Antenna Group Spotlights ARRL Board Meeting [Archive]

KI4PMG

12-18-2006, 08:05 AM

As many of you know, I am the current President of HAMS FOR ACTION (HFA). We are a small but nationwide group, formed in July of 2006, which favors more intensive action for partial overrides of total bans on outdoor ham antennas by Homeowners' Associations (HOAs). We maintain a Web Site at www.hamsforaction.net

Recently, HFA responded to an announcement, by ARRL's Executive Committee, that the Winter Board Meeting in January will feature "a review of ARRL's overall legislative objectives". Our Members voted to urge the following action by ARRL's Board in January:

"Elevate HOA antenna reform to a top public policy
priority of ARRL, comparable in importance to
restraint of BPL -- and more important than
enactment of the Spectrum Protection Act."

** HFA Members also voted to urge every ARRL Member who agrees with us to contact the ARRL Director and Vice-Director for his or her Region. If YOU are such a pro-reform ARRL Member, HFA urges you to make your voice heard now. **

Following input from, and authorization by, HFA's Members as a whole, HFA itself sent a letter to 3 ARRL leaders: Executive Director Dave Sumner K1ZZ of Connecticut ... President Joel Harrison W5ZN of Arkansas ... and Board Member Jim Weaver K8JE of Ohio (who chairs the Committee that is establishing ARRL's new Legislative Action Program). Copies of this letter were sent to every Director and Vice-Director of ARRL.

HFA's letter conveys our request for Board action in January to make action on HOA antenna reform a top priority.

HFA's letter also commends ARRL for certain actions it has taken during and after the Summer Board Meeting in July. These actions were:

-- Initiating a new Legislative Action Program, to recruit and oversee volunteers for grassroots lobbying

-- Releasing $5,000 in new funding for grassroots lobbying

And

-- Tightening conflict-of-interest regulations for the awarding of ARRL contracts

Further, HFA's letter commends Dave Sumner for proposing the Board's review of "overall legislative objectives" in January.

********

The following documents have now been posted, under the category of "News Items", on HFA's Web Site at www.hamsforaction.net:

1. 6th document to the right of "News Items":

The text of HFA's LETTER TO ARRL

2. 4th document to the right of "News Items":

A SAMPLE LETTER TO ARRL BOARD MEMBERS, which you can use, if you choose, as a starting point for writing letters and/or E-Mails to your ARRL Director and Vice-Director ... Also included: Contact information for every Director and Vice-Director of ARRL

And

3. 5th document to the right of "News Items":

A SAMPLE LETTER TO U.S. SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, which you can use, if you choose, to urge your Congressional legislators to urge the FCC to act on HFA's July 2006 Petition For Rulemaking on HOA antenna reform

********

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!

73,

Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
HFA's URL: www.hamsforaction.net

W6YDK

12-18-2006, 07:52 PM

I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.

N2RJ

12-18-2006, 08:29 PM

kr4ey

12-18-2006, 08:40 PM

K5THC

12-18-2006, 08:59 PM

Wow!! Which "Courts" are we talking about - County, State or Federal. I think the rulings I have read greatly from State-to-State. I wouldn't be too sure everyone's feet will swell up and bleed at $200 per hour.

KB2KFC

12-18-2006, 09:01 PM

This would be fine, except for the fact in some areas of the country, it is impossible to find a house less than 30 years old that is not covered by a CC&R. I moved recently from an area of the country where HOA's were a totally foreign concept. They allow satellite dishes here of course, as they are required by PRB-1, because Hughes and Dish have oodles of cash they could throw at the FCC and Congress.

I think the whole concept of someone being able to tell you what to do on your own private property is preposterous......

Makes me think I am now living in the old USSR......

KL7FZ

12-18-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)]I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.
HOLY SMOKES!!! PLEASE STAY THERE!!! PLEASE!!! If you try to come around here we'll chase you right back to your snooty little enclave! Typical CA lawyer mentality. Probably one of the worst statements I have heard from a licensed ham! Including the whiney no-code ones! (thought I wasn't gonna get that one in here did ya?) Spend so much time worrying about your appearance. How can you spend any time enjoying yourself. Bet you go around the neighborhood at night checking for garbage cans! Maybe even looking in them to see the neighbors are eating what you want them to eat and reading what is only allowed them to read. Probably check to make sure they are only using an authorized brand of toilet paper!
#What is the uniform of the day? Is everybody in lock step going down the walk?
Now I know how the other half lives...if you can call it that!

# Please stay in California. Please, please, oh PLEASE!!!!

# KL7FZ #Alaska
# Where the air is sweet and free and so are we!

I hope I don't have nightmares about this guy now!

NN3W

12-18-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)]
Quote[/b] ]I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

Except for those already ordered by the FCC to be permissible notwithstanding any CC&R language to the contrary.

Quote[/b] ]In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values

Provide proof for this.

K8MHZ

12-18-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote[/b] ]And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.

You are a disgrace to the hobby.

Go polish your Rolex.

KT0DD

12-18-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)]I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.
First of all, Why are you even retaining a license? If you have any knowledge at all about the hobby, then you should know how important a good antenna system is, and it's certainly NOT a piece of wire in the attic! If your unwilling to support the hobby then please GET OUT! Either your for us or against us, and with your remarks, I see your against us and I question wether or not you are of stable charachter to even hold an Amateur license. I think the FCC should do a background check on you and hold a renewal hearing before allowing you to re-new your license should you choose to do so. (Let's hope not!)

k9wkw

12-18-2006, 09:51 PM

I hardly ever post but this is too much and boils my blood.
YES PLEASE STAY IN CAL
You may be a lowyer but you have NO common sense!!!!
I agree with kl7fz and the many others.
Your one of those that has sold out to the all mighty buck.
Sue happy lowyer. I would never want to be you. javascript:emoticon('http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif')
smilie

NN3W

12-18-2006, 09:55 PM

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=87558

K4JF

12-18-2006, 09:56 PM

Thank you. It's about time somebody took on those people who see it as their duty to run other people's lives. And also get rid of the ridiculous BS than an antenna on a house lowers the value of another in the neighborhood!

K4JF

12-18-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ Dec. 17 2006,15:17)]Quote[/b] ]In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values

Provide proof for this.
He can't. Because it is a lie. Total BS.

NN3W

12-18-2006, 10:03 PM

Ironically he has made no argument concerning the dimunition of value reflected by the existence of commercial services antennas (i.e., satellite or broadcast). #Why not? #Because there has #been none. #There were no takings lawsuits either. #The FCC can mandate actions above and beyond the edicts of CC&Rs any. time. it. wants.

BTW, forgot to respond to this section?

Quote[/b] ]I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

Why would the ARRL be required to compensate any homeowner? They don't make rules. They're a lobbying organization just like any other entity and have no legal or contractual obligation to any homeowner.

You really really need to rehit those law books. Torts I my boy. Torts I.

KL7FZ

12-18-2006, 10:05 PM

wa7qzr

12-18-2006, 10:19 PM

W6YDK, Sir, you have serious issues.

"... many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters

[Like this is something "new" for the government? It's their primary function.]

between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited

[What sort of a "ham" would desire to live anywhere that forbid the posession and use of over half the required components of an radio station?]

because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods

[Being a little over-melodramatic, aren't you?]

by towers and beams

[Are we supposed to interpret this to mean that you and your ilk believe that permitting the erection of an tower and beam antenna for Amateur Radio in any given neighborhood will result in "everyone" residing in the neighborhood erecting towers and beam antennas for Amateur Radio?]

..."

Why on earth did you become a Ham in the first place? I would suggest taking up golf or perhaps a country club membership.

ki6lo

12-18-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)]And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.
Come on folks. Can't you small a rat when there's one in the house. This moron is just phishing for comments because he's a stupid troll. Probably not even his callsign. But if it is, we would be better off if he would just let it lapse, with him fading off into the ether. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

I live in California and believe me, there isn't any CC&R's on my property. If my neighbors (yes I have them close but not too close) don't like my towers and antennas, they free to move on. I was there first with the most and I'm not taking anything down for someone's appeasement. Up their's!!!!! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

I just feel sorry for those misfortunates who either didn't read close enough when buying their homes or got in the hobby afterwards and can't put up towers and antennas because of a bunch of left wing snooty morons worried about their property values. If they wanted to make money on investments, go live in a condo somewhere and invest in McDonalds or something like that.

KI6LO
Ridgecrest, CA

k0lqk

12-18-2006, 10:49 PM

k0lqk
I moved here (where there is a HOA) three years ago because i wanted a retirement home that was new and newer than the home i was in. it is a villa and antennas are not allowed. It was all i could afford and was a very good location. So i think concerning the circumstances, that there is way too many cc&r and HOA's

W6YDK

12-18-2006, 11:02 PM

This is too cool! #I just won a $10 bet. #Got Over 50 hits on my call listing in two hours! #Who says nobody reads this stuff?

KI4PEQ

12-18-2006, 11:07 PM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,13:52)]I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.
Does your HOA tell you what color to paint your house, how many cars you can have, if you can have pets, if you can park a pickup truck on your property? The HOA that governed my sister's former home did that and more. It was a single family dwelling. The community had several "condo commandos' who made it their business to snoop around your property to make sure you didn't have anything that would "lower property values" like a fence that was the wrong color, a trampoline for the kids in the back yard, or a boat and trailer parked anywhere in the subdivision.

There is already precedent on this antenna issue. The FCC believed that it was in the public interest to allow satellite dishes under 1 meter in diameter where restrictive covenants and community standards imposed a flat ban. Reasonable accomodation is the governing factor. The HOA can say a dish cannot be installed on the side of the building that faces the street. They can ban installation in common areas. They can require a fence or screen to hide a dish from plain view.

