radio station is a privilege, not a right. There are plenty of other examples in life that are analogous, such has having a driver license. There is, however, that famous clause in the Constitution regarding "the pursuit of happiness." But moving right along.... I was fortunate to be able to erect some kind of antenna in the two CCR developments I lived in in southern AZ over the course of 23 years, even though the "anti-antenna" statement was in the CCR books. No one ever said 'boo' about my antennas. But, then, my neighbors liked me. And, I never asked permission. And I always used my electric clothes dryer. Howard |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 23, 1:14 pm, wrote:
I think the bigger issue is this: Why is there such interest in restricting what other people can do? IMO, a couple things. One big thing was that antennas kind of got in there as collateral damage. This is pure conjecture, but the biggest beneficiary of antenna restrictions was the cable TV industry. Even though they had a superior product, if you couldn't put up a TV antenna, it seals the deal. No exceptions were made until the sat TV people made a very similar product with an antenna that is pretty unobtrusive. Second thing is perhaps one of the less pretty parts of human nature. A lot of people believe that they know what's best, and they have no problem imposing what they know on other people. If a contract in development A has one page of activity restrictions and development B has three, then by their logic, Development B simply has to be "better". That's my guess anyhow. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 23, 4:35 pm, Patty Winter wrote:
But *is* it a violation? If the HOA people considered it a birdhouse, and if tall birdhouses are allowed, then maybe he didn't violate the CCRs. Or at least only in spirit, but not according to the letter of the CCRs. In some 'hoods, the Birdhouse might be the wrong color. And perhaps as a birdhouse it is fine. But certainly as antenna it is probably not. -73 cd MIke N3LI - |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 24, 1:10 pm, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
A point to consider, if there are CC&R (say like banning antenna''s), but there is no HOA. In most localities the CC&R has to be enforced by private court action of another home owner. Since their court costs have to come out of their personal pocket, it does really reduce the odds of the CC&R being enforced It's a very good point, Ralph. A person who lives in a place with an HOA at some level wants to live there and is accepting of that fact. One of the other less pretty aspects of human nature is that there are people who either want to mess with the HOA, or want it, but want special privileges. I would personally find it a little odd that a person who is accepting of such intense outside control would under normal circumstances both live in such a place, and simultaneously want to put up a AR antenna. |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 24, 1:12 pm, George Csahanin wrote:
After having been the architectural control committee where I live, and researching CC&R's extensively I hate to tell you that these things are almost everywhere now. You betchya! We have neighborhoods in my area that dictate almost every facet of your domicile, from yard appearance to house color and style. And believe it or not, there is a fairly early development around here that has as one of it's restrictions,a racial clause. As you might guess, that one isn't enforced, but it is abhorrent and while early mortgage holders still have their signed documents to that effect - it isn't enforced. So the amateur is faced with no operation or bending the rules. Jeff may be in a nice situation there, but I see it as less than black and white issu e. And yet I can find dozens of available, nice houses in our area that allow me to put up what I want. Implied in all of the CCR issues is the unstated part that the prospective station operator wants to live in the nice subdivision, with other people of like mind and status, but want's that one little change that will allow him to do what he wants to do. He doesn't want to live somewhere else. I chose a different path. I live where I'm allowed to put up antennas. I'm violating no laws or covenants. If other people's situation differs, its more likely to be a matter of that they care more about whatever attracted them to their neighborhood than they care about amateur radio. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jeffrey D Angus writes:
I was reading the Feb 2010 copy of QST at dinner this evening. And right there in the "Up Front" section was a wonderful article about "How I defied the CCR I signed when I bought my condo and put up an antenna in contradiction to the rules I agreed to." Do we all have to act like having an FCC grant (license) somehow makes us above the law? Sooner or later, the homeowner associations are going to catch on about bird houses, flag poles and the like and just simply write into the rules, "No transmitting or receiving equipment." And we'll have brought it on ourselves by constantly showing our inability to follow the rules. Well, if they did that, everyone would have to throw out their microwave, router, cell phone, radios, garage door opener, car remote, tv and computer, which, I doubt they would be willing to do! -- “Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.” Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954 http://www.stay-connect.com |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve Bonine writes:
George Csahanin wrote: The pea brained real estate sales people somehow think they're [CCRs] good and preserve property value. From the perspective of a property owner, restrictions generally do preserve property values. From your perspective as a ham, they are horrible things that prevent you from exercising your rights and enjoying your hobby. Both contingents can mount persuasive arguments to support their opinion. I saw the convenants and restrictions before signing the papers ( a law here in California), but had no choice given my geographical and financial needs. I'm not going to argue from a constitutional perspective. A contract is acontract. Nevertheless there are creative ways to erect an antenna and get on the air unobtrusively. One option is a portable antenna you can put up at night and take down during daylight hours. I leave it to you to decide how to implement this. Another option is an indoor antenna. When I put up my indoor 20 m dipole in 2008, it performed pretty poorly. Now that conditions have improved, I'm actually able to work some DX, and can work most of the stations I hear. As the cycle 24 progresses, I'm sure the indoor system will be more thanadequate. Another option is using a *dummy* satellite feedline as an endfed 1/2 wavee or random wire antenna. Or load up your rain gutters. LeeNY6P |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve Bonine wrote:
From the perspective of a property owner, restrictions generally do preserve property values. From your perspective as a ham, they are horrible things that prevent you from exercising your rights and enjoying your hobby. Both contingents can mount persuasive arguments to support their opinion. I don't know of any study showing that antennas lower property values. For that matter I don't know of any showing that outdoor clotheslines lower values either. It's a claim that appeals to those opposed to antennas, but it doesn't seem to have backing in the real world. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pictures of your antennas in the Antennas in the World directory | Antenna | |||
Using 2 antennas in car | Equipment | |||
WTB 80/40 Mor-gain or Antennas West PM Antennas | Antenna | |||
FM Antennas | Antenna | |||
FM Antennas | Antenna |