
Au Contraire,
Let me say right up front here that I am in no way qualified to interpret Case Law, as I am not an Attorney.
However, I have every right to share my thoughts with WU6R. And I am going to, whether you or PRC like it or not. He may find my "take" just as valuable as yours, or not!
VSK- He's in the home, but he has not committed to PURCHASING it YET, so there is a huge difference in his present situation, and what he might be getting into. And can't easily get out of.
And YOU, VSK, make a good case for why he maybe he might not want to purchase a home in an HOA, or for him to at least think TWICE about it.
VSK said' "There is sufficient case law with which you may be unfamiliar affirming HOA et.al. authorities regarding location, height, appearance, lighting, etc... all of which bear on superficial use of flag poles which may serve a collateral purpose as an antenna."
What's More, you made the above statement enhancing upon your earlier statement: VSK Said: "Most HOAs with which I am familiar make no such distinction regarding rules about permanence of antennas nor do they exempt nighttime from antenna limitations."
So my hat is off to YOU, VSK for pointing out the Tomfoolery of HOAs. Well Done, Sir!
And I am befuddled at your Unkind, Petty, and Juvenile Retorts:
VSK Said: "Such comments are neither helpful or relevant to his question. Why waste your time with nonsense which is unhelpful."
Who put you in charge of deciding what is helpful or relevant? That would be nobody, and Removing the problem: HOAs making decisions on antennas is QUITE Relevant to the Inquiry, indeed!
W6UR can make up his OWN mind as to if what I am saying is relevant to his particular situation, or not. I do want to make him aware of:
"ARRL Petitions FCC to Incorporate Parity Act Provisions into its Amateur Radio Rules" from just six months ago. (12/19/2018 to be exact.)
Link:
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-petitions-fcc-to-incorporate-parity-act-provisions-into-its-amateur-radio-rulesWhich is STILL an active proposal with the FCC and listed as PROCEEDING.
FCC Link here:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1217451513529So he may wish to support that when public comments become open. And maybe stay away from HOAs until it becomes Law.
One statement that he may find worrysome as far as getting HOA approval according to the ARRL survey is:
"ARRL noted in its Petition that an increasing number of homes available for purchase today are already subject to restrictive covenants prohibiting outdoor antennas, and that the Community Associations Institute data show that 90% of new housing starts in the US are subject to deed restrictions and other limitation that make installation of outdoor Amateur Radio antennas ineffective or impossible."
VSK said: "You offer no solution; just an alternate reality based on how you think the world should be which helps no one. Kind of like background noise."
No. That's not an alternate reality.
The reality is that 90% "against" figure. Quoted. From an actual source. Based on a Survey.
That makes your retort kind of like Satanic Noise, because he needs ALL of the facts before he makes such a purchase choice. ALL of them. He may want to steer clear for now, until this is all straightened out. Why not let him decide with ALL of the facts what is in his best interest?
As far as PRC's comments go:
What is unclear here is why PRC the thinks a tilt base accessory MATTERS when he has just been TOLD by VSK that " I’m not sure I understand why you think the speed with which it can be removed has any bearing on compliance with your CA’s rules."
So much for Dogs Rumps:
This is MUCH more akin to giving a dog on a leash to a monkey: It doesn't mean that the monkey actually has a pet... Instead, it just means that some Idiot tied a dog to a monkey.
73 DE W8LV BILL