I believe that a similar accomodation can be made for amateurs that operate in HOA governed communities. How about things like towers that crank down or fold. flagpole antennas, and other stealthy measures. That would be a reasonable accomodation. But then again, you would have the resident crazies who would insist that the RF energy released by an amateur radio antenna causes cancer and birth defects.

HOAs are good TO A POINT. I see far too many situations where committee members rule the community with a zeal that would make Hitler blush. Some associations can actually SEIZE your home if you do not pay their fines for violating the rules that they alone interpret.

Sis was smart enough to get out, buy twenty acres of pecan orchard, and she will set her home right in the middle. No HOA or deed restrictions at all.

Not everyone moves in voluntarily to a deed restricted or HOA governed community. The trend is to impose an HOA into all new developments. State, county, and city officials are requiring some developers to impose draconian regulations in the name of "preserving community standards and maintaining property values". They do this because they know that if government were to impose these same restrictions, they would not stand a snowball's chance in hell when challenged in a court of law.

K1MCN

12-18-2006, 11:08 PM

I can’t believe that a ham radio operator would say he is against towers and antennas.
If someone putting up a tower will bring your all too precious property values down then next you will be issuing a order that they can’t have a pool or by heavens can’t paint their house the color they want.
I happen to live in one of the most exclusive and richest towns in Massachusetts. I have a tower in my back yard with a big tribander on top of it. When I decided to put it up I went to the town officials and low and behold there was NO town or neighborhood laws against putting it up. Even the town building department had NO authority over putting up or the engineering of the tower.
I was to say the least very surprised! In the town by laws amateur radio towers are protected as long as they are for amateur usage only. Any commercial usage is governed by town by laws.
I have not had any complaints from any of my neighbors on the tower and antennas in fact I have had several stop by and take a look with interest as to the new tower and my radio station.
I firmly believe in freedom to put up a tower and antennas and will defend my and other’s freedoms to install them.
A typical California lawyer attitude. Remember it was a couple of California lawyers that thought up sending us spam E-mail!!!!

Dover, Massachusetts
K1MCN/ AFA1KM

n0nwo

12-18-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote[/b] ]This is too cool! I just won a $10 bet. Got Over 50 hits on my call listing in two hours! Who says nobody reads this stuff?

Soooooo... are you saying you thought this was april first?

Minton

KI4PEQ

12-18-2006, 11:13 PM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,17:02)]This is too cool! #I just won a $10 bet. #Got Over 50 hits on my call listing in two hours! #Who says nobody reads this stuff?
Want to see even more activity on your publicly accessable information?
Just post a few more inflammatory posts like the one you did in this thread.

It's called "knowing your enemy".

wa7qzr

12-18-2006, 11:49 PM

W6YDK Sez: "This is too cool! #I just won a $10 bet. #Got Over 50 hits on my call listing in two hours! #Who says nobody reads this stuff?"

Since 2002, it says, I've only posted 4 (this makes 5) messages here. The above is a good example of why. What a waste of time, bandwidth, and who knows; maybe even skin.

W5FAE

12-19-2006, 12:16 AM

I bet this guy has an assault rifle he uses against people who put up antennas in his neighborhood...OOPS! They are outlawed too in California. That's two amendments infringed upon... One and two. I wonder how many more RIGHTS this Barrister is willing to compromise? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

de W5FAE

KL7FZ

12-19-2006, 12:17 AM

Quote[/b] (wa7qzr @ Dec. 18 2006,16:49)]W6YDK Sez: "This is too cool! #I just won a $10 bet. #Got Over 50 hits on my call listing in two hours! #Who says nobody reads this stuff?"

Since 2002, it says, I've only posted 4 (this makes 5) messages here. The above is a good example of why. What a waste of time, bandwidth, and who knows; maybe even skin.
He is just trying to find a way to mitigate the damage. If you read his bio, you will find that this was no joke!
He says he has to use his motorhome to operate when he wants but I have seen in restricted communities like his, if you can't have overnight garbage cans, you certainly can't park your motorhome there overnight!
He realizes he made a mistake posting his real views and now is doing the California Shuffle trying to weasel out.
Duck and cover dude!
From your bio you should know that one well!

KL7FZ

KT0DD

12-19-2006, 01:04 AM

I don't understand how the concept of HOA's ever got so popular in the U.S. in the first place. If I'm the one making the mortgage payments and paying the property taxes, then no one should have the power to dictate what I do or don't do on my own property, as long as I'm obeying the law.

Many people use the excuse that it prevents their neighbors from having a junkyard next door, and lowering their so called "property values". What these nitwits failed to realize is most if not all cities/counties/states etc. already have ordinances on their books to prevent those things from happening. What they should have done is got on their county commissioners and law enforcment agencies to ENFORCE the existing ordinances!

HOA's are a communist concept, and I agree wit a previous poster who said it's like living in the old Soviet Union under communist rule! 73.

WA3KYY

12-19-2006, 01:13 AM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,14:52)]In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.
There is no proof anywhere in the country to back up this statement. #Ask any tax assesor or bank appraisor if they lower the assessed or appraised value of properties in close proximity to towers and antennas compared to other identical properties.

Of course you can show by sales price and time on market that property values of homes near towers take longer to sell and sell for less than indentical properties without towers near by.

You can also cite known cases where a court has ruled that a tower owner had to pay his neighbors for the difference at sales time.

I'm not going to hold my breath while you attempt the impossible. In fact, I do not believe you can find a single example where CC&Rs have helped property values. Market data shows properties without CC&Rs appreciate faster than identical ones with CC&Rs.

N2MMM

12-19-2006, 01:19 AM

N6JSM

12-19-2006, 01:24 AM

I live in an area where there is NO HOA. HOA's HAVE to under California and Federal laws shall reasonably accomodate those that wish to erect antenna structures.
Further if your a registered Emergency Communicator in your City or County it would be to thier interest to allow that Ham to have an antenna structure.

So, those that dont want antenna systems, super great dont put them up. Dont even think anyone will stop me from adding to my antenna farm. I havent nor will I ever live in a SOCIALISTIC HOA.....those are for those that NEED direction and cant live without it.

It is to be a ham to have as many antennas as one can.

N0NCO

12-19-2006, 01:38 AM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)]And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.

And you would lose. $200/hr doesn't faze me the least bit. You'd be filing your bankruptcy paperwork while I'd be erecting my antenna system.

Good day!

N0NCO

N7YA

12-19-2006, 02:00 AM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)]I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.
Ok, you have a right to live where you like and to run your house your way, but you sound like a real ninny. something tells me that you are the kind of person who goes into resturants and trips over straw wrappers so you can kick the litigation into high gear.

Oops, forgive me, i didnt mean to call you a ninny...dont want to be sued for defamation.

....ninny....

>snicker<

73 to the rest of the good hams who paid good money for a home in the USA and want to live in it the way they please, my hats off to you!

Adam, N7YA

N7YA

12-19-2006, 02:07 AM

Oh, he was just messing around...his dad is going to whoop his arse when he gets back from the bar for using his computer.

...unless....he realized he looks like a jerk and is backpedaling. Either way...he looks like a jerk to me.

73...Adam, N7YA

N0EE

12-19-2006, 02:41 AM

TROLL- Wonder where he parks the RV and Jeep? Someone else's neighborhood I'm sure....

AE5MH

12-19-2006, 03:08 AM

Hmmm. #
Simply put.. If you had spent this much energy in a productive manner such as selling your condo or house and moving to a place without Covenants you would be a much happier person. #Imposing your beliefs on those that have no interest in having "your rights" imposed upon them is ludicrous.

Any antenna that your license priviledge provides should certainly fit into your attic!

Move, upgrade (now soon without a CW examination) and start to enjoy the hobby. #Remember it's a hobby!

Good Luck and 73
AE5MH

wb6bnq

12-19-2006, 03:12 AM

WELL,

Lets consider some facts he posted on his QRZ page.

This NIMROD is from Mobile, Alabama. #Kind of tells you how it is going to go.

Next He joined the Marines, nothing like that JARHEAD mentality. #Even they realized his only assests and had him in a job where he couldn't hurt anyone, operating a MARS station.

Then he becomes a COP, the only thing JARHEADS are good at. #Besides it fits the mentality.

FINALLY some smarts, he realized how to make money. #He became a lawyer. #Got to give him some credit here.

The truth be known, his XYL probably kicks his ass daily if he doesn't get his chores done. #She most likely makes him stay in the motorhome to keep him out of her way.

She is the one who does not like antennas, etc., and chose the controlled environment. #If he didn't think her way, she would take all his money in a divorce. #So the poor bastard is really screwed and wants all of us to enjoy his misery.

Hey Berry, that is why the Marine Corp lets you keep your 45 with one silver bullet when you get out. #By the way, you should be ashamed of your second post. #No one likes a person who can't stand their ground. #You aught to turn in your uniform.

ai4jd

12-19-2006, 03:14 AM

what a fool why even be an amateur radio op if you dont want antennas or worried about your house value stay in your little gated community and measure your neighbors grass you might have a law suit on your hands and as far as the other hams who buy a home and sign a contract then whine they cant have an antenna too bad deal with it or sell the place what a bunch of babies know what you are doing before you do it plain and simple folks

12-19-2006, 03:35 AM

Some good reading if you have the time. A friend of mine, Jerry-K0TV, went through hell in NH that resulted in his neighbors (the plaintiffs) moving out of the neighborhood. He was able to erect three towers on his property and has one heck of a contesting station. I'm one of the ops there...occasionally.
One of the strongest, if not THE strongest case in support of PRB-1 in the U.S.
K0TV Battle (http://www.k0tv.com/legal_battle.htm)

kn4lf

12-19-2006, 05:59 AM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,07:52)]I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.
W6YDK is a typical California nut or is it a fruit? I lived in Californicate in 1992 through 1994 and couldn't wait to see the California border sign in my rear view mirror. What an over regulated nightmare that place is. We should give it back to Mexico.

