Do people who chose to live in restricted covenant developments deserve to be visually assaulted with antennas; and another aspect which no one seems to mention is excessive RF exposure to residents? The ARRL constantly pushes awareness of the environmental aspect of RF exposure in license testing questions but not a peep when it comes to the parity act. At least I never see this aspect discussed. Why? Because the ARRL and sycophant hams want to continue the myth that every ham radio operator/station is a potential emergency station. That the nation needs these radio communications resources as a foundation for emergency communications. When it comes down to it the only exemption for a ham living in an HOA to be allowed to erect some antenna system is proof that said individual is indeed an ACTIVE member of ARES, RACES, etc. If they can't prove their active status then no antenna. Why should every ham who chooses to abide in an HOA have the ability to put up antennas for idle weather report chit chat nets, etc.? So much noise on this subject has been generated at the instigation of the ARRL. Ham radio is a hobby where only a small percentage of the hobbyists are actively engaged in emergency volunteerism. Most of the emergency radio communications occur on the VHF/UHF portions so antennas can conceivably be low profile. However, if I were a parent of a small infant or child living in an HOA using an upstairs bedroom and sharing a common roof with a ham running a 50 watt UHF signal..I too would not want that ham running his radio. Again, the ARRL's hypocrisy on this subject is incredible. They'll do anything possible to promote ham radio even if they have to obfuscate the truth.
Sorry...I gotta jump in on this guy.
"Visually assaulted" with antennas?? A dipole, vertical, or even a little screwdriver antenna is visually assaulting? Remember, we're not asking for towers and beams. With restrictive covenants, you just have to be creative not to impact the aesthetics of the community. It can be done. But OK..."legally", according to the CC&R's, you shouldn't do it. I'll give you that one.
But the greatest fallacy of your post...RF exposure to residents in restricted covenant developments. So, you're saying that RF exposure to residents in UN-restricted developments is OK...a safer, kinder RF

. Especially when unrestricted hams can run gobs of power up to legal limit (and sadly more) to their close-in antennas. Let me know how I can bottle-up some of that "safer" RF

.