eHam
eHam Forums => Antenna Restrictions => Topic started by: W1BR on March 01, 2021, 10:01:06 AM
-
This seemed like a great idea on the surface, helping a ham in a HOA to get approval for an antenna through the HOA by providing information that ham could use to prove need and possible benefits. Instead it was voted down? They still think they are going to win a legal fight in Congress?
Failed Motion on HOA Handouts
32. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Mr. Hopengarten, that:
ARRL staff is directed to produce printed material for use by HOA-resident Amateurs in negotiations with HOA Boards and Architectural Committees in efforts to get approval of antennas. This information will be in two parts:
1) A book or booklet with instructions and suggestions for the Radio Amateur to be used in the negotiations.
2) Printed, color handouts to be given to HOA regulatory committees or boards containing background and benefits of Amateur Radio, and at least 10 examples of HOA approved antennas. The antenna examples will have color photos, written descriptions, and possible negotiation history, and will be suggestive of what should be approved by HOA committees.
Staff will find a suitable author and/or researcher to author the material, and suitable editing and graphic assistance to assure its effectiveness.
There was then discussion regarding the potential effectiveness of the directive as written and possible alternatives, as well as how it may affect potential legislative efforts to address these concerns. Following a roll call vote, the motion FAILED, with Ms. Jairam, Ms. McIntyre, Messrs. Abernethy, Carlson, Lippert, Norris, Williams, Zygielbaum, Hippisley and Stratton against; and Messrs. Hopengarten, Ritz, Ryan, Baker, and Norton in favor.
-
Why do you think people move into HOA's for? Hams are not exempt.
-
Could you cite the source of this info, and perhaps the date on which it occurred? I'd like to learn more before I start asking questions....
-
Why do you think people move into HOA's for? Hams are not exempt.
Why do you post stupid replies that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, or are you just trolling?
This about enabling hams to work within the HOA system and not taking an adversarial position instead of forcing legislation through congress.
-
Could you cite the source of this info, and perhaps the date on which it occurred? I'd like to learn more before I start asking questions....
ARRL BoD meeting.
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/Board%20Meeting%20Jan%202021/2021%20Annual%20Board%20of%20Directors%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf
-
That question is best addressed to the directors who voted against it. By the way, the "no" group includes the two directors I respect the most, so I suspect there were some good reasons for their vote.
-
The ARRL ultimate decision to not publish said alternative is to not have it used against them in any possible future legislative initiative. Any good lawyer or politician would gravitate to that published alternative as the league's accommodation to CC&R restrictions.
-
That is what I figured. But I have a feeling they missed the boat if they think any positive future legislative action will ever happen.
-
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. That's too technical for the average homeowner.
Based on past attempts and failures, no matter what the ARRL proposes, I doubt if we're ever gonna see federal legislation to override CC&R's and accommodate amateur radio antennas.
It's either go stealth, or don't move into such a community if antennas are a priority.
Bob K7JQ
-
I have two dozen antennas and guess what, when people look into my yard they are virtually invisible!
I grow hundreds of flowering shrubs and that is what they look at. The flowers. I grow roses so I have blooms all season long.
Some folks will walk all the way to my front yard, look at the flowers, and turn around to go back home.
Zak W1VT
-
It's either go stealth, or don't move into such a community if antennas are a priority.
Bob K7JQ
Ditto!
Why waste ARRL funds on this issue?
It's the Taylor Swift syndrome!
If you sign a contract, you are bound by it's terms. Move on or move out.
-
When you move into a HOA, you sign a contract. Period. Now if the contract you signed infringes upon your hobby then move. It is not up to a HOA to accommodate every home owners hobby.
I am sure some folks want to raise cattle or have a gun range in the back yard.
-
Why do you post stupid replies that have nothing to do with the subject at hand
HOA's were created to keep undesirables out of the neighborhood. How is that stupid or off topic?
-
Why do you post stupid replies that have nothing to do with the subject at hand
HOA's were created to keep undesirables out of the neighborhood. How is that stupid or off topic?
The topic was created to advise of, and solicit comments on, an ARRL proposal to create printed material handouts for hams in HOA/CC&R communities to present to an Architectural Committee in attempts to receive antenna approval. The ARRL board turned it down for various reasons, primarily due to it possibly being detrimental in future attempts at legislation to amend CC&R's.
We all know about, and have different views of, HOA/CC&R antenna restrictions ad nauseum. I think your use of the word "undesirables" is the wrong term. CC&R's and HOA enforcement were created to prevent hams from erecting antennas, not that they are personally "undesirable". A criminal is an undesirable, but he can live in an HOA as long as he doesn't break the rules ::). I'm a ham, I live in an HOA, and I wasn't asked if I'm an "undesirable" when I purchased my house ;).
-
HOA residents approach their governing boards for all manners of requests, not just ham radio.
Saying that you signed a contract, blah blah blah is just plain ignorant and argumentative. If the board
has an avenue for a resident to make those requests, then what is the issue??
Forcing Federal legislation to allow antennas would seem to be counter productive and would put amateur radio in a bad light. Providing an amateur, or anyone for that matter, with the knowledge to successfully plead an argument to persuade the board members seems to be a logical and gentlemanly means to an end.
I am saying that if the ARRL intends to continue fighting for Federal preemption I think they are making a mistake and should have taken a more amical route that avoids conflicts. Certainly hams have been able to install antennas in HOAs by asking permission and making a reasoned argument and asking for a reasonable wavier that would not upset the HOA standards, as have others for other needs or desires besides ham radio.
I think telling hams to go stealth is evading the contract and breaking that covenant. It would be better to have permission to install that stealth antenna in the first place.
And I would point out that some responders on here need to read the site manager's rules regarding comments.
-
I suppose you think that if a Ham gets arrested, the ARRL should post his bail too?
In a similar matter HOAs are are legal troubles you got yourself into. It is not incumbent upon the organization to help you with that.
The subject here is ARRL funding to address the HOA problem, not the HOA problem itself.
It's a waste of time and money for the ARRL to formally address it.
That being said, no matter how much whining and demanding Taylor Swift did, she didn't get her contract changed either.
