Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?  (Read 386 times)

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« on: August 10, 2020, 11:33:31 AM »

To the Administrator:

I see that the definition beneath this 'Antenna Restrictions' forum topic reads..."PRB-1, restrictive covenants, and anything to do with antenna and tower restrictions". IMO, this broad statement has unfortunately given the latitude for people to comment about the pros, cons, and legality of HOA's and their CC&R's. The VERY strong opinions on this subject has resulted in ridiculous personal attacks, slurs, and back-biting among the topic's participants. Many of the threads have thereby been locked out from further comment.

The facts are: PRB-1 is a county/city law. OTARD is a federal law, and does not apply to HR antennas. HOA enforced CC&R antenna restrictions are legally bound rules within a community. It's up to each individual to research PRB-1 in their municipality, or read the CC&R's in their community. Until such laws and rules are legally changed, IMO it makes no sense to discuss them. No one is going to change anyone else's opinion. Just a waste of time to read this nonsense. I've even been goaded and plead guilty to put my $.02 in to these silly debates ;).

A suggestion to maybe change the definition to something like..."Antenna ideas, suggestions, and solutions for the HOA/CC&R restricted ham". It might not totally eliminate the problem, but at least it narrows down the topic for some constructive threads. Or, eliminate the topic altogether, and just let folks post under 'Antennas, Towers, and More'.

I'll probable catch some flack for posting this from those who just like to argue ;D.

73,  Bob K7JQ
Logged

KD6VXI

  • Member
  • Posts: 1022
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2020, 12:02:45 PM »

It's not an argument to point out a fallacy.


PRB-1 is a federal issue.  Not state.

It's a federal guideline (that unfortunately only mentions CC&R IIRC once).

--Shane
KD6VXI
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1949
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2020, 12:16:33 PM »

Seems like a good idea, however, assuming the topic isn’t changed and remains a free-for-all to complain about  HOAs and antenna limitations therein, there is another simple solution - ask and/or encourage those complaining to identify whether or not they are among the affected community, that is, whether or not you actually live in an HOA.

It should then become apparent how many HOA residents care or feel the need for change. Or if the complaint comes from those who simply want to whine.
Logged

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2020, 01:46:24 PM »

It's not an argument to point out a fallacy.


PRB-1 is a federal issue.  Not state.

It's a federal guideline (that unfortunately only mentions CC&R IIRC once).

--Shane
KD6VXI

Well, there you go already...not a constructive post regarding restricted antenna ideas.

FYI, it may be a Federal law, but it is subject to individual county and city municipality requirements. It only mentions CC&R's because the Feds don't want to interfere with private contracts. If you think it's a fallacy, it doesn't matter. It's a LAW, it has to be complied with, and not subject to meaningful discussion. PRB-1 has been hashed and re-hashed hundreds of times here, and nothing has changed.

I tried to suggest something that might curtail some of the petty nonsense that shows up on this topic, but I guess it will fall on deaf ears ::).

Bob K7JQ
Logged

WB2KSP

  • Member
  • Posts: 828
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2020, 02:00:54 PM »

If someone creates a forum specifically to discuss antenna restricted communities and how we as licensed operators who would like to move to such neighborhoods can not, without either giving up our hobby or using hidden antennas to live there (Honestly, I'm not interested in discussing the hidden/stealth or I'll tell mommy antennas) would those people who take the side of the HOA in this and other antenna restriction forums promise not to make any comments or participate in such a room. If so, then perhaps we should find out how a room is created in eHam and take our discussions there. It seems the pro HOA people don't like reading our side of the story because it doesn't conform to their world view and that's fine with me. Let's come up with an alternative where everyone can be happy and discussions won't be locked due to the level of vitriol.
Logged

WA6BJH

  • Member
  • Posts: 242
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2020, 03:02:06 PM »

I might as well throw some gasoline on the fire.  The first time I read PRB-1, many years ago when I was in law school, I thought, this doesn’t actually order anything.  I’m fairly certain that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals said the same thing when it came before them.  PRB-1 is useless.  It doesn’t order anything.  I don’t know why anyone cares about it.
Logged

W8LV

  • Member
  • Posts: 421
    • homeURL
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2020, 03:09:16 PM »

"Until such laws and rules are legally changed, IMO it makes no sense to discuss them."

