W7CCE Petitons for PRB-1 Modification

Ahhh! Great call Gordon!

 

Sorry, but I still don't understand why a ham, non-ham or anyone for that matter would ever buy a house with CC&R's. Forget about the antenna restrictions and such. Take this to a different level. People are not reading contracts or they just don't want to cut the grass. It's called being lazy.

Even though I am a ham, I would never buy a house with restictions. I don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with my own property.

K2WH

 

It's not even just about antennas. There are HOAs that wont let Americans, even war veterans, fly American flags. You read about horror stories where some HOA imposes some silly fine for something trivial like planting the wrong kind of flowers, and six months later they've piled on thousands of dollars of penalties and fees and have filed a lawsuit to take your house away.

Even if you could get the FCC to carve out a ham radio antenna exception, that does not fix the underlying problem, which is that most HOAs only function to feed their lawyers.

I've never met anyone who has told me that they like living under HOA rule , but when you ask them why they do, it's either (a) that the HOA preserves their "property value" or (b) that there are no "good" homes that are not in HOAs. Both assertions are nonsense.

 

There are several reasons people buy a house with CC&Rs:

1) They don't know the CC&Rs exist, or don't understand them
2) They don't object to what the CC&Rs require, or didn't when they bought
3) They couldn't find an unrestricted house they could afford which met other criteria they had (school district, distance to work, size, age, condition, etc.)

I hope you always have that choice.

But consider that, in most of the USA, there are lots of folks telling you what you can and cannot do with your property. Building codes, fire codes, safety and environmental regulations, nuisance ordinances, zoning, and much more.

Right now it's a buyer's market in real estate. But a few years ago, it was a seller's market. I remember a time, not so long ago, when a house near me would go on the market at noon and have three offers before the end of the day. Offers that were at or above the listing price - and with no conditions!

In such a market, buyers are under pressure to make a fast decision, because if they don't, somebody else gets the house. And with prices rising fast, the house they can afford today may be out of reach in a few months.

Of course the best position to be in is to not have to move. But not everyone can be in that position.

---

My house is over 60 years old, yet has a page and a half of deed restrictions. All the homes around me have them too - and almost nobody knows they exist. Most of the restrictions are superseded by local codes - for example, the local code calls for more setback than the restrictions do. Some seem rather quaint, such as not being allowed to raise cows or horses. The one I really like is the requirement that the property must have a single-family residence costing at least $10,000.....

About a quarter mile away from me are homes that are bigger, newer, and nicer than mine, and they cost only a little more. Some have great big wooded back yards - perfect for wire antennas. I looked into buying one some years back, and was pleasantly surprised by the prices.

But they are heavily restricted. The HOA is very active and their rule book is at least 40 pages. When I saw "no outdoor antennas of any kind", I stopped reading.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

...and remind me why Gestapo riddled HOA's boards would want to negotiate with a bunch of "hobbyists" to circumvent the contracts that they willfully signed? WE ain't no more "The Amateur Radio Service" than my golden retriever will be the next Republican candidate for the presidency in 2012! DECADES ago...when we HAD respect and WERE prepared and participated in REAL emergency preparedness...you HOA bound hams HAD a shot. Nowadays, you'll likely be presenting your case to those you'd be lucky to even though what amateur/ham radio even is. Be cautious about attempting to attach one's self to what you can do in the midst of times when the "spit hits the spam!" Those who ONCE believed in [us] and in positions of authority in our communities and government have been unfortunately displeased over the past decade. Arrogance and the digital world killed the radio star folks. The evidence is witnessed by the DOZENS of silent repeaters around the country and ESPECIALLY in a once ARES organized South Central Florida. Thank you to the pin-headed and narrow-minded digital minority who really believed in their personal agendas to stuff YOUR methods down out collective throats. Good luck in your digital world when it really matters and all FIVE of you, metaphorically speaking...sort of... have NO ONE TO COMMUNICATE WITH!

 

I live in a condo and work remote. I dont want any ugly antennas around here (tic) You signed it..live with it or move

 

I am not a lawyer, but....it's not that simple.

A legally binding contract cannot be made for something which is illegal. For example, if A pays B to kill C, but then B decides not to kill C, A cannot sue B to give the money back. The courts won't enforce such a contract.

CC&Rs which are judged to be discriminatory in certain senses cannot be enforced. For example, CC&Rs cannot be used to exclude or include people of certain races, ethnicities, religions, political persuasions, income levels, etc. (Such things used to be common, intended to keep "those people" out).

