On Feb 2, 3:10 am, Bill Horne wrote:
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...lcome_to_the_n
e
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
the title?

No problem guys, let's just say that I am incredibly lucky.

Then again, some of us may have some part in manufacturing our own
luck.Can I say for sure that I'll never have neighbors that accept my
Ham radio avocation? Not 100 percent. On the one side of our house is
a high-end rental. But we're friends with the landlord, and she makes
sure the prospective renters know I'm a Ham. But catch this, if
there's a big problem, the renters will go. That probably sounds
strange, but it's a networking issue. The XYL was involved in the
landlord getting and remodeling the place, and we watch over it for
her.

BTW, I had my lot surveyed before buying and I hired a lawyer to do my
own title search - although I still had to buy the insurance -no
choice. The insurance cleared, and the lawyer found some problems.
Saved me about 5K for a couple hundred paid to him.

On Feb 1, 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.

I don't think so. I've lived in several neighborhoods that weren't and
aren't like that at all.

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 ha
s 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 tha
t it's
more likely, but it can happen anywhere.

Agreed - it most certainly can, and does, happen in places
withoutCC&Rs.

The thing about CC&Rs is that, IMHO, they make such things more
likelyand easier.

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 coul
d 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 v
ery
little recourse.

Depends on the situation. Yes, a bad neighbor can make life miserable
in almost any situation. But CC&Rs can make it easier for the bad
neighbor to do it, and do it *legally*.

I think it's very important for hams to be good neighbors, with or
without CCRs, HOAs, etc. I think part of that is being knowledgeable
about some of the issues.

I've known hams (and others) who loudly expressed the idea that it was
THEIR property and they could whatever they wanted with it. These folks
expressed disdain for building codes, zoning ordinances, etc. Problem
is, even a non-attorney like me knows that it doesn't work that way.
For example, if a neighbor violates building safety codes in such a way
as to create a fire hazard, my property is at risk, and I have a
legitimate interest in getting the codes enforced. Same for things like
flooding. When an amateur disregards such concepts, it makes us look
bad.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
I've known hams (and others) who loudly expressed the
idea that it was THEIR property and they could whatever
they wanted with it. These folks expressed disdain for
building codes, zoning ordinances, etc. Problem is, even
a non-attorney like me knows that it doesn't work that
way. For example, if a neighbor violates building safety
codes in such a way as to create a fire hazard, my
property is at risk, and I have a legitimate interest in
getting the codes enforced. Same for things like flooding.
When an amateur disregards such concepts, it makes us look
bad.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Which goes back to what I said originally:
Do we all have to act like having an FCC grant (license)
somehow makes us above the law?

Back when I was living in Culver City, I'd put a pair of
push up masts at opposite ends of the house to string a
multi-band dipole between. About 5' above the crest line
of the house. Just the poles, I hadn't put the dipole up
yet.

My neighbor's wife called in tears, "I can see that pole
from every window of my house."

Later that evening her husband called and threatened me
with all sorts of law suits etc. etc. I suggested that if
his view was ruined he should consider moving to an area
with CC&Rs. Of course, the down side would be their new
neighbors would have their yappy dogs put to sleep.

I didn't hear another word out of him for 6 months.

Although he did show his displeasure by refusing to trim
the ivy on his fence for a whole year. Until the city made
him cut it back.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi



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

http://www.stay-connect.com

On Feb 3, 1:39 pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:

Which goes back to what I said originally:

Do we all have to act like having an FCC grant (license)
somehow makes us above the law?

And my point was that *some* hams think that way. Not all. And it's not
about the license grant.

What I think is the really bad part is that such comments display an
ignorance of the law which weakens their case. Yes, state and local
governments cannot regulate radio the way FCC does. No, that does not
mean an amateur has carte blanche when it comes to antennas.

Back when I was living in Culver City, I'd put a pair of
push up masts at opposite ends of the house to string a
multi-band dipole between. About 5' above the crest line
of the house. Just the poles, I hadn't put the dipole up
yet.

My neighbor's wife called in tears, "I can see that pole
from every window of my house."

How?

I mean, unless her house only had windows on the side facing your
house, she was clearly incorrect.

Later that evening her husband called and threatened me
with all sorts of law suits etc. etc. I suggested that if
his view was ruined he should consider moving to an area
with CC&Rs. Of course, the down side would be their new
neighbors would have their yappy dogs put to sleep.

I didn't hear another word out of him for 6 months.

But he eventually got over it, right?

Although he did show his displeasure by refusing to trim
the ivy on his fence for a whole year. Until the city made
him cut it back.

Well, I must be lucky, because around here the neighbors ask if theycan
help. Shovel each others walks and driveways when it snows, mow each
other'slawns when on vacation. Many of the homes share driveways; one
pair of families I know put basketball hoops on both sides so the kids
can play full court.

Some houses have TV antennas, ranging from relics of the 1950s to those
little dishes. I have a mast and 80/40/20 inverted V with the center at
40 feet. Some people garden extensively, some play music, some are
constantly upgrading their properties, somehang out on their front
porches whenever weather permits. Nobody gets upset aboutany of it.

On Halloween I can count on at least 100 kids showing up for trick or
treat. Then there are the Christmas displays..

Two summers ago the neighbor across the street had a tie-dye party on
the front lawn. It was a blast.

You can't force that sort of stuff by regulation. We lend each other
tools and give away surplus materials. (Neighbor'scomputer monitor
failed, I went up to the attic and gave him one of myspares...)

CC&Rs? What are they?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 2/4/2010 8:18 AM, wrote:
On Feb 3, 1:39 pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:

Which goes back to what I said originally:

Do we all have to act like having an FCC grant (license)
somehow makes us above the law?

And my point was that *some* hams think that way. Not all. And it's not
about the license grant.

What I think is the really bad part is that such comments display an
ignorance of the law which weakens their case. Yes, state and local
governments cannot regulate radio the way FCC does. No, that does not
mean an amateur has carte blanche when it comes to antennas.

I think you've come to the nub of the problem: I resent the notion that
the Federal government would apply Force Majeure to override CC&R
clauses forbidding TV antennas, but leave restrictions in place for
Amateur Radio skyhooks.

To be sure, there's a value judgement involved: the FCC had to decide
that the "value" of television outweighs that of preventing individuals
from having to suffer something they consider to be an eyesore. I, on
the other hand, think that my antennas deserve as much consideration as
a satellite dish, no matter what the content they help to convey.

Bill, W1AC

--
(Filter QRM for direct replies)

In article , Bill Horne
wrote:

To be sure, there's a value judgement involved: the FCC had to decide
that the "value" of television outweighs that of preventing individuals
from having to suffer something they consider to be an eyesore. I, on
the other hand, think that my antennas deserve as much consideration as
a satellite dish, no matter what the content they help to convey.

I don't believe that the value judgement was on the part of the FCC. As
I recall, its origin was the United States Congress.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

The FCC simply did as they were told, and implemented regulations which
enforce the intent of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Actof 1996.

The FCC has repeatedly been asked to expand the OTARD rules to cover
amateur radio antennas. They have repeatedly responded that they don't
feel that they can re-interpret Federal law to do so... it would go
well beyond the wording and intent of the cited law.

If Congress chooses to change the law (or pass a new one) and give the
FCC the explicit authority to override CC&Rs with regard to amateur
radio antennas, then I have little doubt that the FCC would once again
do as they were told, and enact new regulations.

Unless and until Congress acts in this way, the FCC is very unlikely to
change the regs... because, I suspect, they're pretty sure that if they
did so, somebody would take them to court for misinterpreting the law,
and the FCC would probably lose.

If you want OTARD expanded to include an exemption for amateur radio
antennas, write your Congress-critter. There have been bills
introduced several times in the past few years, to do just this... and
they've all died for lack of support.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Jan 30, 5:24 pm, wrote:
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
it now?

the reason is that people were sold on the idea that:

They aren't making any more real estate.

Square footage is cheap to build, and will appeal to the type of
customer you want looking at your house when you move up to the next
level. After all, you're paying 100K for ht eland, you have to put a
proper house on it.

Oh dear, oh dear, the market is going bonkers, you just have to figure
out how to buy this place before the price goes up again. But once you
buy or build it, the value will just keep going up.

Real estate never loses value, so if you overspend now, you can just
refinance in a couple years. Isn't that worth a couple years of a
tight budget?

That isn't opinion BTW, I heard them all.

snippage

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.

And that's one of the things that I think ARRL does pretty well at.
It's an expensive game, but we gotta do it.


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
of it.

And Hams have to do a good job of working the media. we need to get
the word out, and if we need to ply for sympathy or even get the
public a little worked up for our plight, we gotta do it. And above
all, we have to look the good part. We want avoid looking like the mad
scientist - very hard for me, because I do get excited about this kind
of thing. But I've been on TV and in the papers several times now with
Ham radio activities, so they either like me or I've got entertainment
value! 8^)

-73 de Mike N3LI -

Not really. The community will reach a point where it looks like it is. The
restrictions try to artificially modify the appearance. I have general
dislike for real estate people. I've dealt with enough personally and
professionally and have found very few who really get it. Rednecks will have
dogs...and pickup trucks. Don't want to deal with those, buy elsewhere. But
after moving in, don't force them to get rid of the trucks. (This one I
speak from experience...7 long years of listening to these hounds...they
finally moved out and that home now has a Mercedes and no dogs)

As far as preserving value, that should be fairly easy, if everyone involved
is reasonable. It gets bad when you have the one idiot that wants to raise
livestock on a 6000 sq ft lot. But the community can take care of that
without restrictions. I keep my property nice, because I want to. I
absolutely HATE a gun at my head regarding it. Its a Texas thing...

And adding to the general angst is where some individuals were conned into
thinking the house is their pension plan. No, its a place to live, and don't
expect a 25% gain every year, as the real estate agent told you it would.

I guess my, and others perspectives would be different if there were some
areas built out without the absolute ban on antennas, specifically. But
these people writing the restrictions seem to have a font of boilerplate
that is bad.

And why is it recently that it has become so bad? To my view, homes built
pre-1980 or so are easier on the restrictions. All of the "new" construction
is where it is severe. And in an area like Austin Texas the construction has
been intense over the past 15 years. (the saying goes...everytime they raise
taxes in California a new subdivision is built here)

Take care.

GeorgeC
W2DB


"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
...
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.