Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan wrote:
First let's not that most CC&Rs and/or Home Owner Asocciation terms are not clearly stated nor are they easy to discover on your own. This is why one must insist on seeing the details before signing. If it were that simple, no problem, but convenants and restrictions running with the land are often well hidden. Truthfully a seller only has to be able to legally convey the property and use of the land it sits on, any other deed restrictions are there. Even an attorney who specializes in real estate can miss well hidden CC&Rs or not notice how significant antennas being restricted, or not being able to park an RV in the backyard can be until after it's too late. HOAs can be really problematic, even after you've lived some place for let's say 2 decades, said association can change its rules/regulations and produce results which are really undesirable. The really sad part is that the FCC could decrease restrictions on Antennas and supporting structures rather easily as it did with satellite dishes and less than one meter TV antennas, but I suggest that builders and realty sellers oppose any such change. |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:12:54 EDT, Art Clemons
wrote: The really sad part is that the FCC could decrease restrictions on Antennas and supporting structures rather easily as it did with satellite dishes and less than one meter TV antennas, but I suggest that builders and realty sellers oppose any such change. The FCC adopted the OTARD rule for TV antennas and satellite dishes only because The Congress mandated such. We have been trying to get a similar mandate for many years and it's falling on Congressional deaf ears.. The FCC was very clear a few years ago that absent such a Congressional mandate, it will not make such a rule on its own. As for "hidden" restrictions, many states, including California, require that the seller (through agent, if that is how the transaction is made), provide the buyer with a true copy of both the list of CC&Rs and any HOA rules that affect the property and the buyer has the option to review and decline to proceed with the purchase, just as with a title search and home defect inspection. When we bought this house in Oregon, we had our agent's office request that info from the county recorder through a title search company before we even got serious, and we declined several houses which were nicer and newer because there were such restrictions, including one brand new townhouse that screamed "CC&Rs" even though they couldn't find any on file. It's called "exercising due diligence". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:12:54 EDT, Art Clemons
wrote: The really sad part is that the FCC could decrease restrictions on Antennas and supporting structures rather easily as it did with satellite dishes and less than one meter TV antennas, but I suggest that builders and realty sellers oppose any such change. The FCC says that they lack the authority to override CC&Rs and HOA agreements as they are between private parties, but that they would override them if Congress passes a law giving them permission. So, let's lobby our federal lawmakers to pass such a law. That's the way the TV industry got the FCC to override CC&Rs and HOAs for TV receiving antennas. Dick Grady, AC7EL |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:12:54 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
The really sad part is that the FCC could decrease restrictions on Antennas and supporting structures rather easily as it did with satellite dishes and less than one meter TV antennas, but I suggest tha t builders and realty sellers oppose any such change. You can make a mighty fine HF antenna system and disguise it as an OTA receiver antenna. I specifically asked for no deed restrictions when I went house hunting and my realtor found me a great neighborhood full of non-judgmental gear- heads and garage bands. We block off cul-de-sacs and have block parties; not exactly Leisure World... |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/17/11 3:05 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
The FCC adopted the OTARD rule for TV antennas and satellite dishes only because The Congress mandated such. We have been trying to get a similar mandate for many years and it's falling on Congressional deaf ears. ... They were heavily lobbied by the satellite interest groups who have deep pockets...Murdoch and his ilk. Hams can't offer them anything comparable so we're just SOL... |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:23:37 EDT, dave wrote:
You can make a mighty fine HF antenna system and disguise it as an OTA receiver antenna. In the Report and Order that established the OTARD rules, the FCC specifically said that use of an OTARD antenna for any other purpose would not fall under that protection. If the HOA was really out to get you, they would hire a company like ours or our competitors to determine that the antenna was being used to radiate a signal and then it's "gotcha". Like I always say - when you get caught, what excuse are you going to offer? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/18/2011 3:55 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
Like I always say - when you get caught, what excuse are you going to offer? Like I tried to explain to a friend that lost, seriously, in court. "We was robbed!" beats, "Oh, was this yours?" Every time. Jeff -- "Everything from Crackers to Coffins" |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/18/2011 4:59 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:23:20 EDT, wrote: So, let's lobby our federal lawmakers to pass such a law. That's the way the TV industry got the FCC to override CC&Rs and HOAs for TV receiving antennas. There has been a bill to that effect introduced in the last three (or is it four now) sessions and it dies in committee. One of the powerful leaders of the House is a ham. The League is on top of it. Bottom line -- Money talks. OK, I'm going to be the one who opens the box Pandora left lying around: get ready for some fireworks. I'm going to ask a serious, and seriously discomfiting, question - Do Hams _DESERVE_ special treatment? I'm not going to mince words: if we're going to overcome HOA/CC&R restrictions, we need to have a real, believable, valid argument that can convince legislatures and neighbors that we deserve it, and I can't think of one: there are hams seriously dedicated to public service and EmCom, but their numbers are small, and I don't think that hams have enough of a claim on the government's pool of good will to warrant being given special privileges to rescind contract provisions which we don't like. I've written about this before, and it's as applicable to this debate as to arguments about what frequency assignments we're "entitled to", or being excepted from the laws against having a radio that can listen to the police channels, or to getting a discount on vanity license plates. I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see how ham radio can dig itself out of the hole that changing technology and computer-synthesized frequency-agile public safety radio networks have put us in. * It's not enough to say that we know Morse code: even if it were still required, it wouldn't be relevant. *It's not enough to say that we know things that others don't: the expertise which used to be required to make disparate networks and radios inter-operate has been programmed into LSIC chips inside public safety transceivers, and changing them to form a new team is a matter of a few minutes time. * It's not enough to claim that we can carry messages: public safety agencies have had the capacity to communicate outside of disaster areas for years, and "Heatlh and Welfare" traffic is a "feel good" capability that doesn't translate into votes. I'm not saying that ham radio is dead: that's not the question here. The question is if "we" deserve special consideration from the government because we're hams. Look, guys, Pandora left a box behind! Bill, W1AC -- Bill Horne (Filter QRM to email me directly) |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/13/2011 5:29 PM, Jeffrey Angus wrote:
I see this month's edition of QST has yet another series of articles on how to violate the terms of the contracts people sign when they move into a housing development. Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi Personally.. I'm very much against those "Covenants" as they are called.. I mean.. If I buy a plot of land.. Short of laws, it's MY property. My Castle as it were. and the neighbors should not be able to "outlaw" that which the city, county and state allow. -- Nothing adds Excitement like something that is none of your business. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2092/4569 - Release Date: 10/23/11 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|