A legally binding contract cannot be made if one of the parties gets no benefit from it.

When people get married, they form a legally binding contract "till death due us part". Yet about half of those contracts in the USA are broken before then - and the person breaking the contract often gets more than half the benefits!

There are lots more examples. As I said, I am not a lawyer, but I know that contract law is a lot more complicated than you may think.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Dont quit your day job

 

I am not a lawyer, but....

Words like "structure" have a very definite and precise meaning to lawyer folks - and that meaning may not be what you think it is.

For example, some years back I wanted a shed. I did some research and discovered that, in my township, a shed with a foundation constituted a "permanent structure" which means it needed plans, building permit, inspection, and had to meet all setback and code rules.

However, if it did not have a permanent foundation, it was "temporary" and none of the above were needed.

I looked around and noticed that practically every house had a one of those prefab wooden sheds sitting on a gravel base. Some had been there 20 years - but since they were not on a permanent foundation, they were all "temporary".

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

This has been needed for decades and has been dealt with in some states through state law I have been pushing here in Arkansas for our Section management to take this up and what is funny with the change of one sentence in an already existing federal law all this would be covered. As for this being some slippery slope not at all this would make everything set and clear as glass having a standard that applied across the board.
whats needed here is the same thing that was done with sopa and pipa clear cut petitions linked to all Representative's pushing for the law. Allot of folks don't even realize even when they read there closing the restrictions that are in it like this one http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579147,00.html

it would be nice just to see the idea of most home owner associations done away with as they are by there very nature discriminatory flat out.
Early covenants and deed restrictions were exclusionary in origin, and in the first half of the 20th century many were racially motivated.[3] For example, a racial covenant in a Seattle, Washington neighborhood stated, "No part of said property hereby conveyed shall ever be used or occupied by any Hebrew or by any person of the Ethiopian, Malay or any Asiatic race."[4] In 1948, the United States Supreme Court ruled such covenants unenforceable, in Shelley v. Kraemer. However, private contracts kept them alive until The Fair Housing Act of 1968 banned them.
This next link sights amateur radio specifically. I am a very conservative person but I am also a constitutionalist. HOAs or any local or stat law that supports them violates My constitutional rights in the following ways.
First it violates my freedom of speech, buy preventing me being able with in the lawful right's of my amateur licence and or privilege's granted by the FCC to communicate with others.
next it violates freedom of the press because it limits me to only what local media has to say and does not allow me access to the open world media via any and all means.
finally it violates freedom of association where by one's use of his or her free speech as facilitated by there licence and or use of an FCC approved transceiver to associate with those whom they choose is also violated and or restricted.

http://www.servicemagic.com/videos/at-odds-with-your-hoa/

Just my opinion adjusted for inflation taxed and then given away as a bailout.

Jesse
WX1DX
73

 

I did not mean any slant against the ARRL, its a great organization and I am a member. Sooner or later, we are going to run out of space. People have a culture of thinking antennas are ugly, something I think is going to be difficult to change. This is a step in right direction. No action now, may mean no antennas tomorrow. In my neighborhood, it just takes 1 complaint about non aesthetic look of my antenna and house and we get a letter.

 

read through this legislation to the part where ham radio is specifically precluded! All that needs done here is to change that one sentence and allow the tower to be 50 foot and your antenna it's self be unrestricted..done! http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule siting my previous statement

The law as it's written violates
My constitutional rights in the following ways.
First it violates my freedom of speech, buy preventing me being able with in the lawful right's of my amateur licence and or privilege's granted by the FCC to communicate with others.
next it violates freedom of the press because it limits me to only what local media has to say and does not allow me access to the open world media via any and all means.
finally it violates freedom of association where by one's use of his or her free speech as facilitated by there licence and or use of an FCC approved transceiver to associate with those whom they choose is also violated and or restricted.

The ARRL works hard for us on these issues and should be supported in any and every way. Not to say that I or everyone else agrees with them 100% of the time but they are are best defense and offence.Perhaps rather than trying to modify the existing rules and laws we need a bill that specifically addresses this issue for not just amateur radio but short wave, CB , fire fighters ,ems and law enforcement personnel as they all might like to have an antenna out side there house as well.

There was a comment about ham radio helping keep kids out of trouble and the FCC not caring about this. Radio helped me as a kid and has helped my teenager and many others as well. The foremost purpose of government to start with is the protection of the people.
This is mainly done through education! There by introduction to the sciences through radio communications is just that education as preventative measure to crime.

 

I still have to say a contract is a contract. You don't want restrictions? Break the fricken contract! But the onus is on YOU to figure out how to break it if you signed it.