I live in a subdivision built in 1989 here in Central Florida and there are no HOA or CC&R issues that prevent outdside antenna's. However it took me 18 months to find a place like this. In Florida the HOA/CC&R thing is out of control.

In my opinion the biggest threat to our hobby is the HOA and CC&R thing with outside antennas. The ARRL should be spending it's time and our yearly dues $$$ on this issue instead of BPL.

73,
Thomas Giella, KN4LF
Lakeland, FL
http://www.kn4lf.com

ka9uce

12-19-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,05:52)]I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.
You should feel very lucky you do NOT live by me as I own my property, and even though there are HOAs in my area, I never signed on to be a 'member' and am not under someone else's thumb as to what I can have on MY property, and I'll damned if ANYBODY will usurp my private property rights for the desires of another!

No signatures, no basis for a suit, you are S.O.L.

And not to mention counter suits you would have to deal with as well, as I'd be certain to sue you as well, it works both ways.

Nobody has more rights with my property than I do, and I take MY rights very seriously!

I also question the validity of an HOA 'contract' that essentially wipes away the rights of property owners and assigns those rights to the HOA exclusively.

To hand over your own property rights and give a company control over your domicile is asinine at the very least, and absurdly foolish.

What happens to your property if you default on payments to your beloved HOA?

They file suit to forclose on YOUR property, that's what happens...then they own your property for free literally!

BAD move no matter how you see it!

As I said before...MY property, MY rules!

ka9uce

12-19-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Dec. 18 2006,09:07)]Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,13:52)]I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.
Does your HOA tell you what color to paint your house, how many cars you can have, if you can have pets, if you can park a pickup truck on your property? The HOA that governed my sister's former home did that and more. It was a single family dwelling. The community had several "condo commandos' who made it their business to snoop around your property to make sure you didn't have anything that would "lower property values" like a fence that was the wrong color, a trampoline for the kids in the back yard, or a boat and trailer parked anywhere in the subdivision.

There is already precedent on this antenna issue. The FCC believed that it was in the public interest to allow satellite dishes under 1 meter in diameter where restrictive covenants and community standards imposed a flat ban. Reasonable accomodation is the governing factor. The HOA can say a dish cannot be installed on the side of the building that faces the street. They can ban installation in common areas. They can require a fence or screen to hide a dish from plain view.

I believe that a similar accomodation can be made for amateurs that operate in HOA governed communities. How about things like towers that crank down or fold. flagpole antennas, and other stealthy measures. That would be a reasonable accomodation. But then again, you would have the resident crazies who would insist that the RF energy released by an amateur radio antenna causes cancer and birth defects.

HOAs are good TO A POINT. I see far too many situations where committee members rule the community with a zeal that would make Hitler blush. Some associations can actually SEIZE your home if you do not pay their fines for violating the rules that they alone interpret.

Sis was smart enough to get out, buy twenty acres of pecan orchard, and she will set her home right in the middle. No HOA or deed restrictions at all.

Not everyone moves in voluntarily to a deed restricted or HOA governed community. The trend is to impose an HOA into all new developments. State, county, and city officials are requiring some developers to impose draconian regulations in the name of "preserving community standards and maintaining property values". They do this because they know that if government were to impose these same restrictions, they would not stand a snowball's chance in hell when challenged in a court of law.
Any HOA that even TRIES to sieze my property will be looking down the barrel of my .50 BMG I have!

Wanna take MY property for dues, then FIGHT me for it first!

I'd love a gun battle with an HOA for my property...I even CHALLENGE them to TRY taking MY property...PLEASE!!!

I WILL fight to the death to keep MY property MINE, and if any HOA tries to steal it, they WILL be shot at until they are D.O.A!

NOBODY, especially an HOA is going to 'sieze' MY property for 'dues' or 'fines'.....GET YOUR GUNS, THERE'S A WAR WAGING!

Fines can not be levied by any private organization, that's a function of a government body, not a private company.
They also have ZERO rights as well...nothing in the constitution grants rights to any company, or even government for that matter!

If Bush himself came to my house and told me he was taking MY property, he'd damn sure better know how to run really fast!

I already won one fight with an overzealous nazi cop back in Wisconsin....he assumed I would pee my pants and relent, and when he pushed, I shoved!

I told him what I tell everybody...MY property, MY rules, don't like them, buy me out then you can do what you want, NOT before!

Save every HOA letter, then file with the postal inspector about harassment letters you've gotten from this 'association' and register a complaint about mail fraud as they are trying to coerce payment from you while using the US mail to do so...FELONY CHARGES!

When the HOA pays my mortgage, and my living expenses, THEN they can dictate how I use the property, NOT before!

I'll grab their scrawny necks and physically remove them from my land, then charge them with criminal trespass as well....just to add insult to injury, that is, if I don't take them into custody and hold them for the 'law' to arrive.....My reason; He might have absconded before you arrived.

But then again, I may do it diferently and ask how much $$$ he has on him, and if he had enough, demand he hand it over or face criminal prosecution...and my reason for demanding money: MY fine to him for his 'transgression' upon me.

I have NO concern over the feelings of a crook!

W6YDK, you sir, are an ass!

It's impossible to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man!

M3WLY

12-19-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Dec. 18 2006,16:07)]They can require a fence or screen to hide a dish from plain view.
So what your saying...

we need to put up 60foot fence's and screens.

Sounds fair to me. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

w2mc

12-19-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote[/b] (M3WLY @ Dec. 19 2006,03:47)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Dec. 18 2006,16:07)]They can require a fence or screen to hide a dish from plain view.
So what your saying...

we need to put up 60foot fence's and screens.

Sounds fair to me. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
And if you load it up right, I'll bet it would radiate nicely on 40 Meters http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

w5tdy

12-19-2006, 11:28 AM

This is the first time I have ever posted a comment, I may live to regret it. #I was compelled to action by this "gentleman's" threat to sue until someone's feet swell and they bleed to death.

I live in a subdivision with covenants. #I abide by them; however, I do have an antenna the result of a reasonable accommodation. #It is not a tower, but it works very well and it "harms" no one.

What would a "reasonable and prudent man do under a similar situation"? #First you have to find a reasonable and prudent man.

Since there appears to be at least one unreasonable self centered bully threatening to conduct "financial terrorism" upon individuals with a difference to his opinion, perhaps I should write and provide support to those that would look for a reasonable and prudent solution.

KG4ZQZ

12-19-2006, 11:38 AM

- my HOA allows antennas... and i'm a good neighbor, so i use a stealthy wire dipole that is all but invisible...

k5xit

12-19-2006, 12:12 PM

K8SOR

12-19-2006, 12:52 PM

A friend once moved into a restricted community--figured to put a dipole on his attic. He was told that he was not allowed ANY TRANSMITTERS. When he went to the meeting, he asked to speak and then informed everyone that TRANSMITTERS #included garage door openers, cordless phones, cell phones, remote auto door lock/unlock, and even the wireless burglar alarms. #The group decided to re-write some of their regulations.

I live in a house with NO restrictions because that's where I want to be. #No nosey neighbors telling me what I can and can't do.

73 all and Merry Christmas # # Skip

N2MMM

12-19-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote[/b] (k5xit @ Dec. 19 2006,05:12)]Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)]I'm making it a point to contact all of my representatives to let them know that most people, and many hams, like me, oppose any attempts at government interference in contractual matters between homeowners. #We bought in neighborhoods where antennas are prohibited because that's where we wanted to live.

In addition, desecration of our neighborhoods by towers and beams will lower our property values and the courts have held that similar acts are a 'taking' and require compensation. #I would assume that any organization, including the ARRL, will be ready to compensate homeowners for such a loss.

And if anyone were to attempt to construct any such thing in my neighborhood, I will be the first one to sue them until their feet swell and bleed them to death at $200 an hour.
WOW!
My $400/hr lawyer will CRUSH his $200/hr lawyer and HE will have to pay the bill.

k4uva

12-19-2006, 01:11 PM

The only person who has an issue with my antennas is the XYL!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Happy Holidays

w3wn

12-19-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote[/b] (K1MCN @ Dec. 18 2006,19:08)]I can’t believe that a ham radio operator would say he is against towers and antennas. <clip>

Dover, Massachusetts
K1MCN/ AFA1KM
Unfortunately, I can.

Many years ago, I was PD at a small FM radio station, located near Penn State. We had a recently-retired USN amateur buy a home in one of the outlying townships. Dave HAD a valid building permit & zoning permission to erect a small tower on his property, but was actually stopped in mid construction due to a neighbor's complaint; they allegedly told him the permit was being pulled because the tower would be in violation of the new zoning rules that hadn't taken effect yet! (And please, don't tell me that they can't do this -- they shouldn't have, but they did).

We had a large turnout at the upcoming zoning board hearing in protest. The board took note, and appointed two members to "study the situation" and report back the following month. Since one of them was a currently licensed ham, we all thought "no problem!" Sadly, it turned out that the two appointees were the ones PUSHING for the tower restrictions -- the ham told us later that he felt that a short vertical or wire dipole was all you needed, and didn't want towers/antennas in his town!

Dave never got his tower up, and he now lives elsewhere.

73

W5HTW

12-19-2006, 02:24 PM

I love it. Ham radio gone rampant. "Anyone who argues with me I 'll kill." There are no words for that kind of attitude and I say this as a guy who hasUSED (and fired) a gun to protect his family.

Don't like the HOA? Don't live in it. Isn't that what we all do? Don't like your city? Move. Don't like your job? Find another one. Don't like your wife? Get another one. Don't like hot dogs? Eat hamburgers.

