On Jan 23, 10:17�am, Steve Bonine wrote:

I wonder if such information exists;
is there some compilation of data
that says that xx% of home sales
included some kind of restriction?

Good question! But what we need is even more specific, such as how many
homes in a specific price range, etc.

It also depends on where you are geographically.
�Here in rural
Minnesota such restrictions do not exist.
�But not everyone yearns to
live in rural Minnesota . . . especially at this time of the year

I yearn to live in rural Minnesota. Or New York State, Maine, and many
other places - any time of year.

But for most of us, there has to be a suitable job. Or jobs, in
manycases.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:

Interestingly enough, in the original article in QST, when asked
"What are the wires going to the birdhouse for?" He answered. "It's
for a weather station."

Hrmmm, obviously knew the "I have an antenna in violatioin of the
rules" was the wrong answer.

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.


Patty N6BIS

Patty Winter wrote:
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Hrmmm, obviously knew the "I have an antenna in violation
of the rules" was the wrong answer.

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."

My point is, what part of no outside antennas permitted don't
people understand?

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi

--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

Steve Bonine wrote:

I'm inclined to disagree with you, but I don't have any more factual or
statistical information than you do to make or refute such a statement.
I wonder if such information exists; is there some compilation of data
that says that xx% of home sales included some kind of restriction?


I used to do a lot of closings, most developments and housing tracts built
after 1973 had either the original builder or the successor home owners'
association include that as a deed restriction.

The restriction is also provided in models for lawyers to draft such
restrictions so they will stand up in court. I only only of a few locales
in Illinois (a ham lawyer drafted models) where it's not boilerplate.

I'll put it this way, if you want a boring day, go to your local county
recorder's office and try to find a division that doesn't include them one
way or another. Older locales and most big cities don't have said
restrictions, of course, lots are smaller and there are likely to be
offsetting problems like for example fear of children climbing your tower.

wrote:

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.

This is a tricky proposition. If the private way is open to the public only
reasonable restrictions are allowed. Thus restricting hours large trucks
may make deliveries might be reasonable but the private way also has to give
notice that it's private unless it's patently obvious. Thus, you can't
parade in someone's driveway without permission and meeting all legal
requirements for a parade. I further note that HOAs usually don't want to
own roads and streets precisely because then they have to be paid for by the
HOA's membership rather than tax dollars.

"Jeffrey D Angus" wrote in message
...
Patty Winter wrote:
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Hrmmm, obviously knew the "I have an antenna in violation
of the rules" was the wrong answer.

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."

My point is, what part of no outside antennas permitted don't
people understand?
-----------

I live in a CC&R'ed community, but the CC&Rs were written with an escape
clause which I executed back in 1990. However, none of my neighbors have
ever challenged my property's status despite my 15 antennas (of which 3 are
covered by FCC rulings and state law for TV and satellite reception).
However, I did work out placement with them - but it didn't affect any of
their "city views."

To Jeff: What part of "unenforced CC&Rs" don't people understand? Failing
to complain eventually estops an action when too much time has passed.

Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
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.

It would be useful to read the specific rules. The article doesn't say
the rules prohibit antennas, it just says they *concern* antennas. It
is very possible that the rules don't prohibit antennas outright, just
restrict their appearance. Obviously W0ES's arrangement complies with
the aesthetic requirements of the rules!

================================================== ==================

While one has to live with the rules one agrees with... one also has to
suspect the widespread deployment of such rules is destructive to our
hobby. An existing ham may or may not have the option of selecting a
home without CC&Rs when looking for a place to live. A young person
considering taking up ham radio is not going to be having much luck
getting his parents to move so he can have some antennas -- he's
probably going to give up on ham radio & take up Linux instead.

It's not difficult to see other hobbies suffering from this aesthetic
intolerance as well. Amateur auto mechanics, for one. People who are
*not* hams are beginning to get fed up with this as well.

--

Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

In article ,
"D. Stussy" wrote:




To Jeff: What part of "unenforced CC&Rs" don't people understand? Failing
to complain eventually estops an action when too much time has passed.

AFAIK that depends on the locality. I know locally if one CC&R is not
enforced the courts -tend- to want to ignore all of them.

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

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

Steve Bonine wrote:

Art Clemons wrote:

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'm inclined to disagree with you, but I don't have any more factual or
statistical information than you do to make or refute such a statement.
I wonder if such information exists; is there some compilation of data
that says that xx% of home sales included some kind of restriction?

It also depends on where you are geographically. Here in rural
Minnesota such restrictions do not exist. But not everyone yearns to
live in rural Minnesota . . . especially at this time of the year grin

73, Steve KB9X
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. The pea brained real estate sales people somehow
think they're good and preserve property value. But after some point in the
early 80's almost any land subdivision included restrictions, and pretty
universally included language regarding antennas. Before that the language
may have been directed toward "structures" not antennas. It also seems to be
more prevalent regionally. That could have something to do with when a
particular area experienced rapid growth. (like here near Austin, TX)

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 issue.
I also balance it in a way that causes no issues. I have a HF6V in the
backyard, and a 440 vertical back there too. The 440 antenna is somewhat
visible from teh street, the HF6 isn't, obstructed by a tree. The neighbor
can see it, but they know that the moment they say anything is when I go
after them for their barking yip-dogs, which I see as a worse issue than
antennas.

GeorgeC
W2DB

In Jeffrey D Angus
wrote:

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."

There's nothing to suggest he violated any conditions.

Such rules are generally for esthetic reasons, and he probably
followed them to the letter.

--
Bert Hyman W0RSB St. Paul, MN