|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
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
|
|
1-10 of 53 messages
|
Page 1 of 6
Next
|
|
insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by KG4WXP on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow.
You'd think that in the 'gateway city to the south', ie Louisville Kentucky, one of the most friendly and politically incorrect cities that I've ever lived in, that the antenna restriction thing wouldn't be a big problem here.
WRONG!
Every new neighborhood that my XYL and I look at has a specific 'no antenna except 24" sat dishes' clause in the contract.
You'd think that when you're willing to shell out between half a million and a million bucks for a house, that you'd be able to do whatever the hell ya darn well please on your own property!!!!
...Has anyone ever tried making an offer on a house and car dealer-ing them at the last minute (right when the contracts are on the table) by saying something like "Okay...here's what I'm gonna do. You can make a sale on this house by putting something in the contract that allows me to have antennas, etc..or i walk away and you dont make any money."?
|
| |
|
RE: insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by KF7CG on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That might work. The big problem is that if they have written the prohibition into CC&Rs and recorded it in the deed when subdividing, they may abe prohibitted from changing it.
Be right up front with your real-estate agent and tell them that no matter how good the price, no matter how nice the property, no matter what else that you will not even look at a property with anti-antenna deed restrictions. If there are a couple of developers/builders that you like the work of, tell them that you like their work, but can't buy with the restrictions.
In this tight time they might, just maybe, get the message.
KF7CG
|
| |
|
RE: insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by N3OX on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"
You'd think that when you're willing to shell out between half a million and a million bucks for a house, that you'd be able to do whatever the hell ya darn well please on your own property!!!! "
Ah, but the American dream for some folks is to not only have a little mansion, but to have an estate with vast grounds of placid "perfection" with not a single worked-on car, front driveway basketball hoop, or antenna tower breaking up the view.
But the price of this little kingdom, with utter veto power over everything that goes on on a dozen lots in every direction, with no restrictions on one's own behavior would be the PRICE OF ALL THOSE LOTS.
But they're each "worth" half a million bucks... so out of reach for the would-be middle class owner of a sprawling hundred-acre estate a short drive from work.
The alternative is to band together in a loose, tense alliance with the rest of the small landowners to attempt to hammer out some broad laws that you can all live with.
And that is the homeowners association... it's a sort of truce that no one be allowed to do anything unusual or interesting with their land to make absolutely sure no one can possibly do anything incredibly "offensive."
A lot of people think their $500,000+ should not only buy them the plot of land that their house sits on and the house, but some measure of control over the rest of the local customs. But it doesn't, really, so they have to band together.
I personally wouldn't mind living in a neighborhood where someone could theoretically replace their front yard with a vegetable garden (which is gonna look a bit ugly in the winter) and someone else could paint their house purple. I wouldn't mind someone changing their oil in their own driveway, or storing their boat on their own property. And I can have my antennas.
I *do* mind people having dangerous conditions on their property that threaten the health and well being of my family. I do mind people running a spray painting shop out of their garage. And that's what municipal zoning laws are for. You probably can't pass a law across your whole city banning purple houses, because an entire city full of people includes some people who would never ever live in a treeless HOA subdivision, and while they may not paint their own house purple, they may value the right of others to do so. But a true majority of people would prefer that auto body shops not exist right next to houses, and will agree on laws like that.
If you want to get picky about controlling the detailed aesthetic of your neighborhood, though, you have to band together with people who want to do the same, and make sure everyone who moves in signs an agreement.
It seems control-freaky to me too.
"You'd think that in the 'gateway city to the south', ie Louisville Kentucky, one of the most friendly and politically incorrect cities that I've ever lived in, that the antenna restriction thing wouldn't be a big problem here. "
What does political incorrectness have to do with it? :-)
Does that stem from an expectation that it's us socialist lefties and our desire to control how people think that are responsible for the HOA's?
'Cause I assure you, I'm a long haired hippie, descended from the same.
But I think that people have rights to do what they want to do on their property.
And I think that largely because I think there are all kinds of cool things that human beings can do when they're allowed freedoms, freedom to be creative with their property among them.
I also happen to think that "political correctness" in language is actually often extremely important, not because I'm the thought police, but because some aspects of "politically incorrect" language and behaviors actually have their roots in maximizing only the freedom of a recognizable powerful majority to treat some other people badly ;-)
But that's a discussion for a much different forum.