We should get back to the more civil atmosphere of code/no-code.

n3sdo

12-19-2006, 02:30 PM

I've been kicked out of snooty neighborhoods cause they don't like bikers either. Move to the Biker neighborhood, put up 2 towers, and enjoy live! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

w5klb

12-19-2006, 03:08 PM

YDK has made me feel like one of luckiest people around for living where I do:

1. I live in a very good neighborhood with lots of nice people.

2. They all understand and appreciate my hobby.

3. There are no HOAs or POAs to contend with.

4. This is the best part: PRB-1 has been incorporated into our city ordinances. No tower restrictions for Amateurs.

Yep, my little city is "Amateur Friendly".

So, as you all can see, YDK hasn't made me mad at all. To me, it's all a matter of how you look at him, although he does need to adjust his attitude concerning our beloved hobby.

Thank you YDK for making me realize how truly blessed I am to live where I do. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

W9WHE

12-19-2006, 04:38 PM

While I applaud your efforts, the sad reality is that arrl management doesn't really care what arrl members think or want. Recent history has demonstrated this time and again.

.

VE3LXL

12-19-2006, 05:18 PM

Re: "The trend is to impose an HOA into all new developments. State, county, and city officials are requiring some developers to impose draconian regulations in the name of "preserving community standards and maintaining property values". They do this because they know that if government were to impose these same restrictions, they would not stand a snowball's chance in hell when challenged in a court of law. "

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if your local government is in fact requiring all new housing developments to have HOAs, then you might be able to get the antenna restrictions overturned in court, by arguing that the HOA is government zoning by proxy. If the local government is required by law to make a reasonable accomodation for amateur antennas, it is probably not legal for it to require property developers to ban those antennas as a condition of getting permission to build.

I don't know if this strategy would work, and in any case it would only apply to places where the local authorities require HOAs for all new developments, but it might be worth a try.

w3wn

12-19-2006, 05:41 PM

W6YDK

12-19-2006, 06:47 PM

This is freaking hilarious!

W0GE

12-19-2006, 07:41 PM

My HOA says '' No antennas allowed that are not permitted by the FCC'' Thank you GOD,It was voted and passed by the board and I didnt say a word. Every word is true. So if my wife says its OK and will give me the money. Iam going to put up the biggest darn antenna in the whole wide world. Now What Was This post About. Some guy in calf. doing a joke OR somebody trying to get support about something that is very important. No wonder HAMS cant get much done they cant keep a chain of thought. A zillion post on BS and not one comment on the Subject. Well I had a little better luck with CHU but not much. Like the man said " This is freaking Hilarious!" WELL ALMOST http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif De W0GE

KL7FZ

12-19-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote[/b] (W6YDK @ Dec. 19 2006,11:47)]This is freaking hilarious!
That is a good ploy. If you can't intimidate them, try levity. That'll take off the heat.

#Too late.
#You already stepped in the big pile.

#My attorneys worked on contingency.
#They ALWAYS won!
#KL7FZ

KD6NIG

12-19-2006, 08:10 PM

The problem is that people seem to think a 'reasonable' antenna is a 70 foot tower, nothing less.

And this is what will eventually lead to our downfall. I'm all for our rights, but reasonable is a word that needs to really be studied. Reasonable to a Ham Radio operator is just what I said-a nice large tower full of antennas, and heck, maybe a smaller one next to it.

Reasonanble to your neighbor who came into, signed for, and pays HOA fees is simply....None.

So you need to come up with a REASONABLE compromise. Reasonable isn't full bore, but something good enough to get you onto HF.

And herein, is the rub.

First off, we have people on both sides unwilling to compromise, and they are willing to spend money on lawyers or guns to get their points across. Both of you are going to RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE. If you came at me like that and I was an officer of the HOA governing you, I'd likely go to the next meeting and push to pass something specifically banning anything to do with Amateur Radio. Like you said, you push me, I push back. THAT WILL BE ALL YOU ACCOMPLISH WITH THAT KIND OF ATTITUDE.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I won't play one on QRZ, but much discussion I have viewed regarding PRB-1 is that it allows REASONABLE accomodation. Hm, there's that word again. Odd how it seems to pop up everywhere.

The thing is, if you are in a HOA or "similary governed" area, a signature may not be required. And although you may think that because you didn't sign anything you're not bound, you might want to consult with someone "in the know" before you make a brash or rash move like some people have indicated in this thread.

Anyway, I digress.

Reasonable, thats the key word. And when you're thinking about reasonable, you have to consider this:

-If you use the "emergency service" angle to try and justify a tower, someone could google "amateur radio emergency antenna" and probably find a goodly amount of articles on the ARRL, or other websites, that don't require a tower. Ouch. Just remember that if you take that angle.

-A nice verticle or wire usually works pretty well, isn't too visible, and would probably carry you a bit further towards being reasonable and accomodating. Sure, its not that massive beam, but if you go in fighting with guns blazing for "tower, nothing less" its likely you may end up with....nothing less.

The bottom line here is that all of these people on BOTH sides that are spewing "I'm gonna call my lawyer, if you step on my land I'll shoot you" better consider what they are actually saying, and what the consequences of those actions are. I don't care how you interpret the law, but the bottom line is, if you sue, its likely you're going to win if the legal document is on your side. If you "shoot someone for stepping onto my land" you're likely not going to be enjoying that antenna farm after the police and the court system are through with you.

Reality states that:

1) HOA's wouldn't exist if people didn't want them. If nobody ever signed on the bottom line, they wouldn't be there because nothing would sell. Yeah, the developers made them up for their benefit, but if people really hated them as much as we do, they wouldn't sell any homes in HOA's.

2) The other thing we need to be aware of and keep an eye on also is "Code Enforcement". I don't know if you know any of these people, but in major cities now they like to go around and get people for violations of the local city code too. This is why if you DO erect a tower, you best cross your t's, dot your i's, and make sure everything is in order. Just because you're not in a HOA doesn't mean that some neighbor or passerby could call them and report your tower. Something to keep in mind.

3) Coming to a compromise with REASONABLE needs on BOTH sides of the issue works a whole heck of a lot better than "I will do what I want with my land." If thats the case, then why are you paying property taxes? The bottom line is, you can go for the guns, go for the gusto, and you may win, but you'd probably be better off with less loftier aspirations, and getting what you want, while being able to keep your neighbors happy and thier percieved property values high.

Or you can go full bore like the lawyer who started the thread, and some of the people who responded. You'll both ensure that every HOA and Code Enforcement in every city, county and state in this USA will be sure to avoid those issues in the future. They will just BAN all ham radio antennas and we'll be up a creek.

We can negotiate and win what we can, until the laws can be changed, or we can ruin it for everyone.

Thats all in your hands. I hope for the benefit of those who would like to put antennas up later in life that you'll compromise instead of pulling your guns. It will do us all much better in the long run, and it may get more people on our side to allow a law to be passed to give us more antenna rights.

But from what I've seen in this thread so far, we're just looking at another war, and its one that we don't have the numbers for. There are millions of people who live in or like the HOA concept, and there are less than a million of us.

Do the math and figure out who can hold out the longest.

REASONABLE. Keep that in mind, and don't just think about whats reasonable to you, and we might win some of these fights. Keep going full bore, and we're all going to wind up with precisely.....ZERO.

N7YA

12-19-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote[/b] (w2mc @ Dec. 19 2006,04:04)]Quote[/b] (M3WLY @ Dec. 19 2006,03:47)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Dec. 18 2006,16:07)]They can require a fence or screen to hide a dish from plain view.
So what your saying...

we need to put up 60foot fence's and screens.

Sounds fair to me. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
And if you load it up right, I'll bet it would radiate nicely on 40 Meters #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
BINGO! I hope the fence is broadside Africa and Europe....use it as a ground plane or radiator for the flagpole vertical. a nice gutter drain for 15 meters and decorative railing for 40...it can be done! I will make it work!

73...Adam, N7YA

N7YA

12-19-2006, 10:30 PM

Quote[/b] (n3sdo @ Dec. 19 2006,07:30)]I've been kicked out of snooty neighborhoods cause they don't like bikers either. #Move to the Biker neighborhood, put up 2 towers, #and enjoy live! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
I'll live around bikers anyday! Bikers will only have a problem if you give them one...hell, they will probably help you put the tower up if they think you are cool. I grew up around bikers, and i dont like uptight people...dont trust them. Bikers have always been real folks, in my opinion.

I live in a HOA controlled (occupied) neighborhood because the price was right...but i WILL, i swear it, move back up to the REAL mountains and have a few acres (granted the government doesnt pull that "imminent domain" crap on me) as soon as i can, and i will hang all the metal in the air i can get.

Hey YDK!! where did you go?? hmmm...probably changing his diaper.

73...Adam, N7YA

K7LRB

12-19-2006, 11:43 PM

Although I rarely post to these forums, this is a topic of some interest to me and it certainly has generated a lot of response, some intelligent, some…. well, less than intelligent. This seems to be the norm on the ham web sites. I don’t visit other web forums, blogs, etc. so I cannot comment about the internet in general but my guess is that it is an “internet” thing.

Some of the responses are truly moronic. We have people who are willing to “kill” people (KA9UCE), people who are willing to “crush” people (N2MMM), and even one “suicidal” (WB6BNG, more on that later). Then there are the voices of intellect and reason, KD6NIG, KG4ZQZ, K8SOR and the consistently reliable W5HTW.

What I simply do not understand is why a person would buy a home in a neighborhood KNOWING, typically signing an agreement to, the fact that HOAs with CC&Rs are in place. It reminds me of people who knowingly buy a home near an airport and then complain about the noise. There are many airports around the country which were INTENTIONALLY built out in the boonies, Dulles International and New Orleans Moisant to name but two, only to have developers build, market and sell to supposedly intelligent people. Despite the fact that people KNOWINGLY bought their home near an airport they complain about the noise and eventually, often, are able to implement restrictions on operations at the airport. Conversely, and more pertinent to this discussion, Joe Flyboy buys property near the airport so he can enjoy his love of flying KNOWING there is a restriction against aircraft operations after 9PM. Does he have the “right” to violate that restriction especially since he knew it was a restriction when he made the purchase? Maybe some other people bought THEIR property based upon the fact that they would NOT have the aircraft noise after 9PM!

