"Bill Horne" wrote in message
...
On 1/28/2010 8:43 AM, D. Stussy wrote:

Hey Jeff: I thought it was when you stuck the all-metal table knife
into
the live electrical outlet as a child that did it.

That's nothing special: we *ALL* did *THAT*. ;-)

Yes, but Jeff held on. Anyone use a hairpin - with each prong in a
separate hole?

On 1/30/2010 1:03 AM, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Bill Horne wrote:
During most of the Cold War, hams were a trained corps of
radio operators who could be pressed into service quickly
if needed ...

Ah, one of the few that truly understood the reasons for
Morse Code. (And the decided lack of it now.)

Since I'm an "old law" Extra, I think I'm entitled to say that the view
from the top of Morse Mountain wasn't worth the climb. I like Morse
"now and then", and I have a collection of old telegraph instruments,
but I agree that it's no longer practical.

However, the question now is "how do we keep ourselves on the
Pentagon's and the FCC's good side"?

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.

"Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

We must adapt or perish.

And flaunting CC&Rs is not the answer.

I think the problem, in a nutshell, is that it may eventually become
the only option. There's little vacant land to be had, and that means
builders will be tearing down existing houses to make way for the next
generation's McMansions, so even "old" areas will eventually come under
CC&R restrictions.

The larger question is, as I've said before, "Do we matter anymore"?
We're certainly not going to be drafted to pound brass alongside
another soldier who is talking to the U.S. on a suitcase satellite
while he faxes the daily readiness report, and we're not needed to
maintain the broadcast industry's equipment, which is now so reliable
that stations don't have to have a licensed engineer on the payroll.
The trend, as in all walks of life, is toward the bottom of the
educational barrel, with specialist such as we being relegated to
"maybe we'll call you" limbo at the same time automated test equipment
makes our specialty obsolete.

So, what now? We've had this debate before, and I'll repeat my
position: either we get a lot better at publicizing ourselves, and a
lot better at being available in emergencies so that we have something
to brag about, or we resign ourselves to a long decline.

Bill, W1AC

On Jan 28, 9:32�am, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:
What I see happening more and more is that
deed restrictions and
similar one-sided unchangeable contracts are being
used to replace
zoning, nuisance ordinances and building codes.
And I think that's a
very bad thing which must be resisted however possible.

Do you have specific ideas on how this can be resisted?

One way is education: make people aware of the real long-term
ramifications of CC&Rs, HOAs, etc. Particularly when they take the form
of an unchangeable contract.

Such education takes time but it does make a difference in the longrun.

American culture has changed a lot during
the past few decades. �When
did we start seeing the McMansions?

Good question! My guess is the late 1980s.

�The idea of "the perfect house" is
much different now than 30-40 years ago.

What would you say has changed? What did it used to be, and what is
itnow?

The public votes with its wallet.

But often it's not an informed vote. Look at how many people got
themselves into a financial disaster by buying too much house. They
didn't *plan* on that!

�As you point out, if there was
general displeasure with CCRs, houses
with CCRs wouldn't sell. �I don't
see any evidence that CCRs significantly
reduce the sales potential of
the property involved, and their growth
suggests that the general public
views them in a positive light.

I see two factors:

First, the general public often really doesn't understand what they're
getting into. That's been proven time and again.

Second, in my limited experience, CC&Rs tend to *reduce* a home's price
long-term. This mean a restricted house sells for less, making it seem
a better deal.

But what then happens is the owners discover that, with the HOA fees,
pages of rules and lack of flexibility, the place costs more overall.

You may perhaps think my views are pessimistic;
I prefer to consider
them realistic. �As a tiny minority, hams are unlikely to have an
y
effect on the trend to attach CCRs to property. �That's
why I think it's
better to know as much about the system as
possible and learn how to
work within it. �Yes, it can be difficult to work within it. ï
¿½There are
many things in life that are neither easy nor ideal.

Of course we must know the system and how to work within it. We must
also educate other hams; too many don't know the difference between a
township ordinance, a deed restriction and an HOA rule.

But I think there's more that can be done. Legislation is one
possibility. For example, when asked about extending the OTARD ruling
to include ham radio antennas, the FCC essentially responded that hams
should get Congress to instruct them to do it. IOW FCC won't do it
onits own.

There are anti-restrictive-CC&R groups such as one that opposes no-
clotheslines rules.

And there's the media. More than one person has been allowed to have
their flagpole or religious display because the media made an issue
ofit.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

wrote:

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.

Or sailor. I think that this is the future of amateur radio. There
aren't huge numbers of backpackers, marathoners, or sailors, but there
are enough to fuel the interest in the avocation. This is where ham
radio is headed. I don't know how many hams it will take to maintain
the critical mass, and I hope that we don't fall below that number as
the exit rate from the hobby eclipses the entry rate into it.

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

I agree. Over-analysis of the issue sheds little light on how to fight
the fact that CCRs exist. For the majority of the population, they're
simply not an issue and we're unlikely to raise awareness enough to
change that. Even if we did, most folks' reaction would be that CCRs
are a wonderful thing because they see only the benefits and not the
more subtle side effects.

73, Steve KB9X

I just saw this over on eham:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2...come_to_the_ne
ighborhood_see_you_in_court

An extreme case, but it's real.

Imagine if a ham moved in....

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jan 31, 1:14 pm, wrote:
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 mea
ns
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.

Any game difference is due to the lack of sales, due to a depressed
market.

