Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: ARRL drops the ball??  (Read 4367 times)

N2EY

  • Member
  • Posts: 5698
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #75 on: March 10, 2021, 08:03:55 AM »

Could you imagine today if CC&R's were deemed to "keep those people out of our nice neighborhoods"? The civil outrage and litigation would be never ending. There would be calls to abolish CC&R's altogether, and rightly so.

Actually, using CC&Rs to keep out "those people" was struck down by the Supreme Court decades ago. But the concept and practice of them wasn't outlawed.

The cable TV issue has since been overridden by the OTARD law, allowing small satellite dishes and over-the-air TV reception antennas to be allowed.

The OTARD ruling happened because the direct broadcast satellite (DBS) folks banded together and pushed a lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court. Their legal argument was that the no-antennas restrictions effectively established a monopoly for the cable folks, violating anti-trust laws and the interstate commerce protections of the Constitution. And the Supremes agreed.

Since Amateur Radio isn't "commerce", we can't use that argument.

I believe the main reasons for ham radio antenna restrictions are aesthetics and safety.

I think the real reasons are fear and ignorance - plus Gladys Kravitz/Karen effect.

First, aesthetics. There's certainly a case when you see the sloppy messes that some hams put up. Yet at the same time, many no-antennas restricted homes have aerial utility lines with wires, cables, transformers, guys, insulators, etc. Often they're in the front of the properties. Why is a simple dipole or vertical "ugly" but the power/cable/telephone/internet lines aren't?

I'm not saying everyone should be able to put up a 100 foot tower on a tenth of an acre lot with no trees. But the absolute banning of ALL antennas from homes is simply unreasonable, yet very common.

Second, safety is what building codes and inspections are all about. And what about the safety issues of big trees and utility poles?

Of course, there's reality and there's perception. The same people who don't want cell phone towers because of "radiation" think nothing of holding a cell phone to their head for hours per day, in complete ignorance of the inverse square law. The same people who see a simple vertical in the back yard as "ugly" don't see the power lines, and have grown used to the satellite dishes.

Quote
I believe Gladys Kravitz has been modernized to "Karen" ;D.

Good one!

However there's a difference, in that Gladys Kravitz was hyper-focused on what the neighbors were doing. Karens are all about their own entitlement. Lots of overlap, of course.

Quote
How would that (walking away) work in real life?

Consider this situation:

Quote
Yeah, that would suck. You'd essentially be homeless if you walked away. You're really between a rock and a hard place, and the only answer is the need to make a quick, hard decision based on immediate priorities. Somewhere along the line the research and due diligence was flawed, putting you in that position. Many times not the buyer's fault.

Hence my posted rules to avoid such nightmares. To put it simply: A closing should be a formality, with all the issues settled long before closing date.

Here's a "power move" I have heard of some folks using. Many of the steps can occur simultaneously.

It is expensive, however:

Step 1: They decide exactly what they want and do not want in a home. Price, location, taxes, lot size, etc.

Step 2: They find an apartment they can live in for a year or so, in the area they want to move to, and rent it. Ideally, they'd get a month-to-month lease after the year is up.
 
Step 3: They sell their old house (if they have one) and put whatever possessions they have that don't fit the apartment in storage.

Step 4: They focus on getting the house they really want, without the pressure of having sold the old place, needing to be in the new community, etc. The money from the old house is in the bank and they get pre-approved for a mortgage on the new place.

Step 5: When the right house comes along, they make an offer, and hopefully get it.

This system gives the buyer real power because they can walk away at any time. It also means they can buy a house that needs work and live in the apartment until the work is done and the house is ready for them.

The only big problem is that it's expensive to do.

I think that for the overwhelming majority of the population, CC&R's are not a major hurdle in a house buying decision.

Agreed. In fact I suspect that many actually LIKE them, out of fear. Fear that without a lot of rules and enforcement, their neighbors will not take care of their properties, destroying property values.

Here's the irony: At least in the areas I have searched, unrestricted homes sell for MORE, not less, than restricted ones of the same general size/location/amenities etc.

Yes, antenna restrictions are a pain for hams, but if you're a normal law-abiding person that takes pride in the upkeep and appearance of your property, they're mostly a non-issue.

IF you can find an "amateur radio friendly" home that you can afford. Trouble is, more and more new and renovated homes are saddled with HOAs and CC&Rs, making unrestricted homes harder to find.

Thus my rules for homebuying.

---

My hope is that the whole Gladys Kravitz/Karen mindset will die out as people begin to realize just how stifling and expensive it is.

For example, around here it is common to dry clothes on a clothesline when weather permits. This saves energy/money. People use retractable clotheslines in the back yard and it's no big deal. Yet so many HOAs/CC&Rs banned clotheslines that there is a "right to dry" movement!