It really comes down to people keeping their word, doing what they said they would do. If you buy property in an HOA neighborhood it is incumbent upon you to KNOW what you are getting into. If you buy a 10$ toy, that is one thing, but we are talking about, for most people, the biggest, most serious, long term investment of your life. How stupid would it sound to say, after you spent all that money, “Gee, I didn’t know I couldn’t have a tower!”. DUH!

In what may be the ONLY post to actually address what the ORIGINAL poster posted, I simply say this. Don, I am sure you are an honorable man and I have no doubt you believe you are trying to be proactive and do what you can to “promote” our great hobby. I salute you for that. However, it appears to me you are promoting an organization in support of people who will not keep their word.

I looked for a long time before buying my home. Most of the places I looked had HOAs. I found this really nice home and I like it, like it a lot. BEFORE I purchased it, I inquired about (got a copy of) the CC&Rs. There was/is a restriction on antennas. I made it known that, as much as I liked the home, I am also a ham radio operator and would want to have antennas. This was brought up to the board, and eventually to all the existing homeowners. They simply asked what I had in mind, that they certainly would be reasonable. I submitted drawings for and photos of existing wire antenna systems. They said it looked reasonable so I submitted specific plans for my antenna system and they approved it, again, BEFORE my purchase of the property. Everyone has been happy ever since, including me. Even if some federal, or other, law were to be passed allowing me to put up a 100’ tower and beam, I would not do it. I take keeping my word very seriously.

There are some areas where people pay a premium for a piece of property with, for example, “mountain views”, in fact, as much as $100,000. Now, if someone comes along and puts up a tower and beam, right smack in the middle of that mountain view, should there be some compensation for that? I can tell you from experience the property value DOES indeed decrease. Not everyone thinks a 100’ tower with a 40m beam is a work of art!

Oh, WB6BNG. I am sure the mothers and fathers of Marines who have died in battle appreciate your comments , “Then he becomes a COP, the only thing JARHEADS are good at. Besides it fits the mentality.” Would you go into a room full of Marines and make those comments? Didn’t think so. You’re a sniveling wimp hiding behind a keyboard. One other thing, “The truth be known, his XYL probably kicks his ass daily if he doesn't get his chores done. She most likely makes him stay in the motorhome to keep him out of her way.” Are you willing to back that up with a little wager, put your money where your big mouth is? Didn’t think so. Please, you and KA9UCE don’t let it be generally known you are hams. We have enough of an image problem as it is!

One last note; I recently drove around various neighborhoods to see how many ham antennas I could find. In more than half the cases, should the tower fall over, for whatever reason, it would land on a neighbor’s property, in some cases any one of up to five neighbor’s properties. Suppose your tower were to fall over, into a neighbor’s yard, and kill a small child at play. How would you feel about your “rights” then? Do neighbors have a right to be concerned about your tower/antenna? Of course they do! It is yet one of many reasons people choose to live in a neighborhood free of them, and if they bought property with that understanding, UP FRONT, they have that right.

W6YDK probably really is laughing at all this, and I don’t blame him.

73,
de Larry
[B]

N2MMM

12-20-2006, 12:01 AM

Quote[/b] (K7LRB @ Dec. 19 2006,16:43)]Although I rarely post to these forums, this is a topic of some interest to me and it certainly has generated a lot of response, some intelligent, some…. well, less than intelligent. This seems to be the norm on the ham web sites. I don’t visit other web forums, blogs, etc. so I cannot comment about the internet in general but my guess is that it is an “internet” thing.

Some of the responses are truly moronic. We have people who are willing to “kill” people (KA9UCE), people who are willing to “crush” people (N2MMM), and even one “suicidal” (WB6BNG, more on that later). Then there are the voices of intellect and reason, KD6NIG, KG4ZQZ, K8SOR and the consistently reliable W5HTW.

What I simply do not understand is why a person would buy a home in a neighborhood KNOWING, typically signing an agreement to, the fact that HOAs with CC&Rs are in place. It reminds me of people who knowingly buy a home near an airport and then complain about the noise. There are many airports around the country which were INTENTIONALLY built out in the boonies, Dulles International and New Orleans Moisant to name but two, only to have developers build, market and sell to supposedly intelligent people. Despite the fact that people KNOWINGLY bought their home near an airport they complain about the noise and eventually, often, are able to implement restrictions on operations at the airport. Conversely, and more pertinent to this discussion, Joe Flyboy buys property near the airport so he can enjoy his love of flying KNOWING there is a restriction against aircraft operations after 9PM. Does he have the “right” to violate that restriction especially since he knew it was a restriction when he made the purchase? Maybe some other people bought THEIR property based upon the fact that they would NOT have the aircraft noise after 9PM!

It really comes down to people keeping their word, doing what they said they would do. If you buy property in an HOA neighborhood it is incumbent upon you to KNOW what you are getting into. If you buy a 10$ toy, that is one thing, but we are talking about, for most people, the biggest, most serious, long term investment of your life. How stupid would it sound to say, after you spent all that money, “Gee, I didn’t know I couldn’t have a tower!”. DUH!

In what may be the ONLY post to actually address what the ORIGINAL poster posted, I simply say this. Don, I am sure you are an honorable man and I have no doubt you believe you are trying to be proactive and do what you can to “promote” our great hobby. I salute you for that. However, it appears to me you are promoting an organization in support of people who will not keep their word.

I looked for a long time before buying my home. Most of the places I looked had HOAs. I found this really nice home and I like it, like it a lot. BEFORE I purchased it, I inquired about (got a copy of) the CC&Rs. There was/is a restriction on antennas. I made it known that, as much as I liked the home, I am also a ham radio operator and would want to have antennas. This was brought up to the board, and eventually to all the existing homeowners. They simply asked what I had in mind, that they certainly would be reasonable. I submitted drawings for and photos of existing wire antenna systems. They said it looked reasonable so I submitted specific plans for my antenna system and they approved it, again, BEFORE my purchase of the property. Everyone has been happy ever since, including me. Even if some federal, or other, law were to be passed allowing me to put up a 100’ tower and beam, I would not do it. I take keeping my word very seriously.

There are some areas where people pay a premium for a piece of property with, for example, “mountain views”, in fact, as much as $100,000. Now, if someone comes along and puts up a tower and beam, right smack in the middle of that mountain view, should there be some compensation for that? I can tell you from experience the property value DOES indeed decrease. Not everyone thinks a 100’ tower with a 40m beam is a work of art!

Oh, WB6BNG. I am sure the mothers and fathers of Marines who have died in battle appreciate your comments , “Then he becomes a COP, the only thing JARHEADS are good at. #Besides it fits the mentality.” Would you go into a room full of Marines and make those comments? Didn’t think so. You’re a sniveling wimp hiding behind a keyboard. One other thing, “The truth be known, his XYL probably kicks his ass daily if he doesn't get his chores done. #She most likely makes him stay in the motorhome to keep him out of her way.” Are you willing to back that up with a little wager, put your money where your big mouth is? Didn’t think so. Please, you and KA9UCE don’t let it be generally known you are hams. We have enough of an image problem as it is!

One last note; I recently drove around various neighborhoods to see how many ham antennas I could find. In more than half the cases, should the tower fall over, for whatever reason, it would land on a neighbor’s property, in some cases any one of up to five neighbor’s properties. Suppose your tower were to fall over, into a neighbor’s yard, and kill a small child at play. How would you feel about your “rights” then? Do neighbors have a right to be concerned about your tower/antenna? Of course they do! It is yet one of many reasons people choose to live in a neighborhood free of them, and if they bought property with that understanding, UP FRONT, they have that right.

W6YDK probably really is laughing at all this, and I don’t blame him.

73,
de Larry
[B]
If someone undertakes legal action against me, I will CRUSH that person. Don't like it, TOO BAD.

w3wn

12-20-2006, 12:40 AM

Quote[/b] (VE3LXL @ Dec. 19 2006,13:18)]Re: "The trend is to impose an HOA into all new developments. State, county, and city officials are requiring some developers to impose draconian regulations in the name of "preserving community standards and maintaining property values". They do this because they know that if government were to impose these same restrictions, they would not stand a snowball's chance in hell when challenged in a court of law. "

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if your local government is in fact requiring all new housing developments to have HOAs, then you might be able to get the antenna restrictions overturned in court, by arguing that the HOA is government zoning by proxy. If the local government is required by law to make a reasonable accomodation for amateur antennas, it is probably not legal for it to require property developers to ban those antennas as a condition of getting permission to build.

I don't know if this strategy would work, and in any case it would only apply to places where the local authorities require HOAs for all new developments, but it might be worth a try.
I passed Greg's comment on to my lawyer. He asked me not to use his name or call, but here's what he had to say:
Quote[/b] ]That argument has already been suggested. There is case law and precedent that says when a private group, such as an HOA or similar governing body, acts in the same manner and does the same tasks that are traditionally reserved for local government, then they have to follow the same rules and are bound by the same law as the government (discrimmination, due process, etc).

As far as I have been able to find - and I have researched it - there is no case (yet) in PA (or anywhere else in W3) where that argument has been applied with PRB-1 to force an HOA into allowing antennas. I have a file I'm keeping on this info just in case I get the chance to establish a precedent.

I think it could happen. The key is finding the right client: a ham with deep pockets willing to spend the $20,000 to $25,000 or so I estimate it will take to get the case into Federal court and to a level where we would win. I'm almost certain that we'd lose at the local level and probably at the Western District. We'd have to get it on appeal to the Third Circuit and possibly to the US Supreme Court. Judges are very reluctant to overturn well-established property and land-use law; CC&Rs fall into that category. Since most hams, especially those with money, are cheap bastards it will be a challenge to find that client.

Now, keep in mind that this is only one lawyer-ham's opinion, and it only pertains to what he knows of the law here in PA -- YMMV, VWPBL(STn).

I also see we've had a few comments in the thread about PRB-1's use of the word "reasonable." To me as a non-lawyer non-politician human being type, I always thought "reasonable" in this context meant a decent, at least average, antenna; not neccesarily a 70 foot beam and stacked 3 element 80 meter Yagi's. but a few verticals, a few wires, a small (think TH3jr) Yagi about 10 - 15' above a rooftop on a single tower. However, my experience has been that some consider "reasonable" to mean a SINGLE trap vertical no more than 16 feet or so high.

I know of a case last year in the neighboring community of Dormont where a ham was informed that borough ordinances only permitted him ONE antenna -- and no, I don't know the outcome of that situation. Is ONE antenna reasonable? To me it isn't -- I'd have to choose between an HF antenna and a V/UHF antenna... and what if the municipality decides that "ONE" antenna has to include my DirecTV dish (after all, it's an antenna, isn't it?) or outside TV antenna and so forth. I think the FCC left "reasonable" undefined because what's reasonable may vary from one community or neighborhood to another... but sadly, that flexibility has led to abuse by some municipalities and HOA's to be, well, unreasonable about "reasonable."

73

KD6NIG

12-20-2006, 02:58 AM

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Dec. 19 2006,17:40)]Quote[/b] (VE3LXL @ Dec. 19 2006,13:18)]Re: "The trend is to impose an HOA into all new developments. State, county, and city officials are requiring some developers to impose draconian regulations in the name of "preserving community standards and maintaining property values". They do this because they know that if government were to impose these same restrictions, they would not stand a snowball's chance in hell when challenged in a court of law. "

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if your local government is in fact requiring all new housing developments to have HOAs, then you might be able to get the antenna restrictions overturned in court, by arguing that the HOA is government zoning by proxy. If the local government is required by law to make a reasonable accomodation for amateur antennas, it is probably not legal for it to require property developers to ban those antennas as a condition of getting permission to build.

I don't know if this strategy would work, and in any case it would only apply to places where the local authorities require HOAs for all new developments, but it might be worth a try.
I passed Greg's comment on to my lawyer. He asked me not to use his name or call, but here's what he had to say:
Quote[/b] ]That argument has already been suggested. There is case law and precedent that says when a private group, such as an HOA or similar governing body, acts in the same manner and does the same tasks that are traditionally reserved for local government, then they have to follow the same rules and are bound by the same law as the government (discrimmination, due process, etc).

As far as I have been able to find - and I have researched it - there is no case (yet) in PA (or anywhere else in W3) where that argument has been applied with PRB-1 to force an HOA into allowing antennas. I have a file I'm keeping on this info just in case I get the chance to establish a precedent.

I think it could happen. The key is finding the right client: a ham with deep pockets willing to spend the $20,000 to $25,000 or so I estimate it will take to get the case into Federal court and to a level where we would win. I'm almost certain that we'd lose at the local level and probably at the Western District. We'd have to get it on appeal to the Third Circuit and possibly to the US Supreme Court. Judges are very reluctant to overturn well-established property and land-use law; CC&Rs fall into that category. Since most hams, especially those with money, are cheap bastards it will be a challenge to find that client.

Now, keep in mind that this is only one lawyer-ham's opinion, and it only pertains to what he knows of the law here in PA -- YMMV, VWPBL(STn).

I also see we've had a few comments in the thread about PRB-1's use of the word "reasonable." To me as a non-lawyer non-politician human being type, I always thought "reasonable" in this context meant a decent, at least average, antenna; not neccesarily a 70 foot beam and stacked 3 element 80 meter Yagi's. but a few verticals, a few wires, a small (think TH3jr) Yagi about 10 - 15' above a rooftop on a single tower. However, my experience has been that some consider "reasonable" to mean a SINGLE trap vertical no more than 16 feet or so high.

I know of a case last year in the neighboring community of Dormont where a ham was informed that borough ordinances only permitted him ONE antenna -- and no, I don't know the outcome of that situation. Is ONE antenna reasonable? To me it isn't -- I'd have to choose between an HF antenna and a V/UHF antenna... and what if the municipality decides that "ONE" antenna has to include my DirecTV dish (after all, it's an antenna, isn't it?) or outside TV antenna and so forth. I think the FCC left "reasonable" undefined because what's reasonable may vary from one community or neighborhood to another... but sadly, that flexibility has led to abuse by some municipalities and HOA's to be, well, unreasonable about "reasonable."

73
Perhaps they would be more reasonable if we would be too http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

We can hope for the sake of us not antenna heavy yet http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

W4DXL

12-20-2006, 05:43 AM

A tower if done properly will not be an eyesore (a matter of opinion I know).

A tower that is guyed properly will not fall in your neighbor's yard, it will come straight down.

We all have to pick what's most important to each of us. If you like HOAs fine, live there it's a free country.

If you don't like HOAs move somewhere else if it's important to you.

I know hams who like stelthy antennas and those who like towers. Both are fun to talk to. As for me no HOA please. I plan to stay in my house so I'm not overly concerned about the property values going down. I have a vertical and some wires and i try to be considerate of others not wanting to create an eyesore. I don't have a tower and probably never will since I don't have the money to buy one and do a proper installation.

Save the legal fees take the money and buy a couple of acres out in the country and build a nice house on the land. Put up a tower and tell the HOAs to stuff it.

Now the other problem is some wives object to even the smallest antennas....That's a whole other problem!

73,

Mike W4DXL

KL7FZ

12-20-2006, 06:39 AM

Quote[/b] (W4DXL @ Dec. 19 2006,22:43)]Now the other problem is some wives object to even the smallest antennas....That's a whole other problem!

73,

Mike W4DXL
But whatever you do, don't call the little woman a HOA.

Don't spell it. Read it like a word..........

You may find a new place to live real soon.....

I got rid of mine (wife) a long time ago and I am real happy.

KL7FZ

WD4AWO

12-20-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote[/b] ]What I simply do not understand is why a person would buy a home in a neighborhood KNOWING, typically signing an agreement to, the fact that HOAs with CC&Rs are in place. It reminds me of people who knowingly buy a home near an airport and then complain about the noise. There are many airports around the country which were INTENTIONALLY built out in the boonies, Dulles International and New Orleans Moisant to name but two, only to have developers build, market and sell to supposedly intelligent people. Despite the fact that people KNOWINGLY bought their home near an airport they complain about the noise and eventually, often, are able to implement restrictions on operations at the airport. Conversely, and more pertinent to this discussion, Joe Flyboy buys property near the airport so he can enjoy his love of flying KNOWING there is a restriction against aircraft operations after 9PM. Does he have the “right” to violate that restriction especially since he knew it was a restriction when he made the purchase? Maybe some other people bought THEIR property based upon the fact that they would NOT have the aircraft noise after 9PM!

It really comes down to people keeping their word, doing what they said they would do.

It's hard to argue with logic.

k5set

12-20-2006, 05:57 PM

I not really sure who/what your group opposes! If it is as I read, Home owners associations, all I can say is you should have read the restrictions BEFORE you purchased that new million dollar home! Don't like the restrictions, by best solution is move to a non-restricted development or better yet get a place in the country with a lot of room for your antenna farm.

73 K5SET

Merry Christmas

w4tas

12-20-2006, 06:53 PM

Somebody was right!!!!

W6DYK is not a valid call. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

KF7CG

12-20-2006, 09:13 PM

It is not necessarily true that you can avoid purchasing or even know that you are purchasing in a restricted area.

1) If there has ever been an HOA, it can be revivved.

2) Some states make the HOA decision binding on all residents of an area if some specified percentage approves.

3) In a couple of jurisdictions it has been held that the mere act of recording a deed for an unrestricted property that was bordered by restricted properties implied consent and acceptance of the restrictions.

4) It is close to imposssible to by homes that don't have restrictions within 40 miles of some communities, and this includes some communities that have no lots smaller than 5 acres in the mountains.

This issue is neither black nor white and should be the grounds for reasonable accomodation. Deed restrictions tend to grow by accretion. A developer picks up another developers restrictions and grafts on his pet restrictions, then another, then the local zoners add theirs and on and on and on. This would be private contract law if the purveyers of restrictings didn't have a cartel.

N7YA

12-20-2006, 09:25 PM

Quote[/b] (w4tas @ Dec. 20 2006,11:53)]Somebody was right!!!!

W6DYK is not a valid call. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
No, but W6YDK is, and thats the guy who was looking for a little attention early on in this dying thread.

W2UUU

12-21-2006, 12:47 AM

Quote[/b] (AE5MH @ Dec. 18 2006,20:08)]Hmmm. #
Simply put.. If you had spent this much energy in a productive manner such as selling your condo or house and moving to a place without Covenants you would be a much happier person. #Imposing your beliefs on those that have no interest in having "your rights" imposed upon them is ludicrous.

Any antenna that your license priviledge provides should certainly fit into your attic!

Move, upgrade (now soon without a CW examination) and start to enjoy the hobby. #Remember it's a hobby!

Good Luck and 73
AE5MH
Well put!

Now that the code is being dropped, someone is thinking of upgrading, and since that someone won't have to pass a code test to upgrade, why should they have to move to put up antenna?

KI4PEQ

12-21-2006, 02:58 AM

Quote[/b] (wb6bnq @ Dec. 18 2006,21:12)]WELL,

Lets consider some facts he posted on his QRZ page.

This NIMROD is from Mobile, Alabama. #Kind of tells you how it is going to go.

Casting derision on this fellow simply because he hails from Mobile, Alabama is an insult to the fine citizens of that fair city.

A lot of good folks came from Mobile. Jimmy Buffett immediately comes to mind. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

KI4PEQ

12-21-2006, 03:08 AM

Quote[/b] (ka9uce @ Dec. 19 2006,02:57)]Any HOA that even TRIES to sieze my property will be looking down the barrel of my .50 BMG I have!

