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.
I believe Gladys Kravitz has been modernized to "Karen"
.
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.
How would that (walking away) work in real life?
Consider this situation:
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