These kind of Arbitrary Laws don't get changed without free discussion. Nor with the petty "locking down" of discussions.

Why don't YOU just move along instead?

Logged

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2020, 03:34:59 PM »

If someone creates a forum specifically to discuss antenna restricted communities and how we as licensed operators who would like to move to such neighborhoods can not, without either giving up our hobby or using hidden antennas to live there (Honestly, I'm not interested in discussing the hidden/stealth or I'll tell mommy antennas) would those people who take the side of the HOA in this and other antenna restriction forums promise not to make any comments or participate in such a room. If so, then perhaps we should find out how a room is created in eHam and take our discussions there. It seems the pro HOA people don't like reading our side of the story because it doesn't conform to their world view and that's fine with me. Let's come up with an alternative where everyone can be happy and discussions won't be locked due to the level of vitriol.

David WB2KSP,

I think that's a great idea, if the administrators would create it. Maybe call it "HOA's, CC&R's, PRB-1, and OTARD"...leave it at that. The definition under the heading could be "Let 'er rip". Let you pro/con guys fight it out ad nauseum, with nothing resolved except anger, frustration, and insults ;D. After what I've seen in this topic, I promise not to participate in it. Maybe KD6VXI, WA6BJH, and W8LV, along with the other usual suspects, will join in ;). But I will read it for laughs ::). If that's what you want, enjoy!

Bob K7JQ
Logged

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2020, 03:39:54 PM »


Why don't YOU just move along instead?


After reading some of your incoherent rants, believe me I will. Carry on, OM....
Logged

WB2KSP

  • Member
  • Posts: 828
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2020, 03:49:45 PM »

"Until such laws and rules are legally changed, IMO it makes no sense to discuss them."

These kind of Arbitrary Laws don't get changed without free discussion. Nor with the petty "locking down" of discussions.

Why don't YOU just move along instead?


What I find interesting is that there are supposedly active hams who claim to be happily living in HOA controlled neighborhoods. Outside of discussing the art of creating stealth antennas, which if they are active in the hobby, they must have in one form or another (or perhaps they aren't really active from their homes). One also has to wonder why they insist on taking on the side of the anti antenna crowd and using those arguments against  those of us who would like to relocate to newer HOA controlled neighborhoods for whatever reason. It's not only on e-ham. I've seen these same licensees taking the same pro HOA side in other antenna forums. you would think that even if they were to present the HOA side of the argument, they would leave it at that. In the end it appears the discussions end up as verbal battles. So what happens is that those of us wishing to discuss ways in which we can legally have these rules overturned by higher authority, we can not find a forum to have these discussions because the pro HOA hams find such discussion unacceptable and end up lowering the level of discourse into written attacks. Of course the pro HOA hams will say it's just the opposite. Again my point, if you live in an HOA and are happy with your lifestyle, what purpose is there for you to be participating in a forum designed to discuss antenna limited neighborhoods, that is unless you are going to come up with some brilliant stealth antenna designs which work for you. To take the anti antenna side in such a forum only shows me that you are looking for a fight. Perhaps you'd be better off putting your stealth station skills to use by getting on the air and using your license privileges instead of telling us why we are wrong and how wonderful those no antenna neighborhoods are. 
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 03:52:06 PM by WB2KSP »
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1949
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2020, 03:56:53 PM »

"Until such laws and rules are legally changed, IMO it makes no sense to discuss them."

These kind of Arbitrary Laws don't get changed without free discussion. Nor with the petty "locking down" of discussions.

Why don't YOU just move along instead?


