Hams -- File Written Testimony on HOA Restrictions!!

A contract is a contract. I didn't say private contracts were unconstitutional, I said Congress is restricted from making laws that would abridge your right to make contract. My point is that you should be responsible for your actions and if you agree to a contract, you should abide by it. If you want to live in a particular area, you can live there, but you should also abide by the rules of the area. To mention Colorado or Virginia as an example of the lack of fairness, I say, you don't have to live there. No matter what, it is your choice as to where you live. If you don't want restrictions then move where aren't any instead of crying about how unfair it is for you.

 

You Never Know When or Where

You never know when...

Wild fires have been burning like crazy here in Montana and other states.

In July, I received a call for help from a ham near Bear Gulch. He was reporting a fire, and no one else was responding. I only had my HT, and didn't feel like I would be heard. I did try to no avail to make contact. Fortunate for me, I was just arriving at my "Home QTH", a tolerant HOA, and got on my base station. I took all the information I could in a timely manner and called local authorities.

The authorities had just gotten the information and location of the fire. What they didn't know was that someone was out there, and their safety was in jepardy.

I will never forget this hams words stating that the fire sounded like a raging river coming at him.

Was I of value? Did I provide a service? Maybe maybe not, but at least I had the capability to make an effort!

 

I am saying I have been in areas where tornadoes wiped out everything and if a ham is in a restricted area that does not work either. You may have been in ham for 46 years but I have been involved with emergencies since I was 18 in the fire department. I have seem everything wiped out for miles. All communications were down and I have read too that in the Kansas and Missouri all comms were out even EMO centers cause Tornadoes wiped out all comms. So if someone is in a restricted area they have no antennas either Cause you HAVE HOA'S saying NO ANTENNAS what so ever and they also might in the future tell mobile and EM people that antennas are not allowed. Thanks Mark

 

I guess the issue really isn't about rights, its more about content and devious purpose. Maybe not far enough to call it fraud.

We'll see how far this all goes. I suspect that Don Schellhart knows quite a bit more about contract law than the average ham.

Some rules in society are necessary. I mentioned CO and Fairfax, Va to point out how they are right now preempted by PRB-1, which is more than I can say about other locations. But, at the same time, it demonstrates how pervasive such stuff is.

We'll see how all of this shakes out after the dust settles.


Not everyone can live in the hill country of Alabama as I do, and not be concerned with such stuff. I've seen CC&Rs at their worst, and I sure as heck think enough of my fellow hams and youngsters who might want to become hams to try and do something about CC&Rs.

Obviously, KJ4YVM doesn't.

 

Instead of complaining about whether someone signed one of these CC&R agreements or not, I just sent my testimony to support the effort to get relief to our fellow hams. The point is helping one another is what makes our community of fellowship unique and respected.

 

However, the federal and state governments will routinely void parts of contracts that are contrary to the public interest.

It is possible to write into the terms of the sale of property, "buyer agrees to sell this property only to Caucasian Protestants and to impose this restriction on such future buyers". However, such restrictions has been determined to be contrary to the public interest, and are therefore voided by the government.

Or, to use a less civil-rights-y example: I work in the property-casualty insurance industry. Homeowners and auto insurance contracts invariably have a clause saying, essentially, if you don't pay your premium, your policy will be canceled. However, it is common after a disaster for state authorities to step in and require insurers to not enforce that provision of their contracts.

Although even before I was licensed, I swore that I would avoid HOA's and CCR's, I have to admit that they serve a purpose. I can accept that some people are willing to open themselves to fines and supervision in the interest of living in a community that has tougher than normal standards regarding the appearance and upkeep of properties.

However, the federal government has also said for decades that the amateur radio service shall exist because it is in the national interest for it to exist for various reasons (not just emcomm). As CCR-restricted communities become the norm in some parts of the country, you have an increasing conflict between "we want to live in a neighborhood of identical little boxes" and "it is in the national interest for the amateur radio service to exist". And that provides some justification for the government to impose a balance.

As long as the push is to protect hams from fines for erecting stealth antennas, and strongly encouraging HOA's to accommodate subtle dipoles or simple flagpoles, something like this will eventually become necessary, assuming that HOA's continue to become more common, and assuming that the feds want to keep amateur radio around. Sure, current hams can shop around to find unencumbered property, but that search is becoming more difficult, and it discourages unlicensed folks who already live in such subdivisions from joining the hobby. I'd rather have sanity imposed now, rather than wait until it really is impossible to find a place to buy within a reasonable commute of some future job I might have.

But if this becomes a push for HOA's to be required to tolerate a tower in every ham's back yard...I may like the idea, but I think such an effort would be doomed to fail and possibly backfire.

 

Because you voluntarily signed the HOA agreement.

 

That was a low blow Lee, but then I guess it was ok just because it was you and you don't follow the rules anyway. I have stated I don't like the HOA restrictions, that is why I didn't buy a house where I was restricted. I wasn't a ham at the time, but I didn't like the idea of someone else controlling my home while I paid for it. The whole situation, you and I both don't like, would have never lasted if people hadn't bought into the idea. It was their decision and they should be responsible for their choices. I pay for my choice, I pay the extra expense for driving to town when I have to, etc. That is the cost of living where I chose to live and restrictions are the cost of living where they chose to buy. I thought it through, but apparently others didn't....sorry. I will tell you this though, I wouldn't want to have any business dealings with those people because they have no integrity, that includes you if your signature isn't worth any more than that. I paid the money to study contract law, rights and property protection, I can't help if others spend their money other ways and find themselves restricted because of it.