"...Has anyone ever tried making an offer on a house and car dealer-ing them at the last minute (right when the contracts are on the table) by saying something like "Okay...here's what I'm gonna do. You can make a sale on this house by putting something in the contract that allows me to have antennas, etc..or i walk away and you dont make any money."?"
I think the important aspect is probably to walk away in the first place. Or even better, to never walk in with your money at all.
I think there are a LOT of people in this country who have bought into HOA's and would rather they not be there, but they somehow worry that something terrible is going to happen if there isn't HOA protection.
And if you think someone having chartreuse trim, having a chicken as a pet, or having six other adult family members living under the same roof, maybe you just have to live with that.
But you could also just walk away and buy an old house in an old neighborhood without restrictions.
I know people who have figured out clever ways around HOA restrictions. I've got a ham friend who lived on the edge of a subdivision and bought (or leased, I don't remember) the totally unencumbered and unrestricted lot next to his and put a tower and tribander up on it. A couple neighbors hate him for it. They can't do anything legally.
But I wouldn't like it. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to live in the kind of place where my antennas are more neutral in terms of neighbor relations. And I think even if you can write in antenna allowances, you might find that some of the HOA types are going to be pretty upset with you anyway.
And you're not doing much to change the fundamental problem: the existence of a freedom limiting HOA for the sake of uniformity in the small details of the neighborhood. All that stuff still exists when you get an exception. You might run up against something later. You want to put in a little plot of tomatoes in the back? Whoops. You want to save some money on your gas bill with passive solar on the roof? Whoops. I'd prefer to take my dollars to a really unencumbered property.
And I have enough respect for those around me to not install uglier-than necessary antennas... but I don't want that, or any other similar issue, to be completely up to other people.
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by W5DC on July 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just successfully went through the approval process with my townhouse hoa. I put up an antenna that's close to invisible with the exception of an 11 ft. long fiberglass pole that's the upper support for the lower frequency bands of the antenna that is lower than my chimney and lower than the ridge of the roof. The antenna is a mainly vertically polarized parallel dipoles with the elements made from #26 stranded copper clad steel. Wind survival is a major consideration as I'm in one of the windiest parts of Boulder, CO on a ridge at the southern end of the city. Hurricane force winds throughout the winter are the norm here and some winters, we have winds in the 120 mph (200 km/hr) range, sufficient to blow windows out of cars parked ont the nearest street outside the complex. I chose a vertical antenna because there is no prospect of getting a horizontal antenna of any height approved, at least for now. Being on a ridge, it's downhill for miles from JA east to South America but severly uphill toward Australia (1 km higher peaks 1.5 km west).
I put up the parallel dipoles up first and in their original configuration, they were not nearly as neat as the original configurations. The antenna feed points exit from my shack on the upper of three floors of the townhouse. The upper sides of 40 through 20 meters go to the fiberglass pole and 40 and 30 meters go back to insulators connected to the opposite side of the house but still out of sight of my immediate neighbors. Insulators for the higher bands are attached to the eaves of the house. All insulators are painted to match the house. The lower parts of the antennas go down to and through my deck about six inches from the outside wall and then fan out under the deck, out of sight unless you stoop down below the deck.
I gave them two more alternatives. The second alternative was a pair of end to end 23 ft long fiberglass marine antennas. There's an existing somewhat similar example of a marine CB antenna that's survived for the last 20 years, long since abandoned; removing it would involve standing on top of a 24 foot ladder on uneven ground.
The third choice was a collection of verticals by HyGain, MFJ, Cushcraft, and Butternut, all of which are ugly as hell compared to the barely visible parallel dipoles and even the marine antenna. All of the commercial ham verticals would have required guying to have a chance to survive which was not a point in their favor and not at all practical on the side of the house that the antenna is on. Besides, that leaves the somewhat enclosed patio on the other side of the house for a small, rotatable, 2 element yagi sometime in the future.
So now, I have an antenna that I'm successfully using for DXing that was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved by the board. A lot of work was involved but that plus diplomacy worked. This is probably about the best ham radio location within the city limits of Boulder. There are some good possibilities in the next two cities to the east except the fanatic, hoa Nazis reign supreme there.
|
| |
|
RE: insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by N2EY on August 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4WXP writes:
"Every new neighborhood that my XYL and I look at has a specific 'no antenna except 24" sat dishes' clause in the contract."
