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 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Involuntary Antenna Covenant Controls  (Read 48351 times)
W0MT
Member

Posts: 172




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2014, 09:17:40 AM »

Quote from: N7BMW
It is nice to read a response like this amongst all the fanatics that think having their antennas is the highest priority in life.  Bravo K2GWK.

I don't think anyone is suggesting having an antenna is their highest priority in life.   

***snip***. 

If you read all of the posts in Antenna Restrictions, you will find many that say things like, "I would NEVER buy a house with CC&Rs, a HOA, or antenna restrictions." There are many that imply that there is something wrong with any Ham who would. There are far fewer that say things like good schools for kids, shorter distances for commutes, or easy access for things like grocery stores have any weight.
Logged
KE6KA
Member

Posts: 12




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2014, 03:25:42 PM »

Quote from: N7BMW
It is nice to read a response like this amongst all the fanatics that think having their antennas is the highest priority in life.  Bravo K2GWK.

I don't think anyone is suggesting having an antenna is their highest priority in life.   

***snip***. 

If you read all of the posts in Antenna Restrictions, you will find many that say things like, "I would NEVER buy a house with CC&Rs, a HOA, or antenna restrictions." There are many that imply that there is something wrong with any Ham who would. There are far fewer that say things like good schools for kids, shorter distances for commutes, or easy access for things like grocery stores have any weight.

It is possible they don't have those concerns, or they have owned the same house for years and don't understand just how many houses have those restrictions now.

But, for myself, I wouldn't buy a house where other people think they should have control over antennas, what color I paint the house, what kind of trees I plant, etcetera.  But again, it has to do with what you want out of the hobby.  If living three minutes from a grocery store is a higher priority that having an antenna, that's fine with me as well. 

But, in the end, common sense would have you think that one should be able to easily find a house without ridiculous restrictions that is reasonably close to good schools, shopping, has normal commute times, and isn't 35 years old, and that is what this discussion is really about.
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12800




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2014, 03:39:25 PM »

"But, in the end, common sense would have you think that one should be able to easily find a house without ridiculous restrictions that is reasonably close to good schools, shopping, has normal commute times, and isn't 35 years old, and that is what this discussion is really about"

Common sense might tell you that, but it's getting harder and harder to do - depending in which part of the country you live. Around me I don't think you find any reasonably new homes in developments that don't have an HOA. Older homes often have issues that are not easily changed like small bedrooms, small closets, etc.

I'm pretty lucky that I got this house with plenty of room when I did 30 years ago. The problem that I see coming is that at 70 we'll probably want to downsize soon - perhaps to a retirement community and that will likely mean the end of ham radio as I know it (tower, antennas, etc).
Logged
W6EM
Member

Posts: 787




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2014, 06:46:33 PM »

"But, in the end, common sense would have you think that one should be able to easily find a house without ridiculous restrictions that is reasonably close to good schools, shopping, has normal commute times, and isn't 35 years old, and that is what this discussion is really about"

Common sense might tell you that, but it's getting harder and harder to do - depending in which part of the country you live. Around me I don't think you find any reasonably new homes in developments that don't have an HOA. Older homes often have issues that are not easily changed like small bedrooms, small closets, etc.

I'm pretty lucky that I got this house with plenty of room when I did 30 years ago. The problem that I see coming is that at 70 we'll probably want to downsize soon - perhaps to a retirement community and that will likely mean the end of ham radio as I know it (tower, antennas, etc).

If anyone's interested, I have a 1/2 acre lot in Ocala, FL with no restrictions.  Part of the  Silver Springs Shores subdivision.  It will be in the May QST classifieds.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20574




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2014, 09:48:41 AM »

Quote from: N7BMW
It is nice to read a response like this amongst all the fanatics that think having their antennas is the highest priority in life.  Bravo K2GWK.

I don't think anyone is suggesting having an antenna is their highest priority in life.   

***snip***. 

If you read all of the posts in Antenna Restrictions, you will find many that say things like, "I would NEVER buy a house with CC&Rs, a HOA, or antenna restrictions." There are many that imply that there is something wrong with any Ham who would. There are far fewer that say things like good schools for kids, shorter distances for commutes, or easy access for things like grocery stores have any weight.

It is possible they don't have those concerns, or they have owned the same house for years and don't understand just how many houses have those restrictions now.