People I know who have lived in HOA/CC&R developments have been stymied by the high costs of getting work done on their homes because of the need to not change ANYTHING without approval, which is pretty much unobtanium. The added time and money were considerable.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Logged

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #76 on: March 10, 2021, 09:20:59 AM »

Jim N2EY,

All good, logical and factual points in my opinion.

The Gladys Kravitz thing is quite true. Although fear and ignorance is a valid point, I believe it's easier for the HOA to enforce antenna restrictions on the one ham operator, rather than deal with perhaps the many neighbors complaining about the antennas. And they (neighbors) would be right, since the restrictions are already in the CC&R's. And if the HOA approved antennas for one ham, they would have to approve similar antennas for any other ham in the community. Easier to reference the CC&R, deny antennas, and nip them all in the bud.

People are also stuck with utility poles, if they want/need the services provided. There's no CC&R against such poles. But they don't have to put up with visible ham antennas if there's a CC&R restriction against them. Many new (and older) communities are constructed with underground utilities, making visible antennas all the more noticeable. Cell towers are now just a necessary, modern way of life for the masses, despite theories of radiation health risks, and cries of  "not in my back yard". Here in Arizona, they disguise them as tall palm trees (silly looking), and even hide them in fake bell towers near churches to somewhat appease the community.

Hey, I'm with you. Antennas, to me, are a beautiful thing ;). Unfortunately, CC&R's override my interpretation of beauty :-\. But where there's a will there's a way, and I found it. So can others in most situations.

73,  Bob K7JQ
Logged

W1MOW

  • Member
  • Posts: 269
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #77 on: March 10, 2021, 10:24:55 AM »

My wife who is an attorney once wrote a proposal to amend a friends HOA's CC&Rs.

The proposal would allow a wire based dipole/EFHW, a flag pole antenna with a hidden radial field, and a VHF/UHF monopole, structure mounted, painted to match the building, with the tip no higher than 10' above the highest point of the structure. Any combination, not to exceed of 2 antennas. The wire antenna needs to be supported by the buildings and natural trees within the property. NO towers/supports of any type allowed.

It was generally accepted, except by 2 busybody ladies, one of who claimed it would effect her hearing aids, the other was known as a trouble maker who did not like anything, and would complain about everything.

Unfortunately it got voted down by 1 vote. The people that voted against did not want to have to listen to the 2 ladies constantly complain and give them one more thing to moan and groan about.

Gary W1MOW
Logged
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt - Bertram Russell (1935)

So not much has changed in almost 90 years!

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #78 on: March 10, 2021, 12:36:19 PM »

My wife who is an attorney once wrote a proposal to amend a friends HOA's CC&Rs.

It was generally accepted, except by 2 busybody ladies, one of who claimed it would effect her hearing aids

Unfortunately it got voted down by 1 vote.

Gary W1MOW

You wouldn't want a little old lady walking around claiming she hears voices in her head, would you :-\?
Lost by one vote? Maybe the HOA should adopt the filibuster ;).
Logged

KF5LJW

  • Posts: 577
    • HomeURL
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #79 on: March 10, 2021, 12:42:22 PM »

Lost by one vote? Maybe the HOA should adopt the filibuster ;).

HOA's members are easily bribed. They are like Baptist, you can lead them to war with nothing more than a sack of hamburgers.
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1947
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #80 on: March 10, 2021, 02:48:18 PM »

Didn’t take long for this discussion to reach the level of “easily bribed” and the old favorite refrain  “to keep some people out”.

Sometimes you just have to shack your head at the nonsense.
Logged

K3UIM

  • Member
  • Posts: 2145
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #81 on: March 15, 2021, 04:20:41 PM »

Lost by one vote? Maybe the HOA should adopt the filibuster ;).

HOA's members are easily bribed. They are like Baptist, you can lead them to war with nothing more than a sack of hamburgers.
You must know some strange Baptists!! I don't. Got any examples??
Charlie
Logged
Charlie. K3UIM
Where you are: I was!
Where I am: You will be!
So be nice to us old fogies!!