What I find interesting is that there are supposedly active hams who claim to be happily living in HOA controlled neighborhoods. Outside of discussing the art of creating stealth antennas, which if they are active in the hobby, they must have in one form or another (or perhaps they aren't really active from their homes). One also has to wonder why they insist on taking on the side of the anti antenna crowd and using those arguments against  those of us who would like to relocate to newer HOA controlled neighborhoods for whatever reason. It's not only on e-ham. I've seen these same licensees taking the same pro HOA side in other antenna forums. you would think that even if they were to present the HOA side of the argument, they would leave it at that. In the end it appears the discussions end up as verbal battles. So what happens is that those of us wishing to discuss ways in which we can legally have these rules overturned by higher authority, we can not find a forum to have these discussions because the pro HOA hams find such discussion unacceptable and end up lowering the level of discourse into written attacks. Of course the pro HOA hams will say it's just the opposite. Again my point, if you live in an HOA and are happy with your lifestyle, what purpose is there for you to be participating in a forum designed to discuss antenna limited neighborhoods, that is unless you are going to come up with some brilliant stealth antenna designs which work for you. To take the anti antenna side in such a forum only shows me that you are looking for a fight. Perhaps you'd be better off putting your stealth station skills to use by getting on the air and using your license privileges instead of telling us why we are wrong and how wonderful those no antenna neighborhoods are.
Ever consider the possibility that HOA residents don’t want you or others not living here to interfere in our communities? How would you like it if we did in yours?

To K7JQ - Sri to go off-topic but that is the fundamental issue here - to be blunt - the “mind your own business” rule.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 03:59:13 PM by K1VSK »
Logged

WW5F

  • Posts: 451
    • HomeURL
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2020, 05:36:46 PM »

The dead horse beating starts again...

What I think it boils down to is that it's a political process to change the law.  And we'll need a lot more than 750,000 hams (minus those hams who don't care) to rise up and start a multi-year mega-dollar process to change federal law.  What are the chances of that?

The majority of complaints I see are from people who don't read their CC&R's before closing.  And at closing, it's too late.  My realtors were surprised when I told them the only thing left for me to make an offer is to see a copy of the CC&Rs.  I actually heard the selling realtor say, "What does he need to see those for?"

What I see the most complaints from is that some people buy a house and either before they put up an antenna or after they put up an antenna are told they can't have an antenna (and are told to take it down.)  This is usually a highly emotional event for them.  I understand.  And then their best argument is that since they are licensed by the *FEDERAL* Communications Commission to transmit, this some how equates to having a *RIGHT* to put up an antenna because of the "supremacy clause" in the constitution.  That's not how it works; not how it was intended; not the intent of the "supremacy clause" but that doesn't stop them.  According to the contract ratified in 1788, things not listed to this point in the contract are things which are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  To bad there weren't any hams that were part of the convention that put this founding contract together.

I agreed to mine, and then bought my house.  (No antennae higher than 15 feet over the apex of my roof; that's a lot less restrictive than only a single 1-meter dish not visible from the front of the house, or "no CB antennas", or "no visible outdoor antenna at all--put it in the attic" restrictions I saw.  Those were deal killers for me.

I disagree with federal law usurping state and local laws on this particular subject.  That's not how this country was put together.  I'm against most of the continued centralization of power in our 51st government.  The original rules made us successful as a nation, the original rules will keep us a successful nation.

Everyone has a choice.  Some people say they don't have a choice in the house they buy for a variety of reasons.  But they do, really.  Depends on what's important to you.  Most people can't have it all these days.  Some people aren't willing to prioritize to make it work.  They demand everything.  Sorry, everybody has to live by the same rules if we are to remain civilized.

I'm just looking at the bigger picture.  That's not an unreasonable side to take, is it?

That is all.
Logged

WB2KSP

  • Member
  • Posts: 828
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2020, 05:52:38 PM »

"Until such laws and rules are legally changed, IMO it makes no sense to discuss them."

These kind of Arbitrary Laws don't get changed without free discussion. Nor with the petty "locking down" of discussions.

Why don't YOU just move along instead?