Wanna take MY property for dues, then FIGHT me for it first!

I'd love a gun battle with an HOA for my property...I even CHALLENGE them to TRY taking MY property...PLEASE!!!

I WILL fight to the death to keep MY property MINE, and if any HOA tries to steal it, they WILL be shot at until they are D.O.A!

NOBODY, especially an HOA is going to 'sieze' MY property for 'dues' or 'fines'.....GET YOUR GUNS, THERE'S A WAR WAGING!

Fines can not be levied by any private organization, that's a function of a government body, not a private company.
They also have ZERO rights as well...nothing in the constitution grants rights to any company, or even government for that matter!

If Bush himself came to my house and told me he was taking MY property, he'd damn sure better know how to run really fast!

I already won one fight with an overzealous nazi cop back in Wisconsin....he assumed I would pee my pants and relent, and when he pushed, I shoved!

I told him what I tell everybody...MY property, MY rules, don't like them, buy me out then you can do what you want, NOT before!

Save every HOA letter, then file with the postal inspector about harassment letters you've gotten from this 'association' and register a complaint about mail fraud as they are trying to coerce payment from you while using the US mail to do so...FELONY CHARGES!

When the HOA pays my mortgage, and my living expenses, THEN they can dictate how I use the property, NOT before!

I'll grab their scrawny necks and physically remove them from my land, then charge them with criminal trespass as well....just to add insult to injury, that is, if I don't take them into custody and hold them for the 'law' to arrive.....My reason; He might have absconded before you arrived.

But then again, I may do it diferently and ask how much $$$ he has on him, and if he had enough, demand he hand it over or face criminal prosecution...and my reason for demanding money: MY fine to him for his 'transgression' upon me.

I have NO concern over the feelings of a crook!

W6YDK, you sir, are an ass!

It's impossible to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man!
Obviously you do not live in Florida, where there have been a number of SUCCESSFUL foreclosures by homeowner associations for non payment of assessments and fines. Google "homeowner association foreclosure" and see how many hits you get. Here's an example of one:

Homeowner Association Foreclosure (http://www.ccfj.net/CCFJSecMyth.html)

and here:

Homeowner assessed $14,000 in fines and interest. (http://www.ccfj.net/foreclStuart.htm)

KI4PEQ

12-21-2006, 03:15 AM

Quote[/b] (k4uva @ Dec. 19 2006,07:11)]The only person who has an issue with my antennas is the XYL!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Happy Holidays
Well, a lawyer could help out with that! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

KD7YVV

12-21-2006, 09:39 PM

You get what you pay for. People who move into these
HOA communities move into them expecting certain things.
No junked cars, no dirty greasy driveways, no trash laying
around....things like that.
I recently took the time to look over the HOA rules for a
development. While they didn't
specifically prohibit antennas, you do have to get
prior written permission from the board.
What I want to know is, if you KNOW for a fact that antennas
are not allowed, why would you move there if your hobby
involves the construction and use of antennas?

I know for a fact that I wouldn't want to make one of the
largest purchase of my life only to have that purchase
de-valued because one of my neighbors decides to park
rusted cars all over his property. PRB-1 isn't meant to
plow over HOA's, but it does say that reasonable
accommodations are to be made.

Here's the fine structure:

Level 1: first offense, warning to owner and occupant
Level 1: second offense $25, subsequent offense $50

Level 2: first offense, warning to owner and occupant
Level 2: second offense $35, subsequent offense $70

Level 3: first offense, warning to owner and occupant
Level 3: second offense $50, subsequent offense $100

With respect to continuing violations on which a violation
continues shall be considered a separate violation and may
be grounds for the filing for injunctive relief or damages.

Fines will be payable to ***** within ten (10) days of
notification; a late and delinquency fee will be assessed
against a unit for late fine payments.

It's very restrictive. There's a lot of things in there, like
how long your Christmas decorations can be up, no outside
clotheslines, or other things that would detract from the
uniformity of the neighborhood. There are rules about
how fast you can drive, when you can honk your horn,
all sorts of things.

It also says this:

No owner or occupant shall install wiring for electrical or
telephone installation, television antennae, machines or
air conditioners, etc. on the exterior of the buildings or
that protrude through the walls or roof of the buildings
except as authorized by the Board in writing, prior to
any work being done. If the Board approves any of the
above, the homeowner will be required to sign a Hold
Harmless agreement.

You can appeal, but if you lose, the fines are effective
three days from the hearing.

Now, if you're a ham operator, why in God's Earth would
you want to move into a place with such rules and
regulations? Sure, everyone wants a nice neighborhood,
good schools, free of crime, etc. etc., and they are willing
to put up with CC&Rs, deed restrictions, and HOA's to
get it.

If I choose to live in such a community, then by signing on
the dotted line, I am indicating that I agree to abide by
the rules.

Sure, I'd like a 100 foot tower with a beam for every band,
what ham wouldn't? Would I move into such a community
if I knew my goal was a 100 foot tower with a beam for
every band? Of course not! It would be foolish to do so.

If a ham is in one of these communities, and is denied a
tower, he always has the option of selling the house and
moving to a place without a HOA.

If you're in one of these places, you're living in a
community, and the HOA is there to insure that the
interests of the community as a whole are protected.
That's their job. An HOA community is just that, and you're
a part of it by living there.
Get on the board, clue your neighbors in about your hobby
and give them enough information to make an informed
decision. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Bottom line, if you read the rules, understand them, and
sign on the dotted line, then you have no reason to whine
and moan when the HOA says no.

--KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA

KC0SDQ

12-22-2006, 04:35 PM

OK, I have to weigh in on this discussion. There is a thing called reason - which varies from person to person. If one puts up a 80 meter beam on a 60 ft guyed tower in a CCR neighborhood, you can expect an outcry. If one were to be permitted to use a portable antenna, or some near-zero visability antenna to overcome the CCR problem, that sounds reasonable to me. I don't want my neighbor to have the ability to put up a monstrosity, but an antenna does not have to be a huge ugly (in some people's minds) monstrosity to be functional.

I am all for a reasonable intrusion to the rule we have now. It is all-inclusive and has no exceptions. I can get an exception for a type of fence, but not for a modest antenna.

all IMHO
Doug KC0SDQ

KC0SDQ

12-22-2006, 04:45 PM

Another thought - in the midwest, one does not have much of an option when it comes to moving into a neighborhood. You cannot find neighborhoods that are reasonably new and do not have CCRs. It is just the way developers do things around here and have sine the 1800s. You would need to buy property WAY out in the boondocks to escape CCRs around here.

As for the - er - gentleman that thinks he can thumb his nose at neighborhood associations - I had to grin on that one. It will be the Sheriff that moves you out when your title is taken by the HOA. Yes it does occur. Last I heard, the Sheriff was well armed. It would be a brief skirmish. When you buy a property in a CCR neighborhood with a HOA, you are accepting and agreeing to the CCRs as part of the purchase. That's just the way it is. I don't make the rules. The FCC thought that since this is a "option" that we have the ability NOT to move into a CCR neighborhood. The problem is that essentially every neighborhood has CCRs here and in other places, and they are not reasonable when it comes to antennas. I feel this needs to change.

Doug KC0SDQ

ka9uce

12-27-2006, 05:28 PM

To K7LRB: I stated I would take a stand IF the HOA were to attempt to sieze my property, and I would.

And yes, I do tell people I am a ham, big deal, same goes for those crazies that wear fishing lures on their hats.

As for CC&Rs, HOAs and the like....I have NONE covering my home, and yes, you MUST have the rules and all paperwork pertaining to your purchase PRIOR to sale, and since my contract has NO CC&R/HOA restrictions, it can NOT be enforced now, or later...BY LAW!

And since my home is a two story, a 'small' tower under 40 feet IS unreasonable, but on the opposite side of that thought, a 100 foot tower would be unreasonable as well, and I would not put one up.

And to those others, if I have to stand alone to defend my property against overzealous HOAs, then yes, I will gladly do so.

The sheriff does not act on a company's behalf to remove a property owner from his own property.

And as a side note, IF an HOA did 'win' to take control of my property somehow...it would all 'magically' go up in a great cloud, while the good theives are inside looking over their prize...do I care about anybody else if MY life is ruined, hell no!

Would I kill...yes, if necessary, but I have no problem taking a stand with my guns to defend MY rights or those of others being trampled upon by the wills of nazi HOA companies....IF NEED BE.

I don't look for troubles with people, so WHY do HOAs feel the need to look for trouble with the people?

The HOAs should save the anguish and stay away from me, I'm not a part of their plan, and will never be, so save the legal problems and stay OFF my property, or face my wrath...plain and simple...LEAVE ME ALONE!

I've sent registered letters to one HOA over this, and demanding they never step foot on my property, or they WILL be taken into custody and sued for criminal trespass, and YES, I CAN do it, and WILL.

I told the HOA that if they step on the property, they will be viewed as a thief, and treated as such, and the 'law' also goes along with this due to the increasing problems with property damage, tire slashing and 'tagging' that started making its appearance, so they will be happy to take a trespasser off to jail and charged as a criminal.

And the nice thing about it is...the HOA has NO recourse.

A letter has been sent, warning them, which is 'reasonable and prudent prior knowledge' so they can't even take it to court.

I love causing big problems for HOAs when they run amok and feel they can do anything the please...I am there to reinforce the knowledge that they can't, and will not.

And in this state, you MUST sign first to be controlled by an HOA, and you can not be bound by any previous agreements made by another, from a previous sale, it MUST have YOUR signature to be legal and binding.

No signature, no binding to the HOA under any circumstance/s.