But, for myself, I wouldn't buy a house where other people think they should have control over antennas, what color I paint the house, what kind of trees I plant, etcetera.  But again, it has to do with what you want out of the hobby.  If living three minutes from a grocery store is a higher priority that having an antenna, that's fine with me as well. 

But, in the end, common sense would have you think that one should be able to easily find a house without ridiculous restrictions that is reasonably close to good schools, shopping, has normal commute times, and isn't 35 years old, and that is what this discussion is really about.

I think so, too.

It's easy to find "no restrictions" homes in major metropolitan areas where lots of homes have been built over 70-80-90-100 years or more.  However, there are suburbs that in some cases are "near" metro areas but not quite in them and are very nice, with new housing developments; and most of them have CC&Rs/HOAs.

I don't live there, but recently visited some relatives in the Phoenix metroplex (actually, she's in Chandler, AZ).  That's an example of a "city" where once you get almost immediately outside the city, you're kind of in the middle of nowhere very quickly.  And the "nowhere" places are becoming populated, and new housing going up.  It probably all has restrictions.  To get away from the restrictions, what I'd do is get "inside" the metroplex, where stuff was developed a while ago.

Not everyone wants to do that.
Logged
AB4D
Member

Posts: 298


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2014, 07:36:18 PM »

Quote from: N7BMW
It is nice to read a response like this amongst all the fanatics that think having their antennas is the highest priority in life.  Bravo K2GWK.

I don't think anyone is suggesting having an antenna is their highest priority in life.   The antenna situation has more to do with what you want to do with the hobby.  If any form of an antenna is prohibited, no ham radio.  If you are OK with casual operating and are happy with hiding stealth a dipole in the trees from your HOA neighbors, that is OK too, but it doesn't mean anyone else who wants to do more with the hobby has their priorities lined up out of order.   

It just appears as though someone just feels it necessary to state that they are OK with compromise antennas in many of these threads, and that nobody needs anything more, sometimes backed up with their WAS award.  Our hobby goes way beyond making contacts on HF.  If someone were interested in VHF/UHF weak signal activities, there is just no way they could put up the necessary antennas in an area with antenna restrictions. It is important to remember that there are a lot of hams who never go below 50 MHz, and never use FM or repeaters either. 

I've read a ton of these arguments in threads for years on eHam.  I too am glad to read K2GWK's refreshing comments.  He has set priorities for his life and hobby, and has arraigned his living situation accordingly to ensure the expectations for his hobby are compatible with the other aspects of his life.  The original poster suggests that because someone can't afford to purchase a nicer upscale home that does not have covenants, they are forced by virtue of their income, to involuntary accept restrictive covenants if they want to purchase house, or they must remain in an apartment.  I find that rationale to be utterly ridiculous. A lot of hams seem to forget, ham radio is a PRIVILEDGE, not a right.  A ham license does not convey any guarantee that a person will have a station to operate or any antenna system they want, just like having a driver's license does not convey a guarantee that someone will have a car to drive. 

No one is forced to purchase a house that has restrictive covenants, it is a choice. People choose where they live based on priorities. If people don't want covenants and want the freedom to put up any antenna system they desire, they should move far enough where they can afford to purchase a house that does not have them and deal with a commute, if ham radio is high enough on their priority list.   If ham radio is low on their priority list and they would rather not commute, or they need to live in a certain area because of higher family priorities, then they have to abide by their choice and utilize an antenna solution that is compatible with their living situation.  It's all very simple, life is all about choices, and many of life's choices are based on personal priorities and compromise.  You cannot always have your cake and eat it too.

As stated above, "If someone were interested in VHF/UHF weak signal activities, there is just no way they could put up the necessary antennas in an area with antenna restrictions." I agree, that activity is incompatible with a property that has antennas restrictions.  Therefore, why would anyone try to pursue that activity and also live where there are restrictive covenants?  The antenna situation doesn't have anything to do with what someone wants to do with the hobby.  This antenna situation in relation to restrictive covenants stays in discussion because hams want to try to ignore their agreed upon obligation to abide by a set of rules that governs the property where they live. There is nothing involuntary about them. No one has held a gun to someone's head and stated, "buy this house with antennas restrictions or else".  I am not saying that just because someone has restrictive antenna restrictions, they should not try to get on the air with some type of antenna system that is compatible with their neighborhood (stealthy, temporary or otherwise).  However, on the other hand, no one should be claiming that RCs are involuntary.  That is just not supported by any factual basis.