What I find interesting is that there are supposedly active hams who claim to be happily living in HOA controlled neighborhoods. Outside of discussing the art of creating stealth antennas, which if they are active in the hobby, they must have in one form or another (or perhaps they aren't really active from their homes). One also has to wonder why they insist on taking on the side of the anti antenna crowd and using those arguments against  those of us who would like to relocate to newer HOA controlled neighborhoods for whatever reason. It's not only on e-ham. I've seen these same licensees taking the same pro HOA side in other antenna forums. you would think that even if they were to present the HOA side of the argument, they would leave it at that. In the end it appears the discussions end up as verbal battles. So what happens is that those of us wishing to discuss ways in which we can legally have these rules overturned by higher authority, we can not find a forum to have these discussions because the pro HOA hams find such discussion unacceptable and end up lowering the level of discourse into written attacks. Of course the pro HOA hams will say it's just the opposite. Again my point, if you live in an HOA and are happy with your lifestyle, what purpose is there for you to be participating in a forum designed to discuss antenna limited neighborhoods, that is unless you are going to come up with some brilliant stealth antenna designs which work for you. To take the anti antenna side in such a forum only shows me that you are looking for a fight. Perhaps you'd be better off putting your stealth station skills to use by getting on the air and using your license privileges instead of telling us why we are wrong and how wonderful those no antenna neighborhoods are.
Ever consider the possibility that HOA residents don’t want you or others not living here to interfere in our communities? How would you like it if we did in yours?

To K7JQ - Sri to go off-topic but that is the fundamental issue here - to be blunt - the “mind your own business” rule.

Speak of the individual and he magically appears. First, I am not interested in being a neighbor of yours, so you don't have to concern yourself with my interference in your preferred lifestyle. What if my race or religion were not to your liking. Would my request to become a neighbor of yours also cause distress for you? Don't give me the, it's not the same thing argument because in reality it is. Someone with whom you disagree with no matter what the reason adding stress to your lifestyle, whether it be race, religion or engaging in a legal pursuit. It's not for you to decide what holds merit and what does not. Again, I am not asking or desirous of entering your community. The problem is that the alternatives no matter what you say, are few and far between. Perhaps your standards are different than mine. I am not here to try to live up or down to your standards. I just find it interesting that you have so much time to debate this subject in so many antenna restrictions forums. Don't you operate on the air or do you spend your days on the internet looking for people you can disagree with? I'm sure you are probably an OK gentleman but it just seems so odd to me to read such anti antenna comments from someone who obviously participates in a hobby where antennas are required. It's like being a hi-fi fan and living in an apartment but telling everyone that also wants to own a hi-fi that they can only use headphones because speakers might be turned up so that your stereo can be heard in the hall. It's for reasons like this that I'd like to see a forum not to argue about covenants with the other side but to discuss what we can do to achieve our goals  with like minded people.
Logged

AC2EU

  • Member
  • Posts: 2793
    • McVey Electronics
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2020, 06:30:09 PM »

Who cares? The "problem" if it is a problem, was  self inflicted the day they signed up for a HOA.
If you sign a legally binding contract , you are expected to obey the terms of said contract.
IMO, those who complain about the restrictions on their hobby should have considered that before making a decision that they now wish to circumvent.
The whole thing makes no sense. Live with it or move!

VA3VF

  • Member
  • Posts: 4509
Re: Perhaps change the definition of this Forum topic?
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2020, 06:46:05 PM »

Quote
The "problem" if it is a problem, was  self inflicted the day they signed up for a HOA.
If you sign a legally binding contract , you are expected to obey the terms of said contract.

I'm not up to what HOA does or does not entail, but based on the quoted text, I think I 'know' enough.

In my hometown, a new sub-division was built 'next door' to the the city's airport. The 'pride of ownership' folks are now 'up in arms' because of the noise the airport causes. They want it moved: no ifs, ands, or buts.

For context, my hometown is Canada's capital, and the airport has been there for 60+ years.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up