Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. Bill, they don't have to "add" anti-antenna CC&Rs. They have been in there for 50 years from the days when the cable companies paid the developers put them in to stop private TV antennas -- and new developments take the "cookie cutter" approach and just copy the existing ones. The average home buyer doesn't take the time to read those parts of the purchase contract anyhow -- anything past the price and interest and "points" is gobbledygook except to the lawyers. Heck, the "CC&Rs" for my (now former) condo apartment in California even had references to filing and recording in the wrong county! My only gripe about the proposed HR-4969 is that it covers CC&Rs and similar private land use restrictions but does not explicitly cover rental properties' "landlord's rules" (like the one where I live now). Anyone for a lawsuit? g 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel |