Sorry if this has bee discussed before, but I just found out about this.

I live in a community that has CC&R's (deed restrictions) that prevent
me from putting up any externally visible antennas. I'm not complaining,
well not too much, I knew about the restrictions before I purchased the
house, so what complaint could I have? So far I've managed by putting
up quick wire antennas at night, or hiding them in trees or the eves of
my house. But it is *really* hard to put up any kind of efficient
antenna for working HF on the longer bands.

HR-4969 is apparently a bill in congress which would extend the
"reasonable accommodation" standard which now applies to Federal,
State and local government regulations so that it covers private
land contracts as well. Way back in the 70's, the FCC declined to
preempt such private land contracts (deed restrictions) for Ham radio,
even though it felt it necessary to do the very same thing for
over the air TV and Digital internet and phone services.

I know that this kind of bill has been introduced before in previous
sessions of congress only to die in committee. Could this time be
different? You never really know. Perhaps this time it will work?
But it will ONLY work if we can get enough support generated for it by contacting our representatives in support of it. Time is short, so
please try!

http://www.arrl.org/hr-4969


KC4UIA - aka Bob.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 22:13:40 EDT, KC4UAI wrote:

Way back in the 70's, the FCC declined to
preempt such private land contracts (deed restrictions) for Ham radio,
even though it felt it necessary to do the very same thing for
over the air TV and Digital internet and phone services.

The FCC issued the (in)famous PRB-1 ruling in 1985, not the 1970s. As
far as pre-emption of regulations banning TV/satellite dish antennas,
known as OTARD, this was ordered by The Congress in 1996 - the FCC
didn't have a choice. There was big money fighting against it but the
broadcasters had even bigger money.

The FCC has continuously refused to exercise pre-emption of private
land use contract restrictions absent a directive from The Congress,
just like the OTARD had to be done. That's what this bill is all
about. There is big money fighting against it as well.

As far as regulating interstate and foreign phone service -- this goes
back to 1934! As far as regulating internet service - the FCC does
not regulate it at all. That's what all this brouhaha about "net
neutrality" is all about and it's being fought by big money interests.

I know that this kind of bill has been introduced before in previous
sessions of congress only to die in committee. Could this time be
different? You never really know. Perhaps this time it will work?

It's being referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep
Greg Walden, W7EQI (R-OR), chairs that panel's Communications and
Technology Subcommittee. He had introduced similar bills in prior
sessions of The Congress. It should come out of committee but whether
it dies on the floor is another matter. We probably will have to
start all over again with the next session of The Congress. The
sooner the better.

"Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never, never" - Winston
Churchill

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

On 8/9/14, 6:54 AM, Phil Kane wrote:

There was big money fighting against it but the
broadcasters had even bigger money.

There is big money fighting against it as well.

and it's being fought by big money interests.

I am so glad I live in a democracy.

73, Steve KB9X

On 8/8/2014 10:13 PM, KC4UAI wrote:
Sorry if this has bee discussed before, but I just found out about this.

I live in a community that has CC&R's (deed restrictions) that prevent
me from putting up any externally visible antennas. I'm not complaining,
well not too much, I knew about the restrictions before I purchased the
house, so what complaint could I have? ...

HR-4969 is apparently a bill in congress which would extend the
"reasonable accommodation" standard which now applies to Federal,
State and local government regulations so that it covers private
land contracts as well. Way back in the 70's, the FCC declined to
preempt such private land contracts (deed restrictions) for Ham radio,
even though it felt it necessary to do the very same thing for
over the air TV and Digital internet and phone services.

I think I'm like most Americans: reluctant to ask the government to
interfere in a private contract. I used to think that, so long as the
CC&R provisions were known in advance and did not discriminate on the
basis of race, religion, etc., that they were something the government
should not tamper with.

Unfortunately, it appears that some local governments, being unable to
impose "zoning" rules that keep out oddballs such as we, have turned to
their friends in the building trade to accomplish privately what they
could not do with zoning law. In other words, some "CC&R" codicils are
written with the goal of obtaining political ends by private means, and
I applaud the congress for taking notice.

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

I welcome debate on the agendas, both known and hidden, which have led
to the use of CC&R restrictions as a substitute for public debate and
public policy.

73,

Bill, W1AC


--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)

On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

Really?

Put yourself in the shoes of an average person. You know nothing more
about ham radio than that it's a hobby that some people enjoy, like
collecting stamps. You may know something about its reputation for
providing communication in times of emergency.

But as this average person, you've seen huge unsightly ham antenna
farms. Yes, I used the word "unsightly". To the average person, the
things that are a delight to the eye of a ham are ugly.

And ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.

Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".

So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime.
It is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

73, Steve KB9X

On 8/10/2014 9:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

As I said previously. People move into areas protected by HOAs
and CC&Rs because they don't want to live next to the "wrong"
kind of people. Unfortunately, Amateur radio operators are also
the "wrong" kind of people that the others in the neighborhoods
are trying to avoid.

--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

On 8/10/2014 10:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

Really?

.... ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.

Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".

So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

I'm not asking why average citizens would want to have CC&R's that
forbid skyhooks: each to his own, etc.

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

73,

Bill W1AC


--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)

On 8/10/2014 2:10 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
On 8/10/2014 10:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

Really?

... ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.

Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".

So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

I'm not asking why average citizens would want to have CC&R's that
forbid skyhooks: each to his own, etc.

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

73,

Bill W1AC



Politicians are people and homeowners, also. And they listen to their
voters (at least the smart ones do). When a few NIMBY's raise a big cry
about something, politicians listen.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

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

In article ,
Foxs Mercantile wrote:

As I said previously. People move into areas protected by HOAs
and CC&Rs because they don't want to live next to the "wrong"
kind of people.

I expect it's more often the case that people move into such areas
because the find a house/condo they like at a price they can afford
in an area that's close to where they work or where there are good
schools. Appearance rules must surely be of much lesser consideration
to most people.


Patty

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:10:32 EDT, Bill Horne
wrote:

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

CC&R's originated because municipalities attached conditions to
building permits issued to developers. The developers were expected
to pass on these requirements to the home buyers in the form of a
contract. In effect, they are a private contract to enforce some
zoning restrictions. Later, the various home owners associations
added additional restrictions that would only work in a contract.
http://realestate.findlaw.com/owning-a-home/cc-r-basics.html
Here's a typical CC&R history of one development:
http://www.sanantoniohills.com/sah_history.htm

The benefits to the developers is that CC&R's generally produce higher
property values and gets the planning department off their backs. The
benefit to the city or county is that they don't have to pay anything
to enforce many of their zoning rules. The benefit to the bank and
mortgage holders is that properties with CC&R's tend to have higher
property values. The benefits to the buyer is that CC&R's generally
insure that the neighborhood won't turn into a slum overnight and will
probably increase in property value when it comes time to sell. The
benefits to the politicians are increased contributions from
developers, higher property tax revenues due to somewhat higher
appraised values, and well controlled demographics useful for
campaigning and re-election.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558