A contract is an agreement. And you signed it. TOUGH!

I've owned 3 houses. Two were in areas with restrictions, but NONE had antenna restrictions. Currently I don't have any antenna restrictions on my house. But know what? If someone in the neighborhood broke a rule that was something WE ALL AGREED TO, I'd get upset.

Every house I've bought or built, my purchase and sale agreement stated they had to have no antenna restrictions on the property, and I made sure the realtor knew that UP FRONT!

Why do some people feel they are 'special' and the rules don't apply to them?

Whiny little babies. If you signed it, LIVE WITH IT OR MOVE!

What other agreements in life do you try to weasel out of?

 

I've tried several times to put my thoughts together on this...

A problem with this discussion is that there are multiple levels to it. Those that say "you signed a binding contract so live with it or move" are unfortunately correct at the down to earth "this is where we're at" sort of level but that doesn't prevent a discussion on the wider issues. I think those wider issues unfortunately come down to human behavior and lack of tolerance in the modern world and I don't know if laws or regulations are ever going to fix it without some sort of change in the way our society operates.

Many people seem to have a problem with HOA rules. A Google search will reveal people complaining about clothes lines, compost bins, gardens, antennas etc. The thing that's hard to determine is what proportion of people living under these rules are unhappy. We only hear about the disputes. The vast majority of people are probably quite happy with the situation because neither them or their neighbors are interested in doing anything that conflicts with the rules. I think the converse might be true too. That is most people don't care too much what their neighbor has or does so long as long as things are done in a reasonable way but it seems that in many HOAs that neighbor doesn't even have the opportunity to accept it because the rules are so strict.

The real problem as I see it is that so many things in modern life are reduced to an all or nothing polarizing choice. It's right or wrong, yes or no, you're for us or against us, with no shades of gray or compromise.

I can accept that a reasonable person may object to his neighbor having a big beam antenna. I may not totally understand his objection but part of me can at least accept the fact that it's a significant physical thing that he doesn't want to see. I find it very difficult to accept someone objecting to a simple wire antenna but from what I've heard, many HOAs ban even that. I assume that's because it's the easy way out for those who made the rules. As soon as you say that some antennas are permitted and some not then you need to define what is and isn't permitted. It's much easier to simply say no antennas at all.

I don't know what the answer is. It seems to be a problem with society in general. It's made worse by the fact that many people don't know their neighbors.

I can't see how this is either a free speech or (even less so) a freedom of the press issue. I think both approaches would be laughed out of court. I think some people are probably relating to the free speech thing because of some cases that made the news of war veterans not being able to fly a flag or, I remember one where someone was flying the American flag upside down as protest. I can see the connection to free speech in those cases but they seem to have little in common with the antenna situation.

As to the document itself, the harsh reality is that we don't have a strong argument so I think chance of success is very low. The "Right to Dry" people have had a tough time even though I believe they have a much more compelling argument related to energy conservation and saving money that many people can relate to.

It seems strange to me (as a foreigner) that this is seen as a matter for the FCC. I would think it's more of a state government thing. I think that's where the Right to Dry people focus their efforts. I think OTARD is an FCC thing because it regulates the broadcasting industry much more than just at the spectrum level and it wanted to help create a level playing field between cable and satellite providers. I think the relationship between the FCC and the ham radio community is mostly just spectrum management.

I assume it's already been submitted so I guess there's not much point in discussing the wording but 23 and 31 seem to be almost duplicates as are 22 and 32.

I still think it's a good idea to submit it. I don't think it will do any harm and, who knows, might at least generate some "noise".

I'm interested to hear if these problems exist in a big way in other countries or if it's mostly an American thing. I remember antenna restrictions being a bit of an issue in New Zealand but it was mostly local city bylaws (ordinances in US language), not private community rules. Things similar to HOAs exist called "body corporates" but I think they're mostly for to a block of connected home units. I think it's rare in NZ to have anything like an HOA for a collection of individual houses.

 

HOA's have laws...if you moved in, you were told about those laws by your Realtor...if not, sue them.
Lets say there are 35 units in the HOA and 34 abide by the restrictions....who the hell do you think you are doing what you want when 34 are against your wishes. I dont want some 50ft eyesore in my HOA. Your rights have not been taken...you gave them up when you signed your loan payments. Work Mobile from your driveway..better yet, dont live where your things are not wanted. You might work with the HOA, get on the board and tell them what you can do for them in an emergency..... buy a crank up....etc....dont be a bunch of whiners.