Max Legal Power

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W0DZ, Oct 30, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
  1. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    For SY:

    "Click" on the TVI article link from the Dallas Morning News. There is a photo of me sitting at the main console thereon.

    Glen, K9STH
     
  2. N0PU

    N0PU Guest

    WIK:

    I am sure glad someone finally said it, I have been thinking it for years but didn't feel like taking the gaff. You on the other hand, being a recognized expert, can get away with it. Bravo!

    Why would a ham, in his right mind, buy one of those restricted properties?

    Does the Ham's spouse have so little respect for their partner that they insist?

    I never did get it! My wife and I compromise so we BOTH get what we all of what we NEED and each get a little of what we WANT. And we're smart enough to know the diff between 'want' and 'need'.

    Remember folks, If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem!

    73
    Harry Kholer N0PU
     
  3. WD8X

    WD8X Ham Member QRZ Page

    I grew up with my father being a big time DXer. Cards on the wall, antenna farm when possible, but always one common theme; always a big and bad amp for breaking the pile-up. Today that holds true for me as I run with the Alpha 87a. Do I really need to? My rig runs 200 watts and afterall, isn't that enough?Probably for casual DXing but I do love power for contesting. I believe it is unfair that I have this capability and UK hams don't, but that makes them more persistent and capable hams. I'm a big contester and I'll only use the 'full gallon' when I need the mult and there is a pile-up.

    As for the EA's and I's, a comment was made regarding what power they run. A German ham I know playfully refers to the Italians as the 'Southern Artillery'. They run power and like to use the mic gain more as a weapon.
     
  4. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Harry (N0PU), I couldn't agree more.

    But so many people are such wimps, it's truly unbelievable. So finding that so many hams are wimps I guess just goes with the territory.

    I wrote an article called, "Avoiding the Dreaded CC&Rs" back in May, still on line here:

    http://www.eham.net/articles/3517

    ...and many of the responses were actually derogatory, from licensed hams who live under CC&Rs and think it's wonderful. Ouch.

    Some even proclaimed CC&Rs maintain property resale values, although in eighteen months of non-stop research on this subject, I haven't found a single shred of evidence which would confirm that. Not one. Nor has anyone offered up any, when repeatedly requested.

    I suppose at this point all I can do is be thankful I'm not "one of them," and never will be, and that my signal starts out with a 20dB advantage as a result. It's nice having less competition on the bands, I suppose, but in my case -- not really. I love the spirit of competition, and wish everybody had tremendous signals. That's why I like contesting, it's all about the competition, and only the best operators with the best antennas win. The station equipment doesn't matter much.

    73!

    Steve, WB2WIK/6
     
  5. N0XAS

    N0XAS Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remember folks, If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I thought if you weren't part of the solution you were part of the precipitate.

    Dale
    [​IMG]
     
  6. N0XAS

    N0XAS Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2WIK @ Nov. 01 2002,12:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But so many people are such wimps, it's truly unbelievable.  So finding that so many hams are wimps I guess just goes with the territory.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Steve, I hope you won't take this as a personal atack, because it's certainly not.  I have on occasion been accused of being less than diplomatic, and sometimes I fail to see it in time.  

    Of course we've been here before, but I just have to say it.  If I said, &quot;Hams with amps and towers are inconsiderate jerks&quot;, I'd certainly be wrong and guilty of over-generalizing, though no doubt the statement is true in some cases.  Yet you persist in calling any ham who buys a house in a neighborhood with antenna restrictions a wimp.  Please stop that, it's insulting and argumentative and it makes you look - well, like an jerk, and I know you're not one.

    While it may be possible to buy a house you are happy with, with your budget, in your part of the country, it should not come as a great surprise you to know that the same does not apply equally to everyone everywhere.  

    My family moved into a new (to us) house a year ago.  We had a list of things we wanted and needed, and a list of things that would be good to have but were of lower priority.  What we found after a year of house hunting was perfect for us in every way except for one -- antenna restrictions.  This is not surprising, since there has not been a house built in this area in the last 40 years without antenna restrictions; the house my parents built in 1965 had them.  

    I had a choice.  I could move my family to a smaller house in an older neighborhood.  There are no houses this size in older neighborhoods.  I could move to a much less convenient and desirable location a half hour away and put my kids in a less capable school system where they would not have the advantages they have now.  My family would have made major sacrifices so that I cold enjoy my hobby without compromises.  Now, would you no longer be calling me a &quot;wimp&quot; if I ignored the needs of my family?  Sorry, it's not worth it.  Don't think we didn't consider those alternatives; we did.  Those charming country houses were places none of us would have been happy living in over the long term, I'm not a farmer.  Those nice older houses in the nice older neighborhoods...  well, let's just say they don't exist everywhere.  I looked there 15 years ago too, it wasn't an option then either.  The whole time we were looking for a place that met all of our primary requirements and where we could have a decent antenna set up...  bolo, snake-eyes, nuthin'.  Maybe if I was willing to wait a few years for something else to come up, but &quot;available for purchase&quot; was one of our criteria.

