Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FCC Petition to Void antenna restrictions has 4150 signature with 3 days left  (Read 49739 times)
KF7CG
Member

Posts: 836




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2013, 10:34:50 AM »

The newer problems come from CC&Rs that simply give large shares of power to the HOA Architectural Review Board. What is permitted this month may be outlawed next if the board changes or if they have a change of heart. Maybe, the old stuff will stay up, but no new stuff will be allowed.

The only safe bet if an HOA is involved is act as though anything you want to do is prohibitted by the HOA, because it might be before you get a chance to do it.

KF7CG
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12854




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2013, 10:43:50 AM »

Some HOAs even have wording that you agree to abide by any changes they make in the future. Your antenna could be permitted one day but then you have to take it down the next because they change the rules.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20603




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2013, 01:41:32 PM »

Government bailout hell, how about common sense in truth is selling as like truth in lending.

In California, sellers are required to provide a copy of any covenants and deed restrictions that run with the property to the buyer and the buyer must acknowledge receipt. The buyer has the option at this point to walk away if he doesn't like the conditions placed on the property.

Perhaps you need a similar law in Tennessee.

I've bought and sold several properties in California, and still live here; I have never once ever been provided with a copy of covenants and restrictions in advance of escrow closing.  Even at escrow closing, the very hour the deal is done, I've noted the escrow docs have the buyer sign an acknowledgement that he/she has received a copy of all this, but the covenants and restrictions themselves are rarely ever presented.  You'd have to stop the escrow closing procedure and demand them; and if they are not readily available, re-schedule the closing for another date.

For me, that has been the absolute "norm."  The exception would be to have them provided in advance.  I've never actually seen that occur, yet. Wink
Logged
N1DVJ
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: June 16, 2014, 12:32:11 PM »


IMO, there is a lot wrong with someone trying to override a contractual agreement that includes covenants.  Everyone who purchased property in a development with an HOA, agreed to accept those conditions when they purchased the property.  Your post shows little respect for others. 
[/quote]
I have to fully agree.  Even though I don't like most restrictions, it chaps my butt like a wet saddle when I hear of weasels that are always trying to get away with something. 

Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12854




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: June 16, 2014, 01:15:04 PM »

If the FCC acted as they did with over the air TV antennas then the ham antenna restriction rules wouldn't be there in the first place. No one would have to give up ham radio in order live in the community. Again, I'm not talking about forcing the HOA to accept a 60-foot tower with a tri-band Yagi on a 1/4-acre lot. I'm thinking more like a vertical in the back yard.

I've been reading the CC&Rs for several of the 55+ communities in AZ that I was interested in. All of the HOAs had the CC&Rs and other HOA documents available on-line. All of them restrict antennas in one way or another. The best permitted an antenna so long as it was not visible from the neighbor's yard. If you got one of the units with a block privacy fence around the back yard you could probably place a small loop a few feet of the ground (I don't know how effective that would be). A mobile is out because vehicles must be parked in the garage and the garage door must remain closed. Vertical flag poles are not permitted - flag poles must be the short type attached to the front of the house.
Logged
K7JQ
Member

Posts: 341




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: June 16, 2014, 04:01:13 PM »

I've lived in the Phoenix, AZ  surrounding area for 22 years (moved from Philadelphia, PA), and am in my third new house in master planned communities, all of which were governed by antenna restricted/prohibited CC&R's and HOA's. In all instances, ham antennas were prohibited, "unless approved by the architectural committee."

My first house, in 1992, I was able to get permission for a tower mounted to the side of the house with a 3 element tribander, but not taller than 6 feet above the roofline. The house was a 2 story, 30 feet high, so the antenna worked fine. The main reason I was able to negotiate this was because the housing market was in the toilet back then, and the developer was desperate for business :>) Several neighbors that moved in later weren't too happy about the "eyesore", but I was OK legally. I got lucky on this one.

My second house, in 1997, I received permission for a Hy-Gain AV640 multiband vertical, mounted on a 10 foot pole attached to a one story house, so it too worked fine. However, initially rejected by the architectural committee, I received permission only after threatening to sue the HOA for discrimination, as there were several wireless internet antennas mounted on tall poles (similar to my vertical height)...not TV OTARDS... in the subdivision. No complaints by any neighbors. Again, lucky.

My current house, bought in 2002, permission for my AV640 was flatly denied...no ifs and or buts, mostly due to the beautiful mountain and desert views afforded to everyone in this subdivision. I currently make due with some innovative stealth antennas that still let me enjoy the hobby. However, and this pertains to AA4PB, there are several ground mounted flagpoles in my subdivision, so there is hope that some areas will allow this, if you want to hide a vertical radiator in one. Not something I considered, due to the effectiveness of my other antennas and other conditions.

Understand that I bought these houses with full knowledge of the CC&R's, and never bitched and moaned over the antenna restrictions. All I could do was ask permission, and proceed with alternative plans if denied. Personally, I see no logical reason that a simple, unsightly multiband vertical can't be allowed. But CC&R contracts have to be honored, unless congress or the FCC steps in to override the restrictions, as they did with OTARDS. Everyone has their priorities in life. Ham radio is a hobby, and if I absolutely had to have a huge tower and yagi(s), I would have sacrificed my current amenities, and somehow purchased a house with no CC&R's/HOA....an older home in and older neighborhood. Didn't want that.

73,   Bob K7JQ   
Logged
KG8LB
Member

Posts: 237




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: June 17, 2014, 03:14:17 AM »



Cool...4372 out of hundreds of thousands.....4372 whiners, 3/4 who dont live in HOA's and old farts with buyers remorse..Good luck and 73

  You  sound like a lazy old fart whining as well  .
Logged
KA5PIU
Member

Posts: 446




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: June 17, 2014, 05:10:37 AM »

Hello.