Additionally, hams need to keep in mind their neighbor's concerns as well.  There are many who not only choose, but welcome restrictive covenants because it improves their quality of life and enjoyment of their property.  They pay HOA dues to enforce the rules and expect they will not see some of the common clutter that is associated with living in older neighborhoods, including large outdoor antennas.  IMO it negatively impacts the public view of hams as a group, when hams who live on property with restrictive covenants try to openly flaunt the rules. It only ends up irritating their neighbors in the process and in no way helps the cause for individuals who are trying to obtain relief from restrictive covenants.     


73
 
     

 

Logged
K2GWK
Member

Posts: 417


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2014, 08:25:17 PM »

Quote from: N7BMW
It is nice to read a response like this amongst all the fanatics that think having their antennas is the highest priority in life.  Bravo K2GWK.

I don't think anyone is suggesting having an antenna is their highest priority in life.   The antenna situation has more to do with what you want to do with the hobby.  If any form of an antenna is prohibited, no ham radio.  If you are OK with casual operating and are happy with hiding stealth a dipole in the trees from your HOA neighbors, that is OK too, but it doesn't mean anyone else who wants to do more with the hobby has their priorities lined up out of order.   

It just appears as though someone just feels it necessary to state that they are OK with compromise antennas in many of these threads, and that nobody needs anything more, sometimes backed up with their WAS award.  Our hobby goes way beyond making contacts on HF.  If someone were interested in VHF/UHF weak signal activities, there is just no way they could put up the necessary antennas in an area with antenna restrictions. It is important to remember that there are a lot of hams who never go below 50 MHz, and never use FM or repeaters either. 

I've read a ton of these arguments in threads for years on eHam.  I too am glad to read K2GWK's refreshing comments.  He has set priorities for his life and hobby, and has arraigned his living situation accordingly to ensure the expectations for his hobby are compatible with the other aspects of his life.  The original poster suggests that because someone can't afford to purchase a nicer upscale home that does not have covenants, they are forced by virtue of their income, to involuntary accept restrictive covenants if they want to purchase house, or they must remain in an apartment.  I find that rationale to be utterly ridiculous. A lot of hams seem to forget, ham radio is a PRIVILEDGE, not a right.  A ham license does not convey any guarantee that a person will have a station to operate or any antenna system they want, just like having a driver's license does not convey a guarantee that someone will have a car to drive. 

No one is forced to purchase a house that has restrictive covenants, it is a choice. People choose where they live based on priorities. If people don't want covenants and want the freedom to put up any antenna system they desire, they should move far enough where they can afford to purchase a house that does not have them and deal with a commute, if ham radio is high enough on their priority list.   If ham radio is low on their priority list and they would rather not commute, or they need to live in a certain area because of higher family priorities, then they have to abide by their choice and utilize an antenna solution that is compatible with their living situation.  It's all very simple, life is all about choices, and many of life's choices are based on personal priorities and compromise.  You cannot always have your cake and eat it too.

As stated above, "If someone were interested in VHF/UHF weak signal activities, there is just no way they could put up the necessary antennas in an area with antenna restrictions." I agree, that activity is incompatible with a property that has antennas restrictions.  Therefore, why would anyone try to pursue that activity and also live where there are restrictive covenants?  The antenna situation doesn't have anything to do with what someone wants to do with the hobby.  This antenna situation in relation to restrictive covenants stays in discussion because hams want to try to ignore their agreed upon obligation to abide by a set of rules that governs the property where they live. There is nothing involuntary about them. No one has held a gun to someone's head and stated, "buy this house with antennas restrictions or else".  I am not saying that just because someone has restrictive antenna restrictions, they should not try to get on the air with some type of antenna system that is compatible with their neighborhood (stealthy, temporary or otherwise).  However, on the other hand, no one should be claiming that RCs are involuntary.  That is just not supported by any factual basis.

Additionally, hams need to keep in mind their neighbor's concerns as well.  There are many who not only choose, but welcome restrictive covenants because it improves their quality of life and enjoyment of their property.  They pay HOA dues to enforce the rules and expect they will not see some of the common clutter that is associated with living in older neighborhoods, including large outdoor antennas.  IMO it negatively impacts the public view of hams as a group, when hams who live on property with restrictive covenants try to openly flaunt the rules. It only ends up irritating their neighbors in the process and in no way helps the cause for individuals who are trying to obtain relief from restrictive covenants.     