    It may come as a big surprise to some of the people posting to this thread, but your experiences are not universal.  Your priorities are not universal.  Your circumstances are not universal.  Not everyone is just like you, and the inability to comprehend that fact is an issue you should really look into addressing.

    Now, as to the CC&amp;R issue.  We have a blanket &quot;no exterior antennas of any kind&quot; rule written into the covenant.  The covenant is modifiable only with a 75% vote of all homeowners.  Unfortunately, the chances of a modification to that agreement happening is nil - I don't think 75% even pay their association dues.  Fortunately, this is not one of those areas where the HOA is trained by ex-Gestapo thugs; I can probably put up a vertical in my back yard and get away with it.  I'm going to run for president of the HOA board, since the current one is a complete waste of perfectly good oxygen.  I'm going to try for a written exemption for my antenna(s), and maybe a small tower to get them off the ground.  But chances are I may have to wait until the CC&amp;R expires in 10 or 15 years, or until the Feds decide to extend the protection offered to TV and satellite antennas to hams.  For many of us, it's our only hope for the near term.

    Just because I have never encountered job or housing discrimination doesn't man I think all civil rights laws are there just for wimps and whiners.  The mere fact that a situation does not affect you doesn't always mean those it does affect are just a bunch of wimps.

    73,

    Dale
     
  7. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Dale, what a nicely-worded and well thought-out response.

    Not everyone's experience parallels mine, or anyone else's, and nobody has walked in anyone else's shoes.

    However, I guess my feelings can be summed up easily; and I know, when I address a large group in person, as I have on hundreds of occasions, I rarely get a single discordant grumble:

    It may amaze some people, especially Americans, but not everybody wants to live where they grew up, and those who do usually miss out on the most enriching experiences imaginable. Not everyone wants to live where their job is, or where their parents or kids are. Some of us, like me, have travelled the world and all fifty states to discover there are lots of places a whole lot better than where we were when we started the trip.

    I won't comment on Omaha, Nebraska, specifically -- but I've been there many, many times. That your area has CC&amp;Rs going back to the mid-sixties is not only surprising to me, but frightening. Living in L.A., I'm within 120 miles of more than 15 million people and CC&amp;Rs are a relatively new thing here. Beverly Hills (and many other places) are filled with 10,000 square foot homes having no CC&amp;Rs. Is that big enough?

    Would I uproot and move to avoid having to live with undesirable restrictions? You bet. Our Founding Fathers did, didn't they? And most of our ancestors. I consider myself no better than them, nor much different.

    After visiting all fifty states, I made lists of what was desirable, and undesirable, personally, everywhere and decided to settle here in southern California. It's not for everybody, but I detest cold weather, snow, ice, wind, humidity, mosquitos, having to scrape car windshields, and having to own &quot;winter clothes.&quot; Some people probably love all those things.

    But having grown up where those things did exist, or were required, I didn't want my children to have to go through what I did. I like that they can play outside twelve months a year, barefooted. It's neat. I also like living in a state that provides more funding for university-level education than pretty much the other forty-nine states combined.

    Since I'm the type person who doesn't mind moving, having done it about twenty times already, for the overall good of my family and myself, that opens all sorts of opportunities. In vehement protest of all things unreasonably restrictive, as my forefathers protested against similar regulation, I'll choose only to live where other people have not already decided what I can and cannot do. So, CC&amp;Rs are not in my present, or in my future. Even if it means moving out of the country.

    Now, how can anyone argue this?

    Do I look down my nose at those who live under CC&amp;Rs? Of course not. I feel sorry for them, and yep, indeed I believe they wimped out. There are always reasonable alternatives, and Americans simply buying restricted properties knowingly and willingly will only fuel that fire and make them more omnipresent. The way to rid ourselves, and our children and grandchildren, of this problem is to boycott the restrictions by simply not buying those properties. If everyone simply said, &quot;No,&quot; the restrictions would disappear much faster than they arrived.

    But, I like your idea of running for HO President, and making changes. That is wonderful, and I wish you the best. It would seem that if truly 75% of the homeowners aren't paying association dues, they can't vote. I'm surprised to hear this is even possible, since in most places the Association could lawfully place a lien on the property of homeowners who do not pay their agreed-to dues, making it impossible for those people to ever sell their homes without paying off that debt in full, and with interest.

    But if what you say is true, all you need to do is win over the majority of the 25% who do pay their dues, and get them to toss the CC&amp;Rs out the window. And you can probably do that, if you try!

    73,

    Steve, WB2WIK/6
     
  8. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    P.S. -

    Forgot to mention, my disdain for CC&amp;Rs goes much deeper than &quot;antenna restrictions.&quot;

    Conforming neighborhoods are boring. I'll leave it at that.

