Missouri Amateur Radio Parity Act (MARPA)--TAKE TWO!

Actually, that's the real problem. In most metro areas across America, cities have been enacting ordinances which mandate that all subdivisions have indentures and HOAs as a requisite to city approval. Most of these HOAs' covenants have restrictions that, if not prohibitive altogether, severely limit the placement of antennas outside the residence. Consequently, there are few, if any, options unless you can afford to purchase property in some unincorporated part of the county away from city governance!

 

Define "Most metro areas"?

Chicago does not have this problem. Western NY does not have this problem. Vermont in general, does not have this problem.

If you can afford to buy a property with an HOA, you afford to live in the sticks, too.

Give me a zip code, and I'll find you an HOA free property within 25 miles. I've actually only really seen this problem you're indicating in conservative, small government areas...

 

This isn't about whether or not there ARE some areas a ham might be able to reside in without restrictions. It's a question of WHY should we have to? The rights of property owners to pursue happiness within their personally owned property should be of concern to all, regardless of the issue. Apparently, you live in an HOA community and are most likely on the board and a proponent of such infringements. I have yet to find an HOA that truly represents the majority of homeowners that it purports to protect. Besides, there's not an HOA anywhere that can protect the value of a home as is their "big" selling point. The concern that the opposition has about huge towers going up everywhere is unfounded. Besides, if it were all about a tower or any other tall structure, homeowners everywhere would constantly be voicing their displeasure with electric poles, light poles, signage, even trees. The reality is that within 60 days of some new structure being erected, we've forgotten about it. Even if every licensed ham in my city were to put up a tower, there would be less than 1 per 500 homes. Totally a non issue.

I can tell you, however, that while you might quote stats to show there ARE some areas across the country that a ham could choose to live unrestricted, they are getting fewer as more local governments are enacted these restrictions. Here in my city of 40,000, there is a city mandate on new subdivisions which requires an HOA be filed prior to final approval by the city for the development. I can tell you that this is pervasive throughout the St. Louis Metro area. So my question is, why do you object to seeking relief from HOAs for these restrictions? If you are not affected, what difference would it make to you? The TV satellite companies objected to these same type of restrictions placed on them by HOAs and won their case in court with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Obviously there was a lot of money involved in their complaint, but the Amateur Radio Service has just as much at stake.

 

I'll answer below...

Your rights end, right where another party's begins.

I don't live in an HOA community. I choice to avoid that. There's no infringement of rights, because you never bought those rights, with that parcel.

Then, why do people pay a premium (HOA dues) to live in them?

See above.

If it's a non-issue, then your HOA should have no problem approving it. If they don't, apparently it is an issue.

So, pick a different city to move in? Don't buy a home in a new subdivision? Buy an empty lot, and build yourself? HOAs, at last count, only cover 1/4 of the nation's housing stock...

In this case, I don't particularly object. Let Missouri do whatever Missouri wants to do. Well, I object to the last section of the proposed law, which you should object to as well, if you read it:

It basically makes it so landlords can prohibit amateur radio, completely.

And, FWIW, OTA broadcast TV is intended for the general public. And, this is how we can keep the public informed in the case of emergencies. It's a public safety issue. it's also an interstate commerce issue. that's why we got that law at the federal level, and why the same type of law for amateur radio will keep dying: There is no overwhelming public interest.

 

This isn’t about me or you, or your stubborn, unrelenting, Libertarian feelings; rather it is about the future of amateur radio. As things continue the way they are and as people migrate to newer built housing in antenna restricted properties, there will be fewer people on HF.

People tend to get interested in radio in their formative years. Well if a kid can't put up an antenna ...

We never had worries about stuff like that when I was a kid so I am not sure where all the freedom loving, anti-government hams are coming from. They wouldn't be on the air today if they had then, the antenna restrictions we have now! In this case, we need government to restore our freedom that was taken away by private interests.

 

Thats the key, fewer people on HF so there is less "competition". New users are not welcome, and all of suddenly there are more hams on HF there will be more competition.

 

I'm hardly a Libertarian.

If you don't like the privatization of governments, stop voting in politicians promising to privatize government. Don't worry, there will always be freedom loving states like NY where hams are free to buy homes without those kind of worries.

FWIW, you don't need a brand new home, to do ham radio stuff... Older homes are just fine. I got on the air in my early 30's... I also chose to not buy a home with an HOA, because I like my personal freedom.