K3LI

  • Member
  • Posts: 140
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #82 on: March 25, 2021, 01:41:05 PM »

 I have not seen the ARRL being worth messing with.  Bunch of do nothing power trippers.   "Look at Me" Im king of ARRL.   Useless organization
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1947
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #83 on: March 25, 2021, 06:19:19 PM »

I have not seen the ARRL being worth messing with.  Bunch of do nothing power trippers.   "Look at Me" Im king of ARRL.   Useless organization
A couple of the usual characters here will no doubt see that and try defending the League with the predictable excuses like "spectrum defense" around which they are only a collateral actor with no real influence but it is entertaining watching them try.
It's now basically a publishing company for books and magazines.
Logged

K4KYV

  • Member
  • Posts: 130
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #84 on: March 26, 2021, 09:03:35 PM »

IMO, The main two reasons for CC&R antenna restrictions/prohibitions and HOA enforcement are 1. aesthetics, and 2. safety. Nobody wants to look out their window and see wires or vertical/horizontal poles in their neighbor's backyard, and nobody wants said antennas to fall over into their backyard, causing damage or injury. They could give a rat's a** about RFI or radiation.
While a 70 ft tower with tri-bander mounted on top, sitting on the edge of a postage-stamp size  city lot, would probably raise objections for those reasons, most people wouldn't give a "rat's a**" about a dipole strung between a couple of trees in the backyard, except for that small, vocal lunatic fringe minority who suffer from ADS (antenna derangement syndrome) while basking in a personal power trip.

The real reason for the "no antenna" clause is that it was inserted long ago into the standard boilerplate that's conveniently used to formulate HOA rules, thus avoiding the arduous task of formulating a comprehensive set of rules from scratch for each new development.  With most HOAs, "antennas" probably never even entered the realm of anyone's mind until someone first confronted the issue well after the HOA had been established, but by then it's too late because the antenna prohibition already exists, for no reason other than that it's already on the books by default.
Logged

KM1H

  • Member
  • Posts: 11155
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2021, 09:51:21 AM »

Quote
You wouldn't want a little old lady walking around claiming she hears voices in her head, would you :-\?
Lost by one vote? Maybe the HOA should adopt the filibuster ;)

It should be easy to plant a bug that will drive her buggy
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1947
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2021, 11:23:38 AM »



The real reason for the "no antenna" clause is that it was inserted long ago into the standard boilerplate that's conveniently used to formulate HOA rules, thus avoiding the arduous task of formulating a comprehensive set of rules from scratch...
That seems to be another common myth.

Actually, if it was the desire to formulate “convenient” rules, no one would ever bother with any antenna rule given the trivial fraction of people to whom it would cover who want an outside antenna.

And having worked with HOAs to develop reasonable antenna accommodation rules, that task is far from “arduous”. We did one over lunch once.

Logged

KM1H

  • Member
  • Posts: 11155
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2021, 12:59:48 PM »

Quote
And having worked with HOAs to develop reasonable antenna accommodation rules, that task is far from “arduous”. We did one over lunch once.

The towns Planning Director, myself and a ham lawyer friend (no charge but a big eater ;D) sat down over lunch to write the non commercial antenna ordinance for this town. Lunch seems to be a common thread thru many agreements. A pair of selectmen (one woman actually) disagreed but they knew better than raise a stink and to prevent any sneaky future issues it was filed in a state court.
PRB-1 plus a ham state representative forced the town to repay taxes I paid on the towers and antennas with interest and damages!  No more issues with the town for 30 years ;D 8)

No problems for any hams since.

The selectman also appointed me to the Planning Board; plus the Home Business Committee which created the documents and the BOS which signed it into law after a town vote at the yearly town elections. "We" won by a landslide.

Carl
Logged

N2EY

  • Member
  • Posts: 5698
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #88 on: March 28, 2021, 06:46:16 AM »



The real reason for the "no antenna" clause is that it was inserted long ago into the standard boilerplate that's conveniently used to formulate HOA rules, thus avoiding the arduous task of formulating a comprehensive set of rules from scratch...
That seems to be another common myth.

It's not a myth. It's the truth.

Actually, if it was the desire to formulate “convenient” rules, no one would ever bother with any antenna rule given the trivial fraction of people to whom it would cover who want an outside antenna.

Nope. Wrong.


And having worked with HOAs to develop reasonable antenna accommodation rules, that task is far from “arduous”. We did one over lunch once.

When and where was that? What was your official capacity at the time?

What was the end result - meaning, what was defined as a "reasonable antenna accommodation"?



Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1947
Re: ARRL drops the ball??
« Reply #89 on: March 28, 2021, 07:27:01 AM »



The real reason for the "no antenna" clause is that it was inserted long ago into the standard boilerplate that's conveniently used to formulate HOA rules, thus avoiding the arduous task of formulating a comprehensive set of rules from scratch...
That seems to be another common myth.

It's not a myth. It's the truth.

Actually, if it was the desire to formulate “convenient” rules, no one would ever bother with any antenna rule given the trivial fraction of people to whom it would cover who want an outside antenna.

Nope. Wrong.


And having worked with HOAs to develop reasonable antenna accommodation rules, that task is far from “arduous”. We did one over lunch once.

When and where was that? What was your official capacity at the time?

What was the end result - meaning, what was defined as a "reasonable antenna accommodation"?
I’ve explained all of this to you before.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13   Go Up