We too have city ordinances about noise and other things and they are enforced. someone working as let’s say a mechanic in an area that’s not zoned commercial the hammer will come down on them. we also have tower restrictions in city ordinances here but that doesn’t mean you can’t have them.
You have led a very sheltered life...or perhaps a very oblivious one. The drug dealer and the MC shop went undetected to the majority of neighbors. A couple of neighbors paying attention brought both to the attention of authorities. I recall a large number of neighbors proclaiming it was un-neighborly to be complaining...of course they did not live close to the offenders. The drug dealer did jail time and the MC shop owner skipped the state when a stolen MC ring was discovered being supported by his illegal shop. And the neighborhood was aghast that such things were going on under their noses. However, my point is that the majority of homeowners should rule. If you live in a neighborhood open to full artistic embellishment of your property....very good. We have some of those areas here in this state. We need areas that appeal to the "artistic free souls". As long as they keep to themselves I'm all for that freedom. You could probably install quite an antenna system in areas like that. But then again maybe not. In fact we had one residential area that shared an airfield in the midst of their properties. A good area for those who owned their own airplane!
I have never observed an HOA with the limited priority of antennas. Antennas are but one small blip on a long list of contested issues at meetings. In fact antennas were never addressed at a formal meeting of my HOA. during the 24 years I lived there. I was the only ham in the 52 unit complex and never pushed things to the point that antennas were on the agenda. Drainage issues, picking up after your dog, sidewalk repairs, contractor parking, and fence painting were common issues the board addressed. I found it hilarious that the homeowner was expected to maintain his property, but if you hired a contractor he could not leave his trailer parked on the street overnight! That one drew lots of attention.
Yes, selling used cars from his house. The city finally stopped him but the HOA did squat. No No No Fortunately, not. Not that I know of. Yes in a "single family" home. HOA did nothing. Same group as #1 above. Unfortunately, no. I'd ask to go join him. Or set up my own air gun range. Unsightly antennas is in the eye of the beholder. I get tired of things that can't be ignored like constantly barking dogs and loud exhaust such as 'fart pipes' on cars and motorcyles with HD on them. And all them probably beleive that they are 'good neighbors'.......... I pretty much agree but the old worn out 'reduce property values' gets old.
I've read that in a lot of CC&Rs/HOA By-Laws documents as well. Pretty common is the dictate that replacing roofing, windows, shutters, exterior doors, mailboxes etc. must follow an approval process and must use the same design and materials as whatever was original -- which of course could easily be impossible. Yeah, boards can meet and vote to modify or ignore various "regulations," but why in the world would they even exist? No reason anyone can think of. Reviewing literally hundreds of CC&R docs over the years I find common wording among lots of them, as though "someone" wrote them and then 500 others just copied what the first guy wrote. It's easy to find the wording similarities, which often include the word "absolutely" in several places, e.g., "Absolutely no marked service vehicles may be parked..." blah, blah. Absolutely, positively. I refuse to be bound by nonsense.
I was referring to some hams who’s priority in life seems to be more about an antenna than anything of real importance. All the HOA cares about in most cases is aesthetics and eliminating eyesores. To most HOAs, antennas are only a trivial part of that. How many contractors work “overnight”? Logic dictates that the same folks who dislike parking bans in HOAs must consider city street no parking signs as sacrilegious, right?
That is for sure. Even though the HOA pays an HOA management form they get a cut a paste document. I'll bet they exist for most States. This method is dictated by lawyers. Regarding standardized materials..whenever an exterior door, shingle, or exterior light fixture becomes obsolete or falls in disfavor in the community the board revises the the CC&R docs which costs money because the docs must be registered with the local jurisdiction. Our neighborhood changed exterior lighting fixtures, garage doors, and front entry door colors during the 24 years I lived there. Front door colors were revised from 5 choices of color to 2 and then back to 5 again! I really didn't care much about the changes one way or another....I was upset that it cost money every time a document was changed. There are law firms that specialize in Real Estate issues including HOAs. That does not surprise me at all.
It has become common in this state at least for a contractor doing extensive work to leave a small trailer at the job site with special tools and materials during the installation period. In fact I have seen trash haulers left in streets during the demo period for a number of days...especially common for landscapers. But not in my HOA! Oh....and you were not allowed to park commercial vehicles in your drive way....if the resident drove a commercial vehicle it had to be parked in the garage. That was waived for a State Policeman who lived in the area. I thought it was great having a State Police vehicle parked in the neighborhood overnight!. We also had a County Sheriff vehicle parked just a few houses from our HOA community. I would think that arrangement made our community a little intimidating to crooks. Many years ago I lived in a Denver neighborhood with The Denver Police Chief. Some one was stupid enough to break into his residence and steal a Police Issue Revolver. It was the the Chief's first issued weapon and had sentimental value. The crook was quickly found and dealt with. His city official vehicle was unmarked.
