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

Well, I am so glad that you are so enlightened and have placed yourself high above the average person. Thank you for keeping all of us "morons" in our place.

I never said that "I" didn't read what I was signing. However, I dare say that you nor anyone else sits there at closing and reads "verbatim" the 30 pages of documents they are about to sign. And, you are wrong in your assumption that a copy of the HOA bylaws are given to the buyer prior to signing. It just doesn't happen. I can tell you that I have surveyed homeowners in my current subdivision of over 500 homes, and well less than 10% of them received copies of the Covenants at closing and most still do not have a copy of them.

But, that's fine. Your pedastel is so high above the rest of us I'm confused as to why you are even engaged in this conversation.

 

While I understand the concern about government meddling and nullify portions of private contracts, I wonder if a balance could be struck by having the bill prohibit NEW restrictions only.

This way no contracts are modified; no existing neighbors can complain that now there is a giant antenna next door when they thought their area would be free from such "monstrosities," etc. However, hams could continue to grow in the future free from new restrictions.

I understand the need for some legislation to prevent all new construction from forbidding antennae.

KE0KZ, BTW, nice callsign.. a little short though ;-)

 

You're correct. I didn't read the 30+ pages (Actually, closer to about 400, tbh) before signing. You see, I hired a lawyer to do that for me. Anyone purchasing property would be wise to obtain the services of a real estate attorney, but like anyone wise would obtain a criminal attorney when dealing with criminal law. The attorney is paid to ensure my wishes, as I instruct them, are met.

They had to have been given copies of the "Convenants", since they signed their deed. If they didn't sign their deed, they don't own the property. The convenants are all on the deed, as that is where they are transcribed to. And, if they still don't have a copy of their deed, I'd question if they properly purchased the home at all.

If they didn't get a copy of the bylaws, but yet signed the document stating they did get a copy, and reviewed/agreed to them, well, then they are fools.

It's not pedestal: it's the basic status of being an adult.

 

I'd actually full back such a measure, if it was only applied to new restrictions. Or, if such restrictions could be newly applied, they should have to meet some extremely high barrier, or something of that nature.

 

The issue is really a matter of what's available as an alternative to antenna-restricted HOA communities. That varies by locale.

Generally, housing tracts built since the 1980's have some kind of restrictions. Even my house has CC+Rs that forbid certain things. Fortunately, antennas aren't one of them. But we'd like to have a storage shed on the property, and that's verboten, along with solar panels and signs.

I have great concern for new hams who already live in these restricted places before they get a license. And yes, my own wife would much rather be in a nice new townhouse than this older ranch house we own. I think these restrictions have had a huge impact on the hobby. We have many people operating with 'stealth' antennas, which are a poor compromise, at best.

 

Too bad you aren't in Colorado or several other states where the legislature voided CCR restrictions on solar panels, clotheslines, and a number of other provisions including voting rules, that they found to be against the public good. So much for the supposed inviolability of such restrictions!

Some commenters here want to plug their ears and believe everything is fine as is. But as just one example: here the state population has increased almost 5X since HOAs became ubiquitous, so most of the housing stock is in restricted subdivisions.

Houses which aren't restricted are almost invariably 35 years old or much more, with all that entails - by today's standards small, low ceilings, lots of upgrades needed, landscape needing rejuvenation, etc., and often not anywhere close to where much employment is nowadays. And since we have gridlocked roads here and a dearth of public transport, that is a major problem - not just a minor lifestyle difference.

 

OR...

If you don't like the status quo, you can take measures and change things for the better. So contrary to popular belief no, you don't always have to accept things the way they are.

F.Y.I. That's what is occurring here.

We (whiners) have legislators and democratic processes in this country for a perfectly good reason. In the United States of America, people have a constitutional and legal right to fully utilize those processes in any way they might see fit and my tax dollars says so.

It is not up to you or anyone else for that matter to suppress other people from exercising these legal options and processes in our free democratic society.

If "we the people" want to change something, we can and we will. There's absolutely nothing you or anyone else can say to stop anyone from attempting to do so.

If you don't like that way of doing things, there's other countries you can move to where they don't have these options available for anyone.

 

For any hams located in Missouri who would like to join the campaign to get our Bill through both house of the legislature, I have launched a new website, www.marpa.us. We encourage all hams to visit often and stay informed on the updates, progress and calls for action as we work together to successfully promote this legislation, House Bill 136. There is a blog page on the site, too, and we invite you to join in the discussion.

 

Sorry....browser truncated comments...see next>

 

IMO-
1. CC&Rs really only protect the developer/investors. They (HOAs) cannot protect the interests of all owners as we are not all mindless clones....yet.
2. It was in a HOA environment that Mr. Martin was needlessly shot to death (in which State?). I make this reference as a point, my perception, to the extent of the mindset of *some* 'wanna be control dweebs' that are found on HOA boards. My opinion...we can not agree...I will still have that perception.
3. I was told that new Arizona subdivisions must have HOAs by State law....anybody? I honestly don't know.....and Google failed me (my search engine that uses Boolean logic is being 'retooled').
4. Good Luck to the Amateurs in Missouri....show us how it is done (pun, or not).

 

It would seem that since "most" HOA restricted communities reside within local municipalities that the same ordinances which govern the citizens of that municipality should also be enough to govern those HOA communities as well. Isn't it actually a conflict when such municipalities rule through ordinance or city policy that outside antennas on private property residence within the city limits are acceptable (given some height regulation) and then rule through mandated ordinance that "all" subdivisions within that same municipality must be HOA restricted and those restrictions counteract the very city ordinance that allows outside antennas?

 

By the logic of some here, the founding fathers were wrong to pursue their revolution. After all, they chose to live in King George's domain. If they didn't like his laws, they should have moved to Spain, China, or some other place outside his domain.

Friends, some laws and some regulations are tyranny. My own HOA prohibits ALL outdoor antennas (other than federally mandated direct-broadcast satellite antennas). So when I drive onto my driveway with my cellphone in my car, I violate the HOA's CC&Rs because my cellphone has an antenna, no matter how tiny, and it's situated outdoors on my property. None of my neighbors can see, hear, smell, or taste my cellphone. But it's still prohibited. When a regulation becomes that invasive and yet provides no benefit to any person, it's tyranny, especially if arbitrarily enforced, as is the case. That CC&R term is, I believe, unconstitutionally broad.

Conservatives and libertarians should understand that problem. But many are so preoccupied with stifling all government action other than law enforcement and the military that they fail to uphold government's necessary role in preserving liberty. In the context of so much recent wrong-headed government action, especially on the part of the judiciary, their preoccupation is understandable. But all citizens share a duty to vigorously resist tyranny on behalf of those on whom the boot of tyranny falls. And CC&Rs such as that of my HOA are no less tyrannical than the King's tax on tea.

 

Bill, may I repost your comments on our website and Facebook page?

 

You may do with it whatever you will. I disclaim any rights that might otherwise apply.

 

The only reason the default no-antenna rule exists in the first place, is that it's written into the standard boilerplate most HOAs use to formulate their rules. Most people, even those living in HOA concentration camps, couldn't care less if the guy down the street strings up a wire dipole between the trees in his back garden or erects an unobtrusive tower or mast, but HOA leaderships tend to be very jealous of their power.