 

I don't think what I said was a 'low blow.' Not at all. Does the typical home buyer even know what 70-90 pages of often forgotten-to-be- presented at closing papers amount to? Nope. I guess you want to put it in terms of no matter what you put your signature on, regardless of whether it is legal or not, you must abide by the agreement. I think there we differ.

I understood from your words that you thought just that. Sign to buy with restrictions, so live with it.


Like I said, here and in my testimony, I'm now living in green pastures with only the kind of restrictions I can live with: minimum setback of our home and side entrance garages.


Youngsters need to be able to get licensed and operate. And, not because they were fortunate to have a parent like you with a home in Georgia with no restrictions. Unless simple wire and vertical antennas are permitted in subdivision across the US, the amateurs of tomorrow will for the most part be hardly more than HT-toters.


You said that I don't "follow the rules." Not sure what you mean, but I'll let that pass.

 

To everyone here. I knew my views wouldn't be welcome by many, but all I have tried to do is point out where the problem is, and that isn't with the legislatures. The problem here is that freedom is being encroached upon and it is being done by contractual agreements. What has happened to the ham community is seen everywhere you look today. I drive down the road and seems everywhere I look, there's a butt crack staring over pants worn too low. The people out here no longer think for themselves and since a few started wearing their pants half way down, it's all you see any more. Well, the builder/developers started imposing restrictions on the homeowners in their developments, and even charging more for their houses and the people came. The doors of the credit machine opened wide and it became vogue to buy an over priced home in a restricted community, and the people flocked like sheep to fill these communities. I really hate that people were so quick to follow without thinking of the future, both theirs and the next generation but the way to fix this problem is through knowledge and the development of personal thought instead of a herd mentality.

Seems that any time you have a difference of opinion, someone starts with the personal attacks. Apparently, W6EM felt it necessary to attack me because I didn't see things his way. This is the end of any posts I will make here, nor will I read any more on this subject.

 

I wonder if HOA restrictions are more likely to be found in "blue" states, or "red" states; and if so, is that just co-incidental? No intent to be political.

 

I second your post as I think many hams oversell Emcomm. I am involved with ARES/RACES groups including application of amateur TV but I also say people should not think of ATV as an emergency response system (we do NOT have ATV troops armed and ready to go!).

But........ the HOA restrictions is more far reaching than amateur radio. I can see with a condo complex having restrictions on towers and large antennas, but as many pointed out several detached housing developments are part of a HOA system. THAT is a major issue as I'd think you buy a plot of land with house you should be able to put an antenna on the roof, not get shot down because HOA says no.

 

sorry, duped it.

 

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'personal attack.' Just how did I 'attack' you personally? You and I disagree on whether all contracts are legal and ethical and should be accepted. That's all. If you take a position that's different than the majority of others, be prepared for disagreements. Where I come from, it's OK to agree to disagree. You have a right to express your opinion. I said it once, and I'll say it again. It wasn't a personal attack. You don't support what the majority of other hams want: preemption of CC&Rs by the federal government. 'Nough said.

 

The real issue I have with ANY HOA, is the fact that you can NOT buy any property/house in an area conrolled by an HOA, and if you accept the agreement, you are bound by those 'rules. First off, if you can sign away YOUR property rights to another, WHEN do YOU get to exercise YOUR right to USE YOUR own property in a manner in which YOU wanted?
HOAs were useful to prevent people from turning their area into a junk yard or waste dump, aside from this, what you use your property for,is YOUR concern, and nobody elses.
Being restricted from purchasing property UNLESS you sign the HOA covenant is tantamount to forced association, nothing less. The monies you are forced to pay into this group of thieves is also nothing short of FRAUD. The law MUST include an OPT-OUT for anybody unhappy with how thier HOA is operating. You should NEVER be penalized and forced to continue paying into such a thing that provides NO benefit, except to control and fine the REAL owner of the land.
I had an issue with a fraudulent broker in AZ. several years ago. We went to look for a home in the Queen Creek area, and was looking at a specific location. I said right up front, so as to be no possible excuse for not understanding, that we would not buy any home that had an HOA attached to the purchase. I was told no problem, you do not have one.
We signed and moved in. 4 months later, I received a letter from, guess what...the HOA! they complained that my side access door was open for too long a time, and my green trash bin was outside the door, and visible.
I told them on the phone that we do not have an HOA, they said yes, you do. I said it again, and told them I do not pay the fees and have never received any paperwork stating this is true. A month later, I saw a man walking on MY property with a camera! I asked him why he was there, and he stated he was from the HOA and he was taking pictures for 'evidence'.
I told him to leave immediately, he refused. I then got angry and demanded he leave or else! He refused and told me he could go anywhere he wanted. I told him if he did not remove himself now, the next time he saw me, he would be looking down the barrel of my .45 and would be kissing the cement, and placed under citizens's arrest for criminal trespass.
He started to say something, but I walked inside...guess he thought he better get moving, as I do NOT mince words, he would have been well acquainted with how my .45 looked!
I called my real estate agent and told him if we do not get refunded ALL our money for fraudulent business acts, he would be sued in court. It took 6 months, but we got our money, and I found out through the Arizona real estate site, that a private party can sell just THREE homes a year and not require a real estate license. He was selling far more than this though. He also said he was working under his wife's license, also, in Arizona, that is illegal as well. In short, NO HOA should be allowed to tramplle on the property owner first, and force restrictions that deny rightful use of private property, and this includes towers and antennas placed ON the property. I will vote against ANY HOA, no matter how innocent they appear on the outside. they are ALL evil!