Tower Battle in Massachusetts

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by N5PZJ, Jan 11, 2020 at 12:32 AM.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. N2EY

    N2EY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Let's emphasize that last part: the potential concern list is endless.

    That's a contradiction, and a trap for buyers.

    What you're saying is that a buyer is supposed to check out an endless list of possible problems with each property under consideration, and that the seller and the government bear no responsibility to help, even if they KNOW about possible problems.

    How is that supposed to ever happen? The whole setup is a rigged game!

    Remember that in real estate, The Government makes and enforces The Rules, so they should have expertise in the area. The sellers are often developers and such with lots of experience and expertise too. Meanwhile the buyer is NOT an expert - and even if the buyer has an agent, the agent often only makes money if a sale happens.

    Also this:

    Back in the mid-2000s, the real estate market here was REALLY hot. A house would go on the market at noon on a weekday, a crowd of buyers would be there ahead of time to see the house, and there would be three full-price no-contingencies offers before the sun went down. How could anyone "perform due diligence" in a market like that?
    KM4FVI likes this.
  2. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    That really happens, and it happens here, too.

    However in my experience:

    -The buyer has three days to pull out of a contractual agreement to buy with no penalty, so at least they have 3 days -- not much, but better than zero;

    -A purchase offer agreement can include a statement that if the buyer finds health or safety issues with the property at any time prior to closing escrow, they can pull out, also with no penalty; this can be part of the "must pass home inspection provision," to include not only specific property inspection but review of the utilities, air quality, water quality, all sorts of stuff if it's written into the contract.

    So, there are some "protections," although they're a bit weak.

    A problem exists that once an offer is signed and agreed to, usually the buyer spends a lot of time planning the move, and as time goes on, before the closing date, they're basically "moved" in every way except occupying the new property. That can be a lot of time, effort and money invested in "moving," even if they haven't relocated anything yet.

    It does pay to research the "area" (if not the specific house, the general area or neighborhood) before even looking at any specific home. Google helps!
  3. N2EY

    N2EY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    All true - but note this:

    - When the market was hot, putting ANY sort of contingency into the offer would get it turned down.

    - Three days is usually not enough time to "perform due diligence".

    - If any of the above is required by law, then it is "The Government" protecting the buyer from being scammed.

    And remember: Most people don't buy and sell homes more than a few times in their lives. They can't afford to; the costs involved are too high. So they don't get a lot of experience.

    But the RE folks do it every day, and know all the tricks.

    Who is set up to lose in such a situation?

    73 de Jim, N2EY
  4. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    You misunderstood my point about endless concerns, which is that buyers can have endless lists of what might concern them about and in an area around a property. No one else can possibly know what those are. So it’s impossible for a seller or the government to protect a buyer against them.

    For example, some buyers don’t care about living next to a highway, some do, and some like it because they want fast access to it. Some people like being near a school, some don’t. Some hate radio towers nearby, most probably don’t care.

    Most people probably don’t want to live next to a sewage plant, and the market price will reflect that situation. But it shouldn’t be the duty of the seller to point out plainly obvious things like that.

    That’s not at all the same thing as failing to disclose a known defect in the property itself, like a roof that’s leaking, which isn’t allowed, at least around here.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020 at 2:39 PM
  5. N2EY

    N2EY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    OK. And I agree - it's impossible for anyone to predict every possible problem with a property, and make them clear to buyers.

    But a LOT can and should be done. For example, the existence of restrictive CC&Rs.

    73 de jim, N2EY
    N0TZU likes this.
  6. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I agree with regard to more subtle things like CC&Rs, even though they are public records available at the county or city recorder’s office. Here they must be disclosed along with HOA documents, etc.

    But still the buyer must do diligence. Suppose the CC&R has a provision the buyer really wants, but a court case or the legislature has voided it? What if someone wants to buy a house in an area that prohibits any outside antennas, and the CC&Rs say that, but that has been voided for a long time by the FCC to allow TV antennas. Should the buyer get to sue the seller if a neighbor puts up an OTA antenna because that wasn’t disclosed? No.
    N2EY likes this.
  7. K2CAJ

    K2CAJ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    How plainly obvious is that? Are we talking about a sewage plant you can see out the window, or one down the river that only becomes evident in the summer?

    Plus, we're talking about many such issues, not all of them obvious. Sources of stink can include lots of different things people don't know about until they've experienced them. For example, try living downwind of a paper factory.

    Perhaps the free market can solve this: we already pay home inspectors to check out the house, and it would be pretty easy for an inspection service to include some kind of run-down of the surrounding neighborhood, possible issues with smells, etc. In fact, that would work both ways. If homeowners complain about the hog farm or the sewage treatment plant, and you can show that they were told about it during the inspection, that fact would be helpful to the county.
  8. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    There is a sizable city east of me once famous for huge cattle feedlots. On a hot summer day if the wind was from that direction, the entire city could smell the lots and everyone in this part of the state knew about it. I guarantee that nobody disclosed that fact that during a house sale.

    If some newly arrived home buyer didn’t spend 5 minutes to look at a map or ask anyone within 50 miles, well, you can’t fix stupid.

    I do understand your point and frustration about governments spending money to fix a “problem” that the developer and the buyers jointly created. I think that speaks more to the willingness of our system of government to bail out people who made bad choices. Is that good or bad - matter of opinion.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020 at 3:40 PM
  9. KP4SX

    KP4SX Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Greeley, perhaps? There's a huge feedlot on Hwy 34 a few miles east of town. I wouldn't want to live anywhere near there but as one farmer told me "That's the smell of money!"
    N0TZU and N2EY like this.
  10. K6CID

    K6CID Ham Member QRZ Page

    The original post was about a tower in a back yard. You compared a giant wind turbine to the tower hence my post

Share This Page