-
It is mystifying that throughout the years ARRL spent (wasted) on this effort, they never even considered attempting to quantify the number of hams adversely affected by CC&Rs.
Or asked those living in HOAs what if any help they need or want.
There’s nothing so misguided like trying to solve a problem which isn’t defined, quantified or verified.
-
HOA residents approach their governing boards for all manners of requests, not just ham radio.
Saying that you signed a contract, blah blah blah is just plain ignorant and argumentative. If the board
has an avenue for a resident to make those requests, then what is the issue??
Forcing Federal legislation to allow antennas would seem to be counter productive and would put amateur radio in a bad light. Providing an amateur, or anyone for that matter, with the knowledge to successfully plead an argument to persuade the board members seems to be a logical and gentlemanly means to an end.
I am saying that if the ARRL intends to continue fighting for Federal preemption I think they are making a mistake and should have taken a more amical route that avoids conflicts. Certainly hams have been able to install antennas in HOAs by asking permission and making a reasoned argument and asking for a reasonable wavier that would not upset the HOA standards, as have others for other needs or desires besides ham radio.
I think telling hams to go stealth is evading the contract and breaking that covenant. It would be better to have permission to install that stealth antenna in the first place.
And I would point out that some responders on here need to read the site manager's rules regarding comments.
W1BR,
First, I saw your qrz.com page, and wow...impressive! Quite a collection, and brings back memories of ham radio of yesteryear.
Now, as a resident of three HOA/CC&R antenna restricted communities in the last 29 years, I feel I'm somewhat qualified to comment on your above post.
With all due respect, I'm sure your intentions are noble, but I believe you're a little naive in your thinking. Do you now or have you ever lived in such a community? Signing a contract (blah, blah, blah) is *not* "just plain ignorant and argumentative". You are subject to sanctions and legal remedies if you break the rules. Yes, if the language of a CC&R states something like.. "[subject] is prohibited,unless approved by the Architectural Committe", there is an avenue to plead your case for approval. And yes, there's a *possibility* that you could gain approval from an understanding and liberal HOA committee. But I'd be willing to bet that such a possibility is in the overwhelming minority. Achieving approval for putting decorative stone facing on the front of your house, or beautiful landscaping, is quite different from erecting a visible ugly metal structure or wires and cables in the backyard. As I said in a previous post, neighbors don't want to see that stuff, or have it fall on their property. And the HOA generally decides on that premise.
In all three of my communities, I've tried your suggestion, and amicably applied for "logical and gentlemanly" permission to erect a (in my opinion) nondescript vertical or dipole in the backyard, only to be denied each time. One being a nasty "CEASE and DESIST" order...before I even put it up! I'm sorry, but sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.
Now understand, I fully knew the CC&R restrictions before I bought, but large antennas are not my priority in life. I happen to love where I now live, don't have a problem with all the other CC&R regulations, and I abide by them. Using stealth attic dipoles and non-visible outside ground and fence-mounted motorized screwdriver antennas, I'm able to enjoy my hobby, and the HOA and neighbors have no clue. If I'm "caught" (and it's been 19 years), I'll deal with it at such time. They issue a warning first, and you're not fined or taken to court unless you don't remedy the violation within their specified amount of time.
As far as abiding by the site manager's rules, I'm not telling people to avoid HOA communities per se. There's nothing wrong with living in one. But, again, if visible antennas are your priority, I'd advise you to look elsewhere. An HOA is powerless to grant CC&R waivers if you don't live there. Once you sign on the dotted line, you take a chance with antenna approval.
Just one person's experience.
Bob K7JQ
-
W1BR,
With all due respect, I'm sure your intentions are noble, but I believe you're a little naive in your thinking. Do you now or have you ever lived in such a community? Signing a contract (blah, blah, blah) is *not* "just plain ignorant and argumentative". You are subject to sanctions and legal remedies if you break the rules. Yes, if the language of a CC&R states something like.. "[subject] is prohibited,unless approved by the Architectural Committe", there is an avenue to plead your case for approval. And yes, there's a *possibility* that you could gain approval from an understanding and liberal HOA committee. But I'd be willing to bet that such a possibility is in the overwhelming minority. Achieving approval for putting decorative stone facing on the front of your house, or beautiful landscaping, is quite different from erecting a visible ugly metal structure or wires and cables in the backyard. As I said in a previous post, neighbors don't want to see that stuff, or have it fall on their property. And the HOA generally decides on that premise.
In all three of my communities, I've tried your suggestion, and amicably applied for "logical and gentlemanly" permission to erect a (in my opinion) nondescript vertical or dipole in the backyard, only to be denied each time. One being a nasty "CEASE and DESIST" order...before I even put it up! I'm sorry, but sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.
Now understand, I fully knew the CC&R restrictions before I bought, but large antennas are not my priority in life. I happen to love where I now live, don't have a problem with all the other CC&R regulations, and I abide by them. Using stealth attic dipoles and non-visible outside ground and fence-mounted motorized screwdriver antennas, I'm able to enjoy my hobby, and the HOA and neighbors have no clue. If I'm "caught" (and it's been 19 years), I'll deal with it at such time. They issue a warning first, and you're not fined or taken to court unless you don't remedy the violation within their specified amount of time.
As far as abiding by the site manager's rules, I'm not telling people to avoid HOA communities per se. There's nothing wrong with living in one. But, again, if visible antennas are your priority, I'd advise you to look elsewhere. An HOA is powerless to grant CC&R waivers if you don't live there. Once you sign on the dotted line, you take a chance with antenna approval.
Just one person's experience.
Bob K7JQ
Bob, sorry for your bad experiences. But I will note that K1VSK has posted numerous times that it is
possible to ask for permission and receive it. Perhaps he will care to expain his past statements?
Pete
-
Pete,
There are always possibilities and exceptions (I expressed that), and I don't doubt K1VSK's examples. I don't have hard evidence as he always espouses, and I'm just going by my experiences here in the Phoenix, AZ area. Maybe they're different in Florida. But I believe overall it's MUCH more difficult to obtain antenna approval than the other way around. Remember, the CC&R restriction is already in place, and agreed to at home purchase. It's much easier for an Architectural Committee to deny one ham operator, rather than deal with the objections of many of his surrounding neighbors complaining about the eyesore.