I had the same experience here. At the time we bought, the market was
in a lull between full sped ahead, but it was still better than now.
The real estate agents were very aggressive, and you were bomabarded
with houses that were either not applicable or overpriced. The three I
went through all had the same tactic. They find out how much the
maximum is that the bank will lend you, and then the least expensive
house they show you is at the very top, but most will be significantly
over. Then what you are supposed to do is to figure out how to finagle
that extra amount, usually by taking out another back door loan. One
of them actually called me stupid because I refused to pay more than
66 percent of the maximum amount the bank would loan. They had a
system, and I wasn't playing the right way.

some snippage

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.

You hit the nail square on the head there, Jim. When these things
started, I doubt that anyone had the idea of discriminating against
Hams. We were just collateral damage in the same way that we get
inadvertently get involved in anti-cell phone while driving
legislation.


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.

Right, and in most cases people who are interested are interested in
more restrictions rather than less. There is a type in this world who
is upset by anything out of place, by their view of the back yard
being marred by the neighbors clothes drying on the line, or even the
style of their house once upon a time, they would be consigned to the
eccentric grouch down the road, yelling at the neighborhood kids to
get off their lawn, but now they live in neighborhoods where they
rule.

some more snippage

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.

Again, there is something that is very important, and seems to get
ignored by so many.

I really enjoy being involved with just about all aspects of Amateur
radio, but too many people tend to think that their own interested are
the ARS's main focus. Contesting, Emergency work, favorite modes. It's
all good.

But my main personal interest is radio for it's own sake. I build as
much as I can, and enjoy making those little pieces of electronic
"stuff" do things for me. 8^) The radios themselves have progressed
beyond what is practical for me to build mostly - though practicality
hasn't stopped me yet, but peripheral construction, system building,
and the odd retro project now and then. Yeah, that's cooking with gas!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Feb 1, 8:23 am, wrote:
I just saw this over on eham:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2...come_to_the_ne
ighborhood_see_you_in_court

Imagine if a ham moved in....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Oy! That is *exactly* the reason why I will not live in a neighborhood
like that. I just have to imagine that the stress put on a family by
having an unusual neighbor like that, has to be much more than any
stress from researching, finding and living in a neighborhood where
they don't have intrusive restrictions that neighbors can sue you for.

What is amazing to me is that the unusual neighbor is engaging in
stalking behavior, which apparently puts him on the "right side" in
this development. So completely backwards. What's more, the guy is
winning, the family he is stalking and harassing and suing is moving
away.

In my presumably less proper neighborhood, the police would be
visiting the fellow, and educating him on the wisdom of not stalking
people.

It's all a balancing act. My HF dipole, VHF/UHF Jpole, and HF6V are
put up as unobtrusively as possible. I've not tried to hide any of
them either though, which harkens back to Jeff's original post here.
I've spoken with the neighbors and explained about Ham radio. I do
admit that I've emphasized the emergency aspect, which is just a whole
lot easier to explain to folks, and mentioned that if they get
interference to let me know. They've all been cool with it, though
they like to come out and chuckle at the gyrations when I replace an
antenna.

Side note that was part of a learning process for me: Years ago, we
lived in a townhouse for a couple years. The neighbor lady was a real
pain. Anything she could do to make trouble, she did. This included
calling the fire company during a cookout. Double Oy! Finally, in an
effort to calm things down, we asked her over to share a meal. Problem
solved! While I'll not say she wasn't unusual, all she really wanted
was for the neighbors to have some sort of socialization with her.
Turns out she is an accomplished children's book writer, and has a
wicked sense of humor.

I guess the moral of the story as far as I'm concerned is do your
research, know your neighbors, and communicate with them about your
Hamness. Some times people call me lucky in all this. I think we make
our luck.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:23 am, wrote:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2...come_to_the_ne
ighborhood_see_you_in_court

Oy! That is *exactly* the reason why I will not live in a neighborhood
like that.

With all due respect . . . all neighborhoods are like that.

Yes, there certainly are developments that pride themselves on the
enforcement of their rules, with people out there measuring the height
of your daffodils to be sure they're within the specifications that the
homeowners association has established.

But I've seen petty neighbor squabbles out in the country. It has a lot
more to do with personality clashes between individuals than it does
with CCRs. CCRs may make it easier, and they may be a marker that it's
more likely, but it can happen anywhere.

I guess the moral of the story as far as I'm concerned is do your
research, know your neighbors, and communicate with them about your
Hamness. Some times people call me lucky in all this. I think we make
our luck.

You're right. But luck is there, all the same. You could have an
unreasonable neighbor who didn't respond to your doing all the right
things. If that happened, you would be in a world of hurt with very
little recourse.

73, Steve KB9X

On 2/1/2010 6:20 PM, Steve Bonine wrote:
Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:23 am, wrote:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2...come_to_the_ne
ighborhood_see_you_in_court

Oy! That is *exactly* the reason why I will not live in a neighborhood
like that.

With all due respect . . . all neighborhoods are like that.

Why do you think so many horror movies have the word "Neighbor" in
thetitle?

Bill, W1AC

Ham radio relevance: I had a knock down, drag out boundary fight with
*my* neighbor after I hired a surveyor to stake my land for a tower. It
turned out that my "neighbor" had his fence 16 feet onto my land.

Trust me: *NEVER* buy the title insurance the bank demands. Get your
ownpolicy!

(Filter QRM for direct replies)