Here in Texas, of you are not provided with the deed restrictions and HOA agreements in advance you are not obligated to them.
You do NOT have to sign them.
The seller has to secure title insurance prior to the sale.
And, the contract is in force for a maximum of 3 years.
At issue were mineral rights, they are no longer unlimited contracts,but this applies to all property rights.
The cities would simply condemn a residence if it stood in the way of a private venture, be it an oil well or development.
Now, they can not do this.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/agency/landowners_billofrights.pdf
But, that does not mean you can put up a tower.
The new, proposed rules will ban any tower or portion that can or will rotate or move.
No beams or hazers.
The maximum without a permit is proposed to be 40 feet or 4 feet above the treeline whatever is less.
Nothing may extend more than 3 feet from the tower to include guy wires so the tower would have to be free standing.
This is the proposed state law.
The law now says your tower must be no higher than a radius of 25 feet from the edge of your property.
So, if the edge of your property is to the base of your proposed tower is 35 feet, than your tower can not be taller than 10 feet.
And it must be fully fenced in, at least a 5 foot high fence.
You can not ask for an exception, this is state law
It was aimed at cellular towers, but works for pretty much everything.
Logged
W3WN
Member

Posts: 205




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: June 17, 2014, 08:05:51 AM »

So, a simple question about this, since the thread's been bumped back to the top...

Whatever happened to the petition?  Was it filed?  Was it acknowledged by the FCC? 
Logged
KA5PIU
Member

Posts: 446




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: June 17, 2014, 09:26:23 AM »

There were something like 4200 signatures, perhaps a little less.
The opposition found out and got over 30 thousand signatures against it.
No, it was not, nor is it, going to be filed.
There are groups like PACT, People Against Cell Towers and ACTION, Against Cell Towers In Our Neighborhood.
http://arts.envirolink.org/arts_and_activism/BlakeLevitt.html
This is cell towers we are talking about, most people benifit from them.
And you want to put what next to my house!!!!
Dude, if it were up to the public, you would have to have someone hold the other end of your tower up, because the one end would be stuffed up your butt!
Until the public is convinced that they are not going to grow brain tumors being near a cell tower, your chances are slim.
This is a PR issue as much as anything!
People in San Antonio know me as the "Normal" ham.
I do not act like there is something wrong with CB, or GMRS, or MURS, any of that.
The number of FRS users is way more than the ham community!  WAY more!
Most people give the things to their kids.
So, I a have an "In".
Same with CB.
Teenagers have cellphones.
With that said, I can deal with that super fruitcake that says we will all die from cell towers in a few months.
But, it would help if hams were more normal.
Don't act like you are here to save the world, you are not.
If there were a real disaster, people will be more concerned about important issues than if the supply of donuts is low at the disaster center!
So, you see, there needs to be a real connection between the community and you.
Logged
N1DVJ
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: June 17, 2014, 09:49:39 AM »

Well, you are 100% correct.  It's a PR issue.  A MASSIVE PR issue.

The only reason the FCC got involved with OTARD was because of congressional pressure.

Face facts, it just ain't gonna happen.  Period.  At least not this way.  Or any way I can see.  And all these 'petition' things do is get other fired up about it.

Come on.  Most of the people here don't get it.  It's not about brain tumors.  It's not about public service.  It's not about interference.  It's not safety.

It's about the towers themselves. 

Like I said, it just ain't gonna happen.
Logged
KF7CG
Member

Posts: 836




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: June 17, 2014, 10:00:35 AM »

The easiest way to avoid problems putting up a Ham tower is to live in an area that has no cable, is terrain blocked for sattelite, does not have digital phone service and requires a 50 foot tower for TV reception. There a Ham tower almost blends in.

There are quite few areas like this scattered over the U.S. Some ae even near employment. Before cable nobody cared about a Ham tower unless it was just way taller than all the TV antenna towers.

We need near Carrington level event to knock out all the TV Satellites and compromise the cable main hubs.

Then the towers will again be appreciated.

KF7CG
Logged
KG8LB
Member

Posts: 237




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: June 17, 2014, 10:16:32 AM »

And the same neighbors who refuse the towers have no problem lighting up a backyard fire pit stoked with old pallet wood . The air starved fire will burn all night long depositing soot and ash on your lawn furniture , cars etc . Obliterating the otherwuse fresh air , your lungs get a witches brew of carcinogens that stay in your system 40 times as long as tobacco smoke .  Your house and everything in it takes on the stench of their smutty habit and the trespass goes on unabated by local government ...For now anyhow .
  The "tyranny of democracy" . 
Logged
K0YQ
Member

Posts: 447




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: June 17, 2014, 10:54:56 AM »

And the same neighbors who refuse the towers have no problem lighting up a backyard fire pit stoked with old pallet wood . The air starved fire will burn all night long depositing soot and ash on your lawn furniture , cars etc . Obliterating the otherwuse fresh air , your lungs get a witches brew of carcinogens that stay in your system 40 times as long as tobacco smoke .  Your house and everything in it takes on the stench of their smutty habit and the trespass goes on unabated by local government.

Sounds exactly like my neighborhood.
Logged
W3WN
Member

Posts: 205




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: June 18, 2014, 10:44:41 AM »

Does anyone else have an answer to whatever happened to the petition?  Someone with some facts or links to facts, as opposed to idle speculation morphing into personal agendas?
There were something like 4200 signatures, perhaps a little less.
The opposition found out and got over 30 thousand signatures against it.
No, it was not, nor is it, going to be filed.
< snip >
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!