This topic is a dead horse, and I will use my property any way I see fit, and if nobody likes it, that's too damn bad...SCREW YOU!

ka9uce

12-27-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote[/b] (KC0SDQ @ Dec. 22 2006,02:45)]Another thought - in the midwest, one does not have much of an option when it comes to moving into a neighborhood. You cannot find neighborhoods that are reasonably new and do not have CCRs. It is just the way developers do things around here and have sine the 1800s. You would need to buy property WAY out in the boondocks to escape CCRs around here.

As for the - er - gentleman that thinks he can thumb his nose at neighborhood associations - I had to grin on that one. It will be the Sheriff that moves you out when your title is taken by the HOA. Yes it does occur. Last I heard, the Sheriff was well armed. It would be a brief skirmish. When you buy a property in a CCR neighborhood with a HOA, you are accepting and agreeing to the CCRs as part of the purchase. That's just the way it is. I don't make the rules. The FCC thought that since this is a "option" that we have the ability NOT to move into a CCR neighborhood. The problem is that essentially every neighborhood has CCRs here and in other places, and they are not reasonable when it comes to antennas. I feel this needs to change.

Doug KC0SDQ
The sheriff can't act on behalf on an HOA here, it's a litigation process, and the ONLY way you can lose your property, is by sale or you run a drug house, not an HOA, they can ONLY assess fines and attach a lien, that's all.

But 'IF' they were able to 'sieze' the property, then all they would gain is a well oiled piece of property and a large pile of rubble where a house once stood, as I would not hesitate to blow the thing up if it was stolen from me for HOA 'fines'...and YES, I damn sure WOULD blow it up as I worked hard for it and to have some friggin' HOA come and take it from me and get it all for free...so yes, it would be blown up and the land would be soiled...that's what THEY get for screwing someone over.

Would I be mad...YOU do the math!

Would YOU be as mad and take similar action if it happened to YOU?

I already did the math, the results are the same!

And yes, I CAN thumb my nose at the HOA..they have no legal powers, and certainly not on my property as I never signed the required paperwork...so screw them!

No wonder this nation is so screwed up....people no longer take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, they hand it over to someone else to do the work.

So much for 'freedom'....MORONS.

KX5G

12-28-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote[/b] ]Now, if someone comes along and puts up a tower and beam, right smack in the middle of that mountain view, should there be some compensation for that? I can tell you from experience the property value DOES indeed decrease. Not everyone thinks a 100’ tower with a 40m beam is a work of art!

Only problem is that the land owner also owns the air space above the house for at least a certain amount. If you want control of my air space, then you need to compensate me. In Downtown Dallas a company bought air space ajacient to their building so their building would have a good view to the north. Your rights don't extend past the end of your property, and you should not have any control over my air space.

When I bought this track house, the first thing I asked the salesman was about antenna restrictions, then we talked about the house. I kid about never having bought a house, I bought a ham shack with a 3 bedroom attachment. Fortunately, fiancee (now wife of 25 years) understood that she wasn't getting me or a house without the rigs! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Think it might have been the fact she had to share leg room with the two meter rig on the first date.

I will admit, ham radio took a back seat to being a new hubby many nights!

KC0QIT

12-29-2006, 03:23 AM

Howdy Folks!
While "vacationing" in my N.J. "Homeland" for the holiday season, away from "QTH Denver", I have been following this thread. I for one, am all for a "NATIONAL LAW", which allows Amateur Radio Station Operators, to have the RIGHT to "reasonable accomodations" for our required antennas! Then the "law-of-the-land" will TRUMP
ALL the HOA's & their "Kondo Nazis"/property thefts.
However; I am dismayed over the childish manner in which the above "Hams" have expressed their anger, about what is our "bread-and-butter" for station ops; our
"REQUIRED ANTENNAS"! As per the latest revision of FCC Part 97 RULES ("at all times & on all frequencies, have the RIGHT to erect antennas to ESTABLISH & MAINTAIN
communications & any emergency traffic") the
"reasonable accomodation" aspect becomes an obtainable goal, for all of us!
The use of "BAD LANGUAGE"/THREATS OF VIOLENCE/
POOR JUDGEMENT" hurts nobody but OURSELVES!!!!!!!!
Remember; not "only" Hams read these threads, but the
FCC/ARRL "et-al". Because of HR5441, we are now an official functionary of "HOMELAND SECURITY", and should not lower ourselves to the level of an "errant"
"BARRISTER" from "6 LAND"! We now have to take the
moral HIGH GROUND, and express ourselves, as if we were ALL AMATEUR EXTRA operators!
I submit to all station operators around the world; that
this errant BARRISTER, whose initials are:W6YDK, not renew his "ticket" & DONATE ALL HIS HAM EQUIPMENT to
the nearest Ham Radio Club, that teaches OUR YOUTH,
to become (good) Hams. W6YDK IS over-the-hill & FERTIG (finished). In Denver, ANY BARRISTER "worth-his/
her salt" is worth much more than his $200/hr. fee!
Now is the time for all good Hams to come to the aid of their country (sound familiar?). We need to support the HFA cause, and be ready for the next emergency. Now that the FCC WILL DROP THE CODE TEST (at long last), we now have the responsibility to "step-up-to-the-
plate", and BE ALL THAT WE CAN BE, in the Homeland
Security aspect of the Amateur Radio Service.
73 KC0QIT
"General AL"
ARRL/CRRG
P.S Not only am I a member of "The Castle Rock Repeater Group", I now support the HFA movement! Recently; during a "brain-storming-session" in Denver with the HFA President, I have, as a Macintosh Graphics
Designer (Platt College, Aurora, Colo.) have pledged to
create the OFFICIAL LOGO for the AMERICAN antenna movement for the 21st. century!

..

KI4PMG

01-14-2007, 11:43 PM

Hello, Everyone!

This is Don Schellhardt KI4PMG: the ham who started this thread. I have often been accused of being too wordy -- usually with some justification -- and so I have consciously resisted jumping back into this discussion thread until now.

I am limiting myself to 3 points.

********

FIRST OF ALL: "THE NAME OF THE GAME", AT THIS POINT, IS THE ARRL BOARD MEETING.

That happens this coming week -- beginning on Friday, January 19, and continuing into Saturday, January 20. The Board will be holding its first review of ARRL's overall legislative priorities in several years, and quite possibly the last such review for several years more.

I am heartened to see so much support for HOA antenna reform on this thread, BUT:

(A) Some of the criticism of "The Other Side" has been, In My Opinion, excessive and unjustified (particularly the slurs against Marines and Southerners)

And

(B) Whatever has been said in this discussion thread, on either side of the issue, is likely to have less impact on the ARRL Board than direct appeals from individual hams.

If you have the time and energy to post a statement on this discussion thread, you have the time and energy to send an E-Mail Message to the Director and Vice-Director who represent your Region on the ARRL Board.

[Contact information for each Board Representative can be found on either HFA's Web Site, www.hamsforaction.net, or ARRL's Web Site at www.arrl.org]

PLEASE don't let this opportunity to influence the ARRL Board pass by!

********

SECOND, AS A RELATED POINT: YOU DON'T HAVE TO JOIN HFA IN ORDER TO JOIN THIS EFFORT TO INFLUENCE THE ARRL BOARD.

Yes, HFA is looking for more Members -- for both their time as volunteers and their $25.00 Annual Dues -- so that HFA can do more in the future than it has done in the past. And ... Yes, I would personally like to make a living by doing this kind of analysis and advocacy for hams (and other good causes). What is dishonorable about that?

At present, however, I have donated far more to HFA than I have earned from it. If I were in this solely for the money, I would have tossed in the towel a long time ago.

More importantly:

As I've said, you don't have to give HAMS FOR ACTION a dime in order to contact your ARRL Board Representatives about HOA antenna reform.

If you WANT to join HFA, or contribute to it in some other way, we would certainly welcome you and we could certainly use you! However: All HFA is ASKING you to do, through this posting, is to contact your ARRL Board Representatives -- BEFORE they leave for the Winter Board Meeting at the end of this week.

********

THIRD: IF YOU HAVE ANY UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT HFA IS ASKING THE ARRL BOARD TO DO, BE ASSURED THAT WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO ASSIGN A HIGHER PRIORITY TO HOA ANTENNA REFORM.

Yes, ideally, HAMS FOR ACTION would love to see ARRL asking U.S. Representatives Steven Israel (D-NY) and Mike Ross (D-AR) not to re-introduce the current version of their HOA antenna reform -- and introduce, instead, a new HOA antenna reform bill that is based on HFA's July 2006 Petition For Rulemaking to the FCC.

However, HFA's Members generally feel that HFA has already badgered ARRL enough. So we are not asking ARRL to replace their own legislative proposal with HFA's version (although we would be delighted if they did!).

At this time, what we are ASKING the ARRL Board to do is this:

Upgrade the apparently minimal priority which ARRL staff (and some Board Members) now assign to HOA antenna reform as a public policy goal.

****

Right now, ARRL's Board is On Record in support of HOA antenna reform.

In practice, however, it seems that ARRL staff has invested very little effort into pursuit of this goal. Indeed, some ARRL staffers, and also some Board officials, have stated or implied to me that they don't even WANT to see HOA antenna reform enacted -- despite the Board's official support for that goal.

Over the last few years, ARRL's #1 priority AT THE FCC has been blocking the interference-generating forms of BPL. However: Its #1 priority IN CONGRESS has been unclear.

For several years, ARRL has been paying Chwat & Company a retainer of $72,000 per year to lobby for hams IN CONGRESS.

That money hasn't gone toward BPL, because -- until the middle of 2006 -- BPL has ONLY been an issue at the FCC. It hasn't been an issue IN CONGRESS.

Further, given the radical drops (exceeding 70%) in support for the Israel/Ross antenna reform bill, over just the last 3 Sessions of Congress, the $72,000 per year hasn't gone toward lobbying for HOA antenna reform either.

So what has Chwat & Company been paid &#