 

I really do like your definition of freedom....I'm free to go somewhere else! Again, these same people who object to my antenna in my back yard, will be the same ones who want to know why we weren't there to assist with communication when the tornado, hurricane, earthquake hits their neighborhood! I lived for 20 years in Florida, survived 10 hurricanes, and it was always volunteer ham radio operators who stepped up to fill the void when everything else went dark! And, unless hams can practice effectively they will not be ready on that day. The hams who don't care about this issue are apparently ones who also don't care about volunteering during these events.

Somewhere in this discussion the statement was made that the freedom to erect an outside antenna ends when it infringes on the freedom of someone else. My question is simply, how does my antenna infringe on your freedom? Now you might have a difference of opinion as to the aesthetics of my antenna but that has no relevance to either of our freedoms!

 

Wrong. My definition of freedom, is well, freedom to do what you like, within the rights you have.

The tired emcomm excuse. Did you know: A big antenna, at your home, doesn't do much good? It needs to be at the EOC, or another remote site.

As for where do your rights end? As far as property rights go, they end where your deed says they end. And, with an HOA, you don't have full rights to the exterior view of your home: The HOA owns that right.

 

Homeowners don't decide what the CC&R's will be. This is done by the developer (private interest) when the land is re-platted or sub divided.
For the home buyer, it is a take it or leave it situation.
Most CC&R's require a 2/3 vote of lot owners to amend them. Most HOAs are lucky to get a quorum for annual meeting, much less a 2/3 vote of the lot owners. That is why in some pro property right states (mainly in the West), there have been statewide movements to void some of the clauses. This is not the Soviet Union. Back in the days of the USSR, people used to hide their radio antennas. Is this what we have become?

 

And, that is the real issue. HOA's own rights to my freedom of use of my personal property. While I understand that is the way the law is written today, I believe that if the average citizen had any idea at HOAs were really all about they would quickly move to modify, if not entirely strike down, the whole HOA statute. I encourage you to do a history study of HOAs. I believe you will be amazed at what you learn. They are NOT in the best interest of the homeowner....never have been. And, while some HOAs may actually operate with some semblance of majority owners interest, it's definitely a very small percentage. There has never been an HOA that was able to "protect" the value of an individual owner's home. It's typical "big government" bureaucracy where a few (trustees) control the agenda and dictate what's proper use of private property. And, yes, it's just another step towards socialism. The builders/developers are the only ones who have benefited from HOAs and their self-serving management companies.

As for "big antenna"....who said anything about a big antenna. Most HOAs are totally prohibitive of any outside antenna--wires, poles, towers, whatever. They have some philosophy that when the neighborhood looks sterile, it has attraction and value. I can tell you as a previously licensed realtor that couldn't be further from the truth. The reality, however, is that for a ham to effectively operate his/her station on the bands that have been allocated to them by the FCC, it is the antenna that determines its effectiveness. And, since the lower bands by the pure mathematics of the science require a significantly long antenna, it is virtually impossible to hide it within the confines of the private dwelling. Additionally, any antenna expert will tell you that height above ground is critical as well to an antenna's performance.

Personally, I would like to hear about one single benefit that an HOA provides to the homeowner. I've yet to experience that after 40 years of homeownership in four different HOA communities.

 

Excellent! I hope this passes and provides a model for legislation in other states.

 

It's not the fact the law is written this way... The law only deals with how contracts are dealt with, by the courts.

Your DEED that you signed at the time of purchase says this.

There is no statute. There is only the parcel's deed. Ever wonder why it's referred to as a "parcel"? Because it's legally known as a "parcel of rights". Your deed clearly defines who owns what property rights for the plot.

 

While I completely understand that it is the responsibility of the purchaser of land/property to read and know what is in the contract that they are signing, it is also the fudiciary responsibility under real estate law of the realtor/builder to disclose "in advance" of the closing that the property has indentures and provide the prospective buyer a copy of those indentures so that they can make an educated decision as to whether they are willing to purchase under those conditions. I can tell you that less than 10% of the time that does not happen. So while the buyer is under obligation to know what they are buying, the seller is also responsible to properly disclose those conditions as well.

 

It would be kinda hard to miss if there's an HOA with the property... I mean, you're signing documents that say you'll be paying an HOA fee... You're given the HOA bylaws, and signing for receipt...

All of the indentures are listed on the deed. It's up to you to read them, before signing. If you don't read what you sign, and do so without a lawyer, you're a moron.