It seems there is a blurring, at least in the U.S., between "covenants" that are actually municipal law, and covenants voluntarily executed by buyers between private parties. Now it's certainly also true that pre-sale disclosure of CC&Rs hasn't always been ubiquitous. At least where I am, there is now state law mandating that. I don't think a lot of people even know what they could do. The last time I bought a place, I got a 2-week "study contingency" in the contract which allowed access to the property, solely for the purpose of figuring out just how much tower I could put on it, with the option to punt if it didn't meet my needs. This was in a pretty crazy market, competition-wise. Fortunately, the HOA was very mellow and didn't do much, which is how I like them. So I bought it. Even renting, I've been able to look for and find places where I could put up things if I want. I also like to do a lot of satellite scanning, so 1.2m Ku dishes and C-band BUDs are in my repertoire. The problem with asking Congress to invalidate covenants is it's a direct manipulation of private property rights. I regularly, and increasingly over the past 20 years, encounter people who believe their only recourse for anything is to ask someone to use the force of government to enact their desires. Often they've never even had a conversation with the other property owner before doing so. That's just not an adult way to handle a difference. At one point while living in the aforementioned house, a developer decided to put a medical campus on an adjacent lot. I went to the HOA meetings and everyone was up in arms. When I suggested that if they really didn't want that there, there was nothing stopping the HOA members from contributing together and buying the lot themselves, it became apparent that no one had ever even thought of such a straightforward option. I see an increasing amount of land being placed under conservation easements. The homeowners aren't selling it to the government, they're selling it to private organizations like the Nature Conservancy. The government seems to like it, but I'm not sure how much that matters in the grand scheme of things. I anticipate that they will be in favor of such transactions as long as the localities believe that it saves them from having to spend money on parkland,or helps them claim to be "green." I think in the end, there's a question of logical consistency that we face if we're people who respect the ability to use our private property as we see fit. If we ask for Federal removal of private agreements, that may well be a "taking" from someone else's perspective. Now if it's Federal preemption of state law, that's different. Fortunately, our individual pro-rata ability to affect state governance should be a little higher than the same in the Federal context. I fly airplanes and have seen this with airports, too. People build houses next to an airport and then are shocked! that airplanes make noise. Then they run to their politician for help making it stop. Sorry, pal, do your research next time, or don't complain when you can't get your transplant organ in time. Maybe it's just me, but I am continually surprised at how quickly and seemingly precipitously people buy houses and then complain about things that were even pre-existing issues. PRB-1 was legit. There was an articulable Federal interest that spanned the country, there was a statutory mandate for management of the related sphere (spectrum/RF/etc), and pre-emption of state government/local law was able to be described in a way that took into account the interests of the parties. Doing this for private contracts is fraught with peril, whether we would wish otherwise or not, because it involves preempting private agreements among consenting parties.
another difference with no distinction. It’s trivial by comparison to the time, effort, labor and cost to every taxpayer when a municipality, county or state decides to change any zoning, building or infrastructure law. They do it more often, at far greater cost because of the bureaucracy and they too often cut and paste legislation, rules and codes from other governmental entities. We once lived in a non-encumbered property - the historical society dictated color choices, roof material, window specifications, driveway material choices, on-street parking limitations, etc… not to mention onerous generic building code constraints simply because our town was anal about aesthetic considerations. It’s less intrusive living in my HOA. I don’t know why people can’t simply admit this is all about antenna fixation.
I've had non-encumbered properties all over the place. Just sold one in L.A. and just bought one in Florida. No CC&Rs, no HOA. The new one has an 11K s.f. lot (1/4-acre) and a 1900 s.f. home with a sunroom and stuff. It's 20 years old, but that's new enough and (of course) it has a new roof, since hurricane Sally dictated that one. No encumbrances other than my wallet. Nice neighborhood, quiet street (cul-de-sac) but one thing I really like is the houses are all different, different roofing designs, different doors and windows, different everything so no two look anything alike. That's a big plus for me, and my wife likes that, too.
Why shouldn't an Amateur Radio antenna be a priority of real importance? Why is it that street lights, power lines, flag poles and similar are OK "aesthetically", but antennas are not? No matter what the antenna is?
When my neighborhood was built, ~70 years ago, all the houses were pretty much alike. The only differences were that some had fireplaces and some didn't, and some were "right hand" and some were "left hand" - mirror images of the same design. Now every house is different. Some are virtually unchanged except for paint colors. Others have all sorts of changes - additions, siding, porches. separate garages, decks, patios, fences, landscaping, and more - and that's just things visible from the outside. And I have an outdoor antenna. Never a problem. 73 de Jim, N2EY
It’s a hobby. Didn’t you know? And no one, at ant time, anywhere, ever said “look at those pretty telephone poles”. Any other