That's because they're new. Such restrictions have been common boilerplate since the 1970s. Their original intent was to effectively force everyone to sign up for cable TV.
You can thank all those smiling developers for the restrictions. Guess how most of them lean politically?
It's all about being able to understand what folks are *really* saying. When they made a lot of noise about "small government" and "deregulation", what it meant was that they didn't want to be hampered by zoning, building codes, nuisance ordinances and the like.
Instead, they'd build developments the way they wanted, and put all kinds of restrictions on them, and make them part of a provate contract. There would be restrictions no government would even try to put into effect, but which could be the terms of a private contract.
Worse, anything a government puts into law can be repealed, changed, or varianced, while the restrictions were specficially designed to apply to everyone and to be permanently unchangeable.
The HOA is the real topper, because it has the owners themselves enforcing the restrictions on their neighbors, and doing all the work for free.
KG4WXP: "You'd think that when you're willing to shell out between half a million and a million bucks for a house, that you'd be able to do whatever the hell ya darn well please on your own property!!!!"
Why would you expect that?
KG4WXP: "...Has anyone ever tried making an offer on a house and car dealer-ing them at the last minute (right when the contracts are on the table) by saying something like "Okay...here's what I'm gonna do. You can make a sale on this house by putting something in the contract that allows me to have antennas, etc..or i walk away and you dont make any money."?"
That's not the way to handle it.
The better way is to do it up-front. Let them know from the very beginning what you will and will not accept. Don't even look at restricted houses. They do not exist for you.
Here's a car-dealer analogy: Suppose you need a minivan to transport your the family, team, and/or business. You need the enclosed space and ability to seat 7 people minimum.
When you go to the dealership, you don't look at 2 seat sports cars, pickup trucks or even sedans, because they just don't meet your needs. They may be nice cars but they're just not right for you.
The problem is that in more and more places in the USA, the selection of unrestricted homes is very limited.
There's a Big Lie going on that newer homes are somehow better than old ones because...well, because they just are. In reality it all depends on the situation; there are good and not-so-good homes of all ages.
N3OX is right about everything he wrote in his post. The restrictions are really about fear of what the neighbors might do.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by N2EY on August 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To N3OX:
Dan, your post makes so many excellent points that it should be an article.
I have only a few minor additions/suggestions/comments to make.
"The alternative is to band together in a loose, tense alliance with the rest of the small landowners to attempt to hammer out some broad laws that you can all live with.
And that is the homeowners association... it's a sort of truce that no one be allowed to do anything unusual or interesting with their land to make absolutely sure no one can possibly do anything incredibly "offensive.""
All true, but there's more. Usually the restrictions and the HOA are not the work of homeowners themselves, but of the developer who built the little boxes made of ticky-tacky. In some places, such as Arizona, there's a law *requiring* HOAs in developments above a certain size. (AZ is a red state IIRC, too).
"I personally wouldn't mind living in a neighborhood where someone could theoretically replace their front yard with a vegetable garden (which is gonna look a bit ugly in the winter) and someone else could paint their house purple. I wouldn't mind someone changing their oil in their own driveway, or storing their boat on their own property. And I can have my antennas."
I've lived in such neighborhoods almost all my life. They've all been good places to live.
"I *do* mind people having dangerous conditions on their property that threaten the health and well being of my family. I do mind people running a spray painting shop out of their garage. And that's what municipal zoning laws are for. You probably can't pass a law across your whole city banning purple houses, because an entire city full of people includes some people who would never ever live in a treeless HOA subdivision, and while they may not paint their own house purple, they may value the right of others to do so. But a true majority of people would prefer that auto body shops not exist right next to houses, and will agree on laws like that."
The key factor is whether something is a real threat to the safety and well-being of the neighbors. Auto-body shops must, of necessity, store and use large quantities of paints, solvents, industrial chemicals, etc., and are at greater risk of fire. So they don't belong right next to homes.
This is what zoning and use ordinances are really all about.
"I think there are a LOT of people in this country who have bought into HOA's and would rather they not be there, but they somehow worry that something terrible is going to happen if there isn't HOA protection."
Yup - fear of what people might do if not forced to toe the line.
There's also the fact that a lot of folks see no alternative, because when they look at new or newer homes in a certain area and price range, they are overwhelmingly saddled with restrictions.