So far, all ARRL attempts at legislation have failed. Maybe providing written and illustrated material for hams to plead their case to the HOA might help in some instances. But I can understand the reasons why the proposal was voted down.
Always interesting to get various opinions.
73, Bob K7JQ
-
I think telling hams to go stealth is evading the contract and breaking that covenant.
Perhaps you should read what the site owner says this web site was put here for. The site owner promotes breaking contracts and rules.
If everyone had avoided HOAs and other restrictive situations, this forum wouldn't exist.
https://www.eham.net/community/smf/index.php/topic,98199.0.html
Read it for yourself.
-
Bob, sorry for your bad experiences. But I will note that K1VSK has posted numerous times that it is
possible to ask for permission and receive it. Perhaps he will care to expain his past statements?
Pete
Not sure I know what you want me to explain.
By way of one example, there are 70+ hams in our HOA (population 24,000). The Architectural Committee has received only a few requests for antennas in the 11 years we have lived here - all were approved with one exception - a 60 ft tower. That ham subsequent to the tower denial sought and received approval for a 35 ft mast and Hexbeam. I and his neighbors helped build and erect it. And this is an HOA which has a CC&R antenna prohibition.
Obviously, not all people have similar experiences, however, it does clearly show the issue isn’t pervasive, that CC&Rs are not irrevocable and that there is a need to better define if and how pervasive the problem ARRL seeks to solve really is.
-
So far, all ARRL attempts at legislation have failed. Maybe providing written and illustrated material for hams to plead their case to the HOA might help in some instances. But I can understand the reasons why the proposal was voted down.
Always interesting to get various opinions.
73, Bob K7JQ
The attempt to lobby congress was really the only shot there was to universally help Hams in HOA situations.
Now that it was tried and failed, it's time to stop squandering ARRL member funds on a very small percentage of Hams. The ARRL is not a legal aid society! The solution is a local negotiation on a case by case basis by those individuals who seek a variance, period. I don't think it's appropriate to for the ARRL to take up the mantle to overturn the contractual obligations of it's members.
-
Obviously, not all people have similar experiences, however, it does clearly show the issue isn’t pervasive, that CC&Rs are not irrevocable and that there is a need to better define if and how pervasive the problem ARRL seeks to solve really is.
Don K1VSK,
Based on the existence of perhaps tens of thousands of HOA's around the Country, I don't see how the ARRL can possibly research and define how pervasive the problem really is. But the mere fact that boilerplate CC&R's contain ham radio antenna restrictions indicates a need for a ham to address the issue before he/she buys a house. There's no way to know how relaxed individual HOA's are in enforcing the regulations or issuing approvals. But with the restrictions legally enforceable, an Architectural Committee can do whatever it wants, without recourse. I don't think anything the ARRL does is going to make any difference, based on their years of failures to obtain legislation.
Basically, a ham living in an HOA community has two ways to go...1- Ask for permission. 2- Put something up without permission and hope for the best. Strictly the individual's choice.
Bob K7JQ
-
Based on the existence of perhaps tens of thousands of HOA's around the Country, I don't see how the ARRL can possibly research and define how pervasive the problem really is.
Bob K7JQ
I don't agree Bob.
They routinely survey members about who operates VHF, how many plan to participate in some contest, how much money we spend annually on the hobby, how many plan to buy a new rig next year, etc... yet never ask the obvious question.
They routinely solicit for contributions to the fund du jour yet cant ask us what we think (about anything). It can't come as an ephipany to the ARRL that maybe they should ask how many live in an HOA or how many HOA residents are constrained by rules by a sampling poll easily extrapolated into real numbers.
Clearly, they can devise a simple inexpensive way to solicit opinions if they wanted to. It certainly appears they don't want those answers as it may not fit the narrative they project.
-
Based on the existence of perhaps tens of thousands of HOA's around the Country, I don't see how the ARRL can possibly research and define how pervasive the problem really is.
Bob K7JQ
I don't agree Bob.
They routinely survey members about who operates VHF, how many plan to participate in some contest, how much money we spend annually on the hobby, how many plan to buy a new rig next year, etc... yet never ask the obvious question.
They routinely solicit for contributions to the fund du jour yet cant ask us what we think (about anything). It can't come as an ephipany to the ARRL that maybe they should ask how many live in an HOA or how many HOA residents are constrained by rules by a sampling poll easily extrapolated into real numbers.
Clearly, they can devise a simple inexpensive way to solicit opinions if they wanted to. It certainly appears they don't want those answers as it may not fit the narrative they project.
Well, Don, on this topic we'll have to agree to disagree ;). Neither one of us can say for sure how pervasive it is. Granted, I get snail mail solicitations from the ARRL for contributions, and they could include a survey like "Who lives in an HOA and is severely affected or denied antennas by CC&R restrictions?". But (I researched) there are 776,440 hams in the US, and ARRL membership is 161,000.
How many would answer such a survey? How many, seeing it's a request for donations, don't even open the envelope, and throw it in the trash? Could you *really* extrapolate meaningful numbers from the responses (how accurate have political sample polls been recently)? How many hams are actually active and care about restrictions? At what number would you consider "pervasive"?
The ARRL must have some kind of handle on numbers and deem it a significant problem. Restrictions prevent a ham from operating. Not operating, they lose interest. Losing interest, they don't belong to the ARRL. Dwindling membership affects their existence. So they do have a dog in the fight.
I think you'd be surprised at the numbers if a meaningful poll existed. But of course it's just my opinion, different from yours.
73 and stay safe, Bob K7JQ
-
But (I researched) there are 776,440 hams in the US, and ARRL membership is 161,000.
There lies the crux of the issue. Even if every licensed hams were an ARRL member, would not amount to anything politically. Not enough members or money to pay the rent in WDC office to lobby congress. Let alone a good lawyer. ARRL cannot afford to buy any politicians and HOA's don't want clothes lines strung through trees.
-
But (I researched) there are 776,440 hams in the US, and ARRL membership is 161,000.
There lies the crux of the issue. Even if every licensed hams were an ARRL member, would not amount to anything politically. Not enough members or money to pay the rent in WDC office to lobby congress. Let alone a good lawyer. ARRL cannot afford to buy any politicians and HOA's don't want clothes lines strung through trees.