    WB2WIK/6
     
  9. N0XAS

    N0XAS Ham Member QRZ Page

    Steve,

    Actually, we have lived all over the country, and decided to move *back* here about 15 years ago.  We're living in what we decided was the best place for us to raise our kids and live our lives.  Since then I've had the opportunity to travel extensively to both coasts and a lot of places in between, and I can honestly say that while there are places I could probably be happy living, none are enough to get me away from there area in which we now live.

    Your example of the 10K square foot houses in Beverly Hills is, I know, kind of an extreme example, but I'll take it to the next logical step:  I guarantee they're out of my price range, even if I was making a California scale salary.  Living anywhere within a hundred or two miles of 15 million people ranks pretty close to the bottom of my list of things to do and places to go.  If you like, it, more power to you - but there hasn't been enough money printed to get me to live on either coast (it's been tried).  While it's true that some of the Founding Fathers uprooted to move to this part of the world, they also knew when they had found a good place to settle and stayed there despite any minor drawbacks.  I don't think you'd have had much luck in convincing Jefferson or Washington to move from Virginia.

    I'm really happy that you found a place you're happy with that has no antenna restrictions, but the rest of us have a battle to fight.  For me, the antenna restriction is just one part of a larger battle -- I would be happy seeing nearly all of the restrictions dropped.  I'm not planning to try to disband the HOA (which can be done).  The HOA is what keeps the neighborhood looking good by taking care of the landscaping and maintenance of the park and common areas such as entrances and cul-de-sac islands, and they do a fine job of it for my paltry annual dues (under $100).  However, since the developer is out of the picture I think we can determine our own fate.  Since several of the rules are routinely ignored by all as it is now, I see nothing wrong with eliminating those rules and maybe a few more as we go along.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Conforming neighborhoods are boring.  I'll leave it at that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Again, a blanket generalization if you are implying (as I think you are) that any neighborhood with a covenant is &quot;conforming&quot;.  You may have a stereotyped view of a neighborhood with attached covenants, but I can tell you there is not any newer development around here without them.  Period.  Boring or not, even the low-cost mass produced starter home neighborhoods.  Of course you can move out in the boonies and drive an hour to get to work in the morning; that may seem perfectly acceptable to someone around LA or Baltimore or wherever, but that's one thing we moved back here to get away from.  It gets old in a big hurry.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since I'm the type person who doesn't mind moving, having done it about twenty times already, for the overall good of my family and myself, that opens all sorts of opportunities.  [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    My family and I have moved a lot in the past, and we do mind moving.  We choose not to do it any more.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In vehement protest of all things unreasonably restrictive, as my forefathers protested against similar regulation, I'll choose only to live where other people have not already decided what I can and cannot do.  So, CC&amp;Rs are not in my present, or in my future.  Even if it means moving out of the country.

    Now, how can anyone argue this?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Well, I suppose it comes down to what you define as &quot;unreasonably restrictive&quot;.  I hate to be the one to break this to you, but people have already decided what you can or cannot do anywhere in this country.  There are thousands of laws that apply to you regardless of where you live, but since you've grown used to them, can ignore them or they don't inconvenience you too much you've decided they are not unreasonable.  Maybe you do find some of them unreasonable, in which case you'd better be packing.  My point is that there are really only a few parts of the covenants in my neighborhood that I find to be overly restrictive; I choose to live where I want and use my power to change the rules rather than let someone else determine where I can or can't live.  Anything else would be -- no, I'm not going to say it...  [​IMG]


    73 &amp; have a great weekend,

    Dale
     
  10. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    No sweat, Dale, and I think you're surely on the right track with your particular HOA situation.

    I agree with you that antenna restrictions are the tip of the iceberg, and some restrictions would bother me much more than those regarding antennas.

    As for the &quot;laws&quot; under which we live, those have been written over a period of centuries by people whom we elect to represent us. When we no longer like those rules, we can campaign for new ones and elect new representatives. Our entire legislature is elected and hopefully doing the best they can for the majority. CC&amp;Rs have little to do with this. I didn't elect anybody to write CC&amp;Rs for me.

    And, of course, since many laws are really statutes or ordinance, which are local in nature and not Federal, we can always choose to move to another city, county or state where the laws are different. It's the local laws that most would normally take issue with, anyway, since the Federal ones are mostly the Ten Commandments redefined in several million words....

    That you've lived on both coasts and chose to move back to &quot;between&quot; is interesting, and maybe we can chat about that sometime. I grew up on the east coast, and now live on the west coast, gave the midwest a reasonable shot, and get very antsy if I'm not nearly within eyesight of an ocean. A lot of people must feel similarly, since the majority of our national population is found on the coasts.

    But, it's not where you live, it's how you live that is important...and being happy. I can't be happy living with CC&amp;Rs, even if I had a hundred acres on the beach in Malibu (which would be very nice) -- wouldn't do it if I had to live in &quot;conforming&quot; housing. (Thankfully, Malibu doesn't have that, and unfortunately, I can't afford to live there, anyway&#33[​IMG]

    73 &amp; have a good weekend!

    Steve, WB2WIK/6
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page