"But you could also just walk away and buy an old house in an old neighborhood without restrictions."
That's what I've done all my life. There's also the option of finding an unrestricted lot and building your own house. With the downturn, a person with the money to build will find a lot of willing contractors!
"I know people who have figured out clever ways around HOA restrictions....But I wouldn't like it. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to live in the kind of place where my antennas are more neutral in terms of neighbor relations. And I think even if you can write in antenna allowances, you might find that some of the HOA types are going to be pretty upset with you anyway."
I think the same way. There's also the possibility that the HOA folks will figure out a way to outflank you legally. And if such a way exists, they'll probably go for it.
"And you're not doing much to change the fundamental problem: the existence of a freedom limiting HOA for the sake of uniformity in the small details of the neighborhood. All that stuff still exists when you get an exception. You might run up against something later."
Yup. It could be something as simple (and green) as wanting to dry your laundry on a clothesline in the backyard on a sunny day rather than running up the utility bill by using the clothes dryer. NO, says the HOA; outdoor clotheslines aren't allowed.
"And I have enough respect for those around me to not install uglier-than necessary antennas... but I don't want that, or any other similar issue, to be completely up to other people."
Other people DO have an interest when it comes to safety; a tower can be a real hazard if it falls over onto a neighbor's property. That's why things like building permits and safety inspections exist.
But that's a very different thing from the "don't want to look at X, Y or Z" attitudes.
73 de Jim, N2EY
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by N5LRZ on August 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is entirely within the developer rights to insert in his land purchase contracts restrictions that they, not you, may seem fit and proper as long as those restrictions do not violate the law/federal and or state.
The developer can put into their contracts many things including absolute restrictions on certain structures—including external antennas not protected by federal law. The land belongs to the developer and or associated owners. As such they can if they so wish, under HOA contractual agreement put a legal gun to your head and force you to accept THEIR TERMS by prohibiting you from to put up ‘Any’ external antennas of any kind (unless protected by federal law), structures such as basketball goals in the front of the house, tacky pink flamingos, or any other kind of structures as long as you live at that location, period, end of discussion.
Your only defense to this is simply DO NOT sign the contract.
Yes developers can and do under HOAs have the absolute right to be completely dictatorial towards you, your needs, your wants, and yours desires as long as they donot violate Federal and or State Laws. And yes they can tell you, as an amateur, to go get screwed if that is their wish—in their restrictive covenants. And there is NOT one thing you can do to stop them EXCEPT-----
DON’T LIVE THERE. That’s it DON’T LIVE THERE, PERIOD. Live somewhere else where there are absolutely no restrictions what so ever (even implied or hinted at) to the install of externals transmission antennas for the amateur radio bands.
Are these other neighborhoods so damn bad that they are out of the question?
OR are you pandering to your spouse because they want to live in the “Trendy” community out of vanity? If so, they you have a bigger decision than HOA restrictions. Which is MORE important to you if you can have only one single thing and NOT both—your spouse or your hobby—and remember amateur radio is a hobby
Rule #1 of Bill Gates : The world is NOT a fair equitable place.
In other words sometimes the world screws you and there is not one damn thing you can do about it. So it is, so be it, SO it will forever be.
|
| |
|
RE: insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by W5DC on August 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Otherwise, pray that HR2160 and that Homeland Security makes ham antenna specs that you can live with. WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN, etc. The rules were changed for TV access; they can be changed for ham radio.
|
| |
|
RE: insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by WB2WIK on August 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To get back to the original question, I doubt the seller, his agent, or any realtor can possibly change what's already in effect.
CC&Rs are contractual deed restrictions and everyone is bound to abide and potentially enforce. They've been around for more than 100 years (in some places).
Normally the very best way around restrictive covenants is to simply look elsewhere, where they aren't any. Louisville has lots of older homes that have no covenants of any kind recorded. I'd buy one of those!
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: insanity of cc&r's / hoa's
|
Reply
|
|
by KE4DRN on August 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
hi,
fellow club member had builder modify the paperwork,
no problem for small tower, etc. for his new home.
the day of the closing they told him no antenna,
no tower, etc, take it or we'll sell the place to
somebody else.
he had to close on the home and today he operates
stealth.
73 james
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forum, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forum Manager.
|
|
|