73
 
     

 



You are 100% correct. I choose my neighborhood based on my highest priorities. Amateur radio was not on the top of my list. My HOA is not as prohibitive as some. We can paint our house any color we wish etc. I still get a signal out, am a member of a radio club and will do what I can if an emergency arises. The other thing I do not do is bitch about my situation. The only problem I have is with the holier than thou Hams that insinuate that there is something wrong with those Hams who wish to reside in neighborhoods where a HOA exists. If I don't have a problem with it, no one should have a problem with my choice.
Logged

WI8P
Member

Posts: 260




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2014, 11:09:43 AM »

I'm a bit curious. HOA's are supposed to repesent the home owners within the boundries of the group.  If you canvased the other home owners and the majority agreed to let you construct a tower, could the HOA still legally shoot you down? 
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12800




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2014, 11:20:01 AM »

I'm a bit curious. HOA's are supposed to repesent the home owners within the boundries of the group.  If you canvased the other home owners and the majority agreed to let you construct a tower, could the HOA still legally shoot you down? 

In most cases there is a means to change the rules by an official vote of the homeowners. It would take more than an unofficial canvas. You'd have to read the bylaws of the specific HOA.

Logged
W0MT
Member

Posts: 172




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2014, 12:14:02 PM »

I'm a bit curious. HOA's are supposed to repesent the home owners within the boundries of the group.  If you canvased the other home owners and the majority agreed to let you construct a tower, could the HOA still legally shoot you down? 
HOAs and CC&Rs represent EACH home owner. Unless prohibited by the CC&Rs or by law, a single home owner can bring a legal action to enforce even if the majority would not support the action.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20574




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: March 17, 2014, 02:56:01 PM »

I'm a bit curious. HOA's are supposed to repesent the home owners within the boundries of the group.  If you canvased the other home owners and the majority agreed to let you construct a tower, could the HOA still legally shoot you down? 

If you violate recorded deed restrictions (CC&Rs), not only can the HOA "shoot you down," any single member could; if everyone in the HOA is your best friend today and doesn't care what you do, one of them could sell their property to a new owner and that person could create problems all by himself.

CCR&S and HOA By-Laws are two different documents.  CC&Rs are recorded with Title and usually flow with the property forever; although I've seen some that actually do "expire" after 20 years or some other established period of time.
Logged
W0DLM
Member

Posts: 75




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2014, 07:58:54 AM »

So, did you "voluntarily" agree to buy the house with covenants, instead of the house without covenants? No. You did not.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.  No one held a gun to your head and forced you to buy that house.  You had a choice.  You made it.  You could have remained in the apartment, gone to a different city, whatever.  You made the choice to buy a house in that city, in that price range, which happened to require a covenant.  The decision to accept the covenants was entirely voluntary.
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12800




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2014, 08:46:32 AM »

That's sorta like saying that purchasing car insurance is voluntary because you always have the option of not owning a car.
Logged
AB4D
Member

Posts: 298


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2014, 02:05:01 PM »

That's sorta like saying that purchasing car insurance is voluntary because you always have the option of not owning a car.


That is not an equal analogy. All houses are not required by law to have covenants.  The states are not revising previously filed titles and placing restrictive covenants on homes that don't have them. However, most states do require that all registered cars are insured or the owner has paid some sort of fee to the state to waive the insurance requirement. 

Folks can purchase a home without covenants, but cars usually still have to be insured or a waiver paid.  No one is demanding that anyone purchase a house with or without covenants.  It is a matter of choice and priorities.

Logged
WI8P
Member

Posts: 260




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2014, 07:40:59 AM »

I'm a bit curious. HOA's are supposed to repesent the home owners within the boundries of the group.  If you canvased the other home owners and the majority agreed to let you construct a tower, could the HOA still legally shoot you down? 
HOAs and CC&Rs represent EACH home owner. Unless prohibited by the CC&Rs or by law, a single home owner can bring a legal action to enforce even if the majority would not support the action.

My thought process was more along the lines of getting a majority of homeowners to agree to vote for a change in the HOA, or some type of variance.  If you lived in a small subdivision or in one where HOA meetings were poorly attended, such a vote might be easy to do.  BTW, I'm not covered by a HOA, so my question is for the purpose of discussion only.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 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!