Tough luck on the clotheslines... https://www.google.com/url?q=https://communityassociations.net/florida-homeowners-clothesline/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwilyqHD_pLvAhW1GVkFHUFaA3sQFjAKegQIDRAB&usg=AOvVaw2utFVNcvuL7NbWhKWNcM78
-
Tough luck on the clotheslines... https://www.google.com/url?q=https://communityassociations.net/florida-homeowners-clothesline/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwilyqHD_pLvAhW1GVkFHUFaA3sQFjAKegQIDRAB&usg=AOvVaw2utFVNcvuL7NbWhKWNcM78
Doh! You got me there. At least clotheslines serves a purpose and saves energy. Try to explain your clothesline up 30-feet :P
-
How many would answer such a survey? How many, seeing it's a request for donations, don't even open the envelope, and throw it in the trash? Could you *really* extrapolate meaningful numbers from the responses (how accurate have political sample polls been recently)? How many hams are actually active and care about restrictions? At what number would you consider "pervasive"?
Not a snail mail poll which would be both expensive and largely ignored but rather something similar to the silly on-line polls they routinely put in QST which reaches all members and generates large response numbers according to their data. Cheap, easy, not labor intensive and quick for all involved to both respond and tabulate. There is no rational reason for not doing so.
Even if they receive a small response, that too is indicative of the ambivalence to the issue. But they don't even try which implies they don't want an answer.
It serves no purpose debating it here but the simple fact the ARRL hasn't exerted any effort to identify the magnitude of this "problem" is telling.
-
How many would answer such a survey? How many, seeing it's a request for donations, don't even open the envelope, and throw it in the trash? Could you *really* extrapolate meaningful numbers from the responses (how accurate have political sample polls been recently)? How many hams are actually active and care about restrictions? At what number would you consider "pervasive"?
Not a snail mail poll which would be both expensive and largely ignored but rather something similar to the silly on-line polls they routinely put in QST which reaches all members and generates large response numbers according to their data. Cheap, easy, not labor intensive and quick for all involved to both respond and tabulate. There is no rational reason for not doing so.
Even if they receive a small response, that too is indicative of the ambivalence to the issue. But they don't even try which implies they don't want an answer.
It serves no purpose debating it here but the simple fact the ARRL hasn't exerted any effort to identify the magnitude of this "problem" is telling.
But even then, the sample rate would be too small just based on ARRL membership. The survey, to have any meaning, would have to be given to ALL OPs in the country covering a much larger and diverse group of people.
Also, what about OPs that don't use the internet. Are they automatically disqualified?
And how do you round up 500k+ email addresses from non members? Or do you automatically disqualify them too?
If it is so easy to do, why don't you do it?
-
How many would answer such a survey? How many, seeing it's a request for donations, don't even open the envelope, and throw it in the trash? Could you *really* extrapolate meaningful numbers from the responses (how accurate have political sample polls been recently)? How many hams are actually active and care about restrictions? At what number would you consider "pervasive"?
Not a snail mail poll which would be both expensive and largely ignored but rather something similar to the silly on-line polls they routinely put in QST which reaches all members and generates large response numbers according to their data. Cheap, easy, not labor intensive and quick for all involved to both respond and tabulate. There is no rational reason for not doing so.
Even if they receive a small response, that too is indicative of the ambivalence to the issue. But they don't even try which implies they don't want an answer.
It serves no purpose debating it here but the simple fact the ARRL hasn't exerted any effort to identify the magnitude of this "problem" is telling.
But even then, the sample rate would be too small just based on ARRL membership. The survey, to have any meaning, would have to be given to ALL OPs in the country covering a much larger and diverse group of people.
Also, what about OPs that don't use the internet. Are they automatically disqualified?
And how do you round up 500k+ email addresses from non members? Or do you automatically disqualify them too?
If it is so easy to do, why don't you do it?
Because I am not the organization which claims to represent all hams. Not to mention HOA antenna limits aren’t my issue.
The ARRL did polling when developing the band plan and also when soliciting comments on other policy issues in the past so implying it is impractical or invalid is silly. And they continue to do so EVERY MONTH in QST on far more trivial things with, as I already said, sufficient data points on which they base judgments so your points are more excuses than reasons.
Parenthetically, if some folks can’t afford a computer and high speed connection, they certainly can’t afford this hobby. Another silly excuse.
-
Because I am not the organization which claims to represent all hams. Not to mention HOA antenna limits aren’t my issue.
The ARRL did polling when developing the band plan and also when soliciting comments on other policy issues in the past so implying it is impractical or invalid is silly. And they continue to do so EVERY MONTH in QST on far more trivial things with, as I already said, sufficient data points on which they base judgments so your points are more excuses than reasons.
Parenthetically, if some folks can’t afford a computer and high speed connection, they certainly can’t afford this hobby. Another silly excuse.
If your not involved, why are you involved here?
You failed to show how to make up for the non-ARRL OPs.
Some choose not to be online. Has nothing to do with price or affordability. Although I could understand the comment from someone with larger than median incomes.
Your comments do not fit the narrative here. Care to answer the questions this time?
-
If your not involved, why are you involved here?
Because I live in an HOA. You?????
You failed to show how to make up for the non-ARRL OPs.
Ask the ARRL. I don't have to. The ARRL is trying to intercede in all HOAs when they don't want to bother asking those most affected, the vast majority of whom are not members.
The ARRL didn't "drop the ball" here. They never had it, found it, don't know what color it is, shape, size or anything else about the"ball" and it's likely no "ball" even exists as virtually no one has been looking for it.
-
If your not involved, why are you involved here?
Because I live in an HOA. You?????
You failed to show how to make up for the non-ARRL OPs.
Ask the ARRL. I don't have to. The ARRL is trying to intercede in all HOAs when they don't want to bother asking those most affected, the vast majority of whom are not members.
The ARRL didn't "drop the ball" here. They never had it, found it, don't know what color it is, shape, size or anything else about the"ball" and it's likely no "ball" even exists as virtually no one has been looking for it.
But you advocated an ARRL survey. So I asked the question of what to do with non members? And then you say their opinion doesn't count because the ARRL doesn't ask them?
-
73sss, Wee Stanley
Some culture needs to be cancelled:
"If your not involved, why are you involved here?"
It is "you're", not "your", young Stanley.
-
73sss, Wee Stanley
Some culture needs to be cancelled:
"If your not involved, why are you involved here?"
It is "you're", not "your", young Stanley.
So?
-
If your not involved, why are you involved here?
Because I live in an HOA. You?????
You failed to show how to make up for the non-ARRL OPs.
Ask the ARRL. I don't have to. The ARRL is trying to intercede in all HOAs when they don't want to bother asking those most affected, the vast majority of whom are not members.
The ARRL didn't "drop the ball" here. They never had it, found it, don't know what color it is, shape, size or anything else about the"ball" and it's likely no "ball" even exists as virtually no one has been looking for it.
But you advocated an ARRL survey. So I asked the question of what to do with non members? And then you say their opinion doesn't count because the ARRL doesn't ask them?
No - I said the ARRL doesn’t count their opinions. You might ask the ARRL why....but you won’t.
So again, do you live in an HOA with antenna limits?
-
Your comments do not fit the narrative here.
Not sure you realize that you seem to always take differing opinions personally as though you are threatened by them. Try focusing on the message, not the messenger.
Your opinion is simply that - it invalidates or contradicts nothing I wrote.
-
Your comments do not fit the narrative here.
Not sure you realize that you seem to always take differing opinions personally as though you are threatened by them. Try focusing on the message, not the messenger.
Your opinion is simply that - it invalidates or contradicts nothing I wrote.
Having lived in 4 HOA communities in all parts of the country...Yes there both the good and bad, you are lucky that you live in a good. All you have to do is look at youtube to get a sense of the bad ones. In one I lived in they tried to ban a US Government issued car because it had US Gov plates. The well known busy body President claimed it violated the ban on commercial vehicles. It took a letter from an Asst US Attorney to solve the issue.
I have a suggestion...Why don't you offer to help other hams to solve issues or offer suggestions on how to work with the HOA's to allow reasonable antennas. I am sure a lot of hams would love the assistance. As a P.E. I will always try to assist any hams in my area with any issues regarding any engineering/zoning issues.
Gary W1MOW
-
+1 Gary
- Glenn W9IQ
-
s a P.E. I will always try to assist any hams in my area with any issues regarding any engineering/zoning issues.
Gary W1MOW
Garyyou just made a huge mistake admitting you are a PE on this site. You just lost all credibility. ;D There are no rules of laws of physics in ham radio, just ask Carl.
-
Your comments do not fit the narrative here.
Not sure you realize that you seem to always take differing opinions personally as though you are threatened by them. Try focusing on the message, not the messenger.
Your opinion is simply that - it invalidates or contradicts nothing I wrote.
Actually I did. You just picked 1 line and ignored the rest. Oh well. That's what happens when you question self proclaimed experts.
-
Your comments do not fit the narrative here.
Not sure you realize that you seem to always take differing opinions personally as though you are threatened by them. Try focusing on the message, not the messenger.
Your opinion is simply that - it invalidates or contradicts nothing I wrote.
Actually I did. You just picked 1 line and ignored the rest. Oh well. That's what happens when you question self proclaimed experts.
there you go again but thanks for proving my point.
-
.
I have a suggestion...Why don't you offer to help other hams to solve issues or offer suggestions on how to work with the HOA's to allow reasonable antennas. I am sure a lot of hams would love the assistance. As a P.E. I will always try to assist any hams in my area with any issues regarding any engineering/zoning issues.
Gary W1MOW
I kind of did. When we moved here 11 years ago, antennas were prohibited. I joined the local CERT which coincidentally included non-hams on the various Boards here and convinced them we needed some infrastructure to augment the CERT communications infrastructure with the collateral benefit of promoting ham radio and then wrote rules allowing antennas within the aesthetic concerns of the HOA.
The only problem seems to be the intractable and arguably uninformed opinions of those who don’t live in an HOA but seem to frequent eHam.com.
Regarding complaints about HOAs in general, people tend to post YouTube rants about only complaints which colors the broader picture and easily convinced those non- critical thinkers the issue is bigger than it might actually be. Unfortunately, theARRL hasn’t and likely isn’t and will never be interested in an objective assessment.
-
[quote author=K1VSK link=topic=132831.msg1219101#msg1219101
.
I kind of did. When we moved here 11 years ago, antennas were prohibited. I joined the local CERT which coincidentally included non-hams on the various Boards here and convinced them we needed some infrastructure to augment the CERT communications infrastructure with the collateral benefit of promoting ham radio and then wrote rules allowing antennas within the aesthetic concerns of the HOA.
[/quote]
Good move! Quite a valid argument when living on the gulf coast of Florida (hurricane and flood alley). But you have to take into consideration the part of the Country in which you live. I question whether that course of action would fly in southern Arizona. A very slim chance of devastating hurricanes, wildfires, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. in the major metropolitan areas where the overwhelming majority of HOA communities are located. We do get isolated monsoon thunderstorms during the summer that could be somewhat fierce for a half hour or so. But that's about it. Emergency response and advanced communications are quite capably handled by the local police and fire departments. HOA antenna denials are basically a question of aesthetics (lots of desert scenery and mountains) and safety.
But yes, an approach such as yours could work ( and obviously has) in vulnerable disaster prone parts of the Country.
Bob K7JQ
-
But yes, an approach such as yours could work ( and obviously has) in vulnerable disaster prone parts of the Country.
Bob K7JQ
My example wasn’t intended as a suggestion or model and the CERT connections with Board members was merely coincidental. If there is any lesson to be learned from my scenario, it is to make the best of whatever situation presents itself.
-
Your comments do not fit the narrative here.
Not sure you realize that you seem to always take differing opinions personally as though you are threatened by them. Try focusing on the message, not the messenger.
Your opinion is simply that - it invalidates or contradicts nothing I wrote.
Actually I did. You just picked 1 line and ignored the rest. Oh well. That's what happens when you question self proclaimed experts.
there you go again but thanks for proving my point.
Anytime.
-
But yes, an approach such as yours could work ( and obviously has) in vulnerable disaster prone parts of the Country.
Bob K7JQ
My example wasn’t intended as a suggestion or model and the CERT connections with Board members was merely coincidental. If there is any lesson to be learned from my scenario, it is to make the best of whatever situation presents itself.
My thought was there are probably a lot of people here on eHam who could use your experience and help with dealing with HOA's. Maybe you could help and guide them in their quest. With your help many more hams can successfully operate from HOA communities.
Gary W1MOW
-
s a P.E. I will always try to assist any hams in my area with any issues regarding any engineering/zoning issues.
Gary W1MOW
Gary you just made a huge mistake admitting you are a PE on this site. You just lost all credibility. ;D There are no rules of laws of physics in ham radio, just ask Carl.
I've admitted it before, and suffered the wrath of Carl. When dealing with him I remember a statement made by one of my college professor's back in the day..."A truly intelligent person realizes he does not know all the answers, and is always willing to learn. An ignorant person is one who thinks he knows all the answers, and needs to prove to the world how smart he is, and is unwilling to listen to others who may disagree with him."
Carl is just a curmudgeon, and wears it as a badge of honor.
Gary W1MOW
-
But yes, an approach such as yours could work ( and obviously has) in vulnerable disaster prone parts of the Country.
Bob K7JQ
My example wasn’t intended as a suggestion or model and the CERT connections with Board members was merely coincidental. If there is any lesson to be learned from my scenario, it is to make the best of whatever situation presents itself.
My thought was there are probably a lot of people here on eHam who could use your experience and help with dealing with HOA's. Maybe you could help and guide them in their quest. With your help many more hams can successfully operate from HOA communities.
Gary W1MOW
Not sure I would have anything to offer if someone asked, however, it’s interesting to note that among all the threads about this topic, I don’t recall even one person ever asking for help from anyone. Begs the question - why?
-
But yes, an approach such as yours could work ( and obviously has) in vulnerable disaster prone parts of the Country.
Bob K7JQ
My example wasn’t intended as a suggestion or model and the CERT connections with Board members was merely coincidental. If there is any lesson to be learned from my scenario, it is to make the best of whatever situation presents itself.
My thought was there are probably a lot of people here on eHam who could use your experience and help with dealing with HOA's. Maybe you could help and guide them in their quest. With your help many more hams can successfully operate from HOA communities.
Gary W1MOW
I think suggestions on how to deal with an HOA and CC&R antenna restrictions have been made, discussed, and debated on this forum ad nauseum (I like that phrase) in the past. Some examples:
1. Emergency communications in times of disaster.
2. OTARD law for TV reception...why not ham antennas?
3. I'll keep my antennas out of sight.
4. I'm legally licensed by the FCC to operate.
5. My neighbors don't care, and I have their permission.
6. Become president of the HOA.
7. Join the Architectural Committee.
8. A power point presentation at an HOA meeting.
9. Aww, c'mon guys...let me enjoy my hobby ;D.
10. Ignore the HOA, and erect a stealth antenna...see what happens ::).
I'm sure you can conjure up some other suggestions besides my tongue-
in-cheek ones. But the fact remains that CC&R's are legally enforceable
rules, and the HOA can do whatever they want. It's up to the individual
to do what they feel is best in their unique situation.
Bob K7JQ
-
1. Emergency communications in times of disaster.
That will get a lot of laughs.
10. Ignore the HOA, and erect a stealth antenna...see what happens ::).
Spoken like a ham. Do not need no stinking rules.
-
1. Emergency communications in times of disaster.
That will get a lot of laughs.
It worked for K1VSK.
-
Why do you think people move into HOA's for?
Whole bunch of reasons. A short list:
- School district
- Price
- Location
- Community amenities
- Lack of reasonable alternatives
- Spousal pressure
- Fear
(there are more, those are just the reasons that come to mind)
Here's the BIG problem:
There are a considerable number of hams who live in HOAs/CCR-restricted homes who weren't hams when they moved there. Outdoor antennas weren't a consideration for them when they were house-hunting - but that's changed. Simply saying "MOVE!!" isn't always or even usually helpful.
There's also the situation where a child in an HOA family develops an interest in Amateur Radio. Does the whole family pack up and move so Son or Daughter can have an antenna?
Some HOA boards are reasonable. Some aren't. Some HOA rules allow exceptions, some don't. I have seen too many HOA horror stories, though.
---
As for "the ARRL", they've got two major problems in situations like this:
1) It is better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. From what I have read, the proposal that was voted down was the wrong thing.
2) No matter what "the ARRL" does, there will be many who won't like it and will be vocal about not liking it.
There are a considerable number of amateurs who think that "the ARRL" should NOT be involved in this issue. Their position is "you voluntarily signed a contract to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, MOVE."
There are a considerable number of amateurs who think that "the ARRL" should be involved in this issue. Their position is "the rules are arbitrary and unreasonable. The no-antennas rule was set aside for TV antennas, why not for other antennas?" They also see no-antennas rules as a real threat to Amateur Radio as such rules become more and more prevalent in new home construction.
No matter what "The ARRL" does, they can't please both of the above groups.
This problem isn't new; ARRL has faced it since the beginning. Here's an example from history:
From the beginning of Amateur Radio until the early 1930s, the only voice mode amateurs used was AM. AM is a great mode, but it takes up a lot of spectrum, and the HF 'phone subbands were often a maze of heterodynes and QRM with a relatively few AM stations battling to be heard.
In the 1930s a handful of amateurs experimented with SSB, but the cost and complexity were far beyond what most amateurs could do. Then came WW2, and US amateur radio went silent for almost 4 years.
After V-J day, American amateurs got back on the air with a vengeance. The Great Depression was over, the war was over, WW2 surplus was inexpensive and plentiful. Many GIs who had learned Radio in the military became hams.
And the HF 'phone subbands were more crowded than ever.
Interest in SSB by amateurs revived too - but with some big differences. The phasing method of SSB generation, known for decades, became practical because of a 1946 Electronics article showing how to design the audio phase shift network needed for it. Surplus parts and advances in electronics made it much less expensive and easier to build an amateur SSB transmitter. Most of all, those interested in SSB wrote both theoretical (how SSB works and why it's better) and practical (build it!) articles for various magazines.
"The ARRL" decided to promote SSB. Besides the articles, there was a feature in QST almost every month called "On The Air With Single Sideband". The Handbook got an SSB chapter, and soon a compilation book "Single Sideband For The Radio Amateur" was published.
The ARRL leadership of those times felt they had to promote SSB. Amateur Radio was supposed to be "technically progressive", and SSB was already in use on HF with great success by commercial users, as well as being considered by the US military. And a lot of hams were interested.
But a lot of hams didn't like it at all. They complained that "ARRL is shoving SSB down our throats". They didn't want to sound like Donald Duck, didn't want a mode that required lots of complex circuits with lots of fussy adjustments, and didn't want to see their prized AM setups become worthless and unwanted. If the 'phone subbands were too crowded, they said, ARRL should get FCC to widen them!
That's just one example. On almost any issue, the same thing happens.
-
1. Emergency communications in times of disaster.
That will get a lot of laughs.
It worked for K1VSK.
Actually, i would agree that emergency communications was irrelevant to my situation.
Don’t know if I wasn’t clear or somehow implied that but emergency communications played no part other than my association with some Board members who happened to be involved with the CERT.
We did discuss if having HF antennas could somehow support the CERT communications infrastructure but dismissed that as a justification based on the fact my 10- 20M antenna isn’t very useful for local comms compared with VHH/UHF which they use.
The rules we adopted here for antennas specifically excluded more than one so actually, I cannot have a VHF antenna with my present one.
So, I would agree that emergency/disaster communications isn’t a valid basis to influence decisions.
If anything, the issue turned on a level of mutual respect and a sense I wasn’t trying to “get away with something” like a stealth antenna.
-
I am sure some folks want to raise cattle or have a gun range in the back yard.
I don't want to raise cattle (anymore) I had my fill of that as a youngster,, but that gun range has some real appeal. Provided we could build a high enough backstop. :)
-
My initial impression: It was voted down because even they realized they were beating a dead horse?
HOA's were created for the sole purpose of maintaining property values. This is the over-riding trump card on any decision about pushing the limits of the letter of the law, as written in CC&Rs.
Deed restrictions have been pretty much settled law since the early 80s. If there's a "no antenna" clause in your CC&Rs, the only thing case law has settled for you is that you can ignore it and put up an antenna less than one meter in diameter designed to receive direct broadcast services. No one cares about it any more, except those who sign the contract and then disagree with what they signed after signing it.
OTARD and PRB-1 have settled this matter. This horse is dead.
Either do your homework, figure out the character/priorities/mood/dynamics of your current HOA board and turn on the charm at your meetings and get them to understand and agree with what you wish to do, or drop it. Or try a hidden antenna and hope you don't get caught. That's all you can do. There's already an overwhelming amount of information you can use and modify/tailor to present as your case to the HOA board available with quick internet searches. No need for the ARRL to throw more money at producing duplicate stuff.
Besides, Washington DC is now currently overwhelmed and racing to try to solve the problems of several short-term thinkers and non-thinkers who aren't capable of thinking in a "cause and effect" way. History be damned, full speed ahead! It's not worth any of their effort to try to usurp state and local law to cater to, at most, a couple hundred thousand voter hams.
I live in an HOA and I'm following the rules I agreed to when I signed the contract. It was the last thing I checked before I made an offer. I remember hearing my buying realtor call the selling realtor and saying, "He just needs to review the CC&Rs and he'll be ready to make an offer." And the selling realtor asking, "Why does he need to see those?" Why can't every one else do this? For those who bought into an HOA and *then* became hams, what the heck to expect me to do for you?
Besides, ham radio is going to be pushed way further down the list of concerns/priorities for many people in the very near future so this section of the ARRL minutes is a non-issue.
-
Besides, ham radio is going to be pushed way further down the list of concerns/priorities for many people in the very near future so this section of the ARRL minutes is a non-issue.
-
Either do your homework, figure out the character/priorities/mood/dynamics of your current HOA board and turn on the charm at your meetings and get them to understand and agree with what you wish to do, or drop it. Or try a hidden antenna and hope you don't get caught. That's all you can do.
Based on my experiences, I agree with this. But the problem still exists if you're looking to buy, and a house you like is in a HOA with CC&R antenna restrictions, be VERY careful. A HOA can't render a decision to waive any restrictions BEFORE you buy. Don't listen to your realtor if he/she says..."Oh, don't worry about it. You don't have to read the CC&R's". Or if the model home sales agent says antennas will be OK, even if he/she offers to put it in writing in the sales agreement. They're just trying to make a sale. Once you sign on the dotted line, the HOA can claim that the agents didn't have the authorization to issue any such waivers. All kinds of legal ramifications can leave you SOL.
Bob K7JQ
-
Based on my experiences, I agree with this. But the problem still exists if you're looking to buy, and a house you like is in a HOA with CC&R antenna restrictions, be VERY careful. A HOA can't render a decision to waive any restrictions BEFORE you buy. Don't listen to your realtor if he/she says..."Oh, don't worry about it. You don't have to read the CC&R's". Or if the model home sales agent says antennas will be OK, even if he/she offers to put it in writing in the sales agreement. They're just trying to make a sale. Once you sign on the dotted line, the HOA can claim that the agents didn't have the authorization to issue any such waivers. All kinds of legal ramifications can leave you SOL.
Bob K7JQ
All good advice.
You got me thinking - how difficult is it to review CC&Rs while contemplating home purchase?
A quick look at a bunch of HOAs in my area as well as some large ones in Arizona, Georgia and elsewhere in Florida appear to have their CC&Rs readily available on their internet site.
Unless we’re referring to the narrow scope of only those who decide post purchase to enter the hobby, it seems to me it should not be any surprise to buyers what is contained therein on which to make the appropriate buying decision.
If it’s correct that HOAs generally do disclose CC&Rs in this manner, it becomes a simple decision of priorities. In that sense, to put it in terms of the title of this thread, “who dropped the ball”?
-
All good advice.
You got me thinking - how difficult is it to review CC&Rs while contemplating home purchase?
A quick look at a bunch of HOAs in my area as well as some large ones in Arizona, Georgia and elsewhere in Florida appear to have their CC&Rs readily available on their internet site.
Unless we’re referring to the narrow scope of only those who decide post purchase to enter the hobby, it seems to me it should not be any surprise to buyers what is contained therein on which to make the appropriate buying decision.
If it’s correct that HOAs generally do disclose CC&Rs in this manner, it becomes a simple decision of priorities. In that sense, to put it in terms of the title of this thread, “who dropped the ball”?
It's not difficult at all to obtain the CC&R's of a prospective home purchase, whether available on the internet or a paper packet. A competent realtor, not just interested in making their commission, should always advise (actually insist) their client to read the CC&R's carefully, whether being a ham or not. So should a sales person at a new community model home center, if the buyer is not represented by a realtor. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.
You're always given a copy of the CC&R's with the final signing documents. If you haven't already read them in advance, then you better read them before signing. Unfortunately, you're usually so excited about your new home, and there's such a mountain of paperwork in front of you, this step can be missed. Then it's "oops!" when you go to erect an antenna.
With the exception of a person that becomes a ham after purchase, the only one who "dropped the ball" is the clueless home buyer. Then they come on these forums and complain they can't have antennas ::).
Bob K7JQ
-
One of my son's is looking to buy a newer house in Southern New Hampshire. Having grown up in a family with law enforcement and legal ties, (I am a retired USAF OSI SAC, my wife is a retired USAF JAG Lawyer.) he watches for any legal issues. They are finding it very hard to find any newer construction that does not have HOA restrictions. When he asks about CCR's he is almost always told we'll go over them at close, or the agent does not have a copy on them at this time, or some other excuse. Only 2 agents actually had them available to read. One CCR actually said that children were the main problem in any HOA community, and had extensive rules regarding families with children.
In the 4 HOA's that we lived in, we never had a problem looking at, or getting a copy of the CCR's when looking at houses. Is this a new thing, not having copies for buyers to review before closing?
Gary W1MOW
-
You're always given a copy of the CC&R's with the final signing documents. If you haven't already read them in advance, then you better read them before signing. Unfortunately, you're usually so excited about your new home, and there's such a mountain of paperwork in front of you, this step can be missed.
My procedure is to ask for all pertinent documents prior to making an offer- this generally motivates the selling agent. If the market is competitive and an offer must be made without delay, then I would put a clause in the offer that makes it subject to CC&Rs suitable to the purchaser's interests. But then you must act quickly to remove this restriction so as to avoid losing out to an offer made without such restriction.
Never rely on website versions of CC&Rs and other legal documents. They do not have legal standing compared to what you will "agree" to at the time of closing.
In any case, you should insist on full, advance copies of all documents that will be presented at the closing. If these documents are not available a couple of days prior to closing, someone is not doing their job properly which in itself should be a red flag. I regularly catch scrivener's errors that would not easily be detected during the typically rushed signing process.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
. Is this a new thing, not having copies for buyers to review before closing?
Gary W1MOW
A lot of closings, particularly now, are done on the computer rather than the traditional way of meeting at a bank or law office. Our daughter and son-in-law recently purchased a home nearby and not one piece of paper or pen was in sight and they ‘signed’ everything from their home. The ‘official’ legal CC&R documents were included as a read attachment to the closing transfer.
Also, CC&Rs can be voluminous- ours is 80 pages - which makes it silly to think any buyer will thoroughly read it during the transaction. All of this consternation we read here is self-inflicted as anyone doing their due diligence should easily anticipate the need to understand what they are buying and act responsibly to ensure no surprises. And if someone doesn’t like what they read, options exist.
And as has been pointed out, exceptions, grants and waivers from CC&Rs can frequently be had.
-
Never rely on website versions of CC&Rs and other legal documents. They do not have legal standing compared to what you will "agree" to at the time of closing.
- Glenn W9IQ
Are you sure of that? I would *think* (I could be wrong) that if the CC&R's of a new home community posted on their "official" website offering homes for sale were changed and different at your closing (assuming the original document was still on the website), you'd have some legal recourse that you were mislead. And also assuming there was no fine print disclaimer that terms could change at time of purchase.
Bob K7JQ
-
And as has been pointed out, exceptions, grants and waivers from CC&Rs can frequently be had.
....But only AFTER you've officially become the homeowner. I don't think you could get a CC&R waiver written into a purchase contract if such exception has to approved by the HOA Architectural Committee.
-
Are you sure of that? I would *think* (I could be wrong) that if the CC&R's of a new home community posted on their "official" website offering homes for sale were changed and different at your closing (assuming the original document was still on the website), you'd have some legal recourse that you were mislead. And also assuming there was no fine print disclaimer that terms could change at time of purchase.
Bob K7JQ
Quite certain, Bob as the official versions will be present at the time of closing and require your endorsement or acknowledgement.
If this is a concern at the time of offer, you should condition your offer that the current CC&Rs are as published on the website as of that date.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
And as has been pointed out, exceptions, grants and waivers from CC&Rs can frequently be had.
....But only AFTER you've officially become the homeowner. I don't think you could get a CC&R waiver written into a purchase contract if such exception has to approved by the HOA Architectural Committee.
Correct. I should have stipulated - subsequent to purchase.
As to the other issue of precedence, the documents I found on line are scanned PDFs, all of a date certain thereby in effect as of that date. About the only jeopardy with depending on accessibility is any change(s) to CC&Rs subsequent to uploading and as we all know, changes to these limitations don’t fall like raindrops.
-
It's not difficult at all to obtain the CC&R's of a prospective home purchase, whether available on the internet or a paper packet. A competent realtor, not just interested in making their commission, should always advise (actually insist) their client to read the CC&R's carefully, whether being a ham or not. So should a sales person at a new community model home center, if the buyer is not represented by a realtor. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.
Depends entirely on the location.
When I was buying my present home, I insistedon seeing the deed restrictions on the property. My RE attorney had to go to the county courthouse and dig them up. About a page and a half, nothing about antennas, but all kinds of fun stuff now covered by zoning. The house was built in 1950
You're always given a copy of the CC&R's with the final signing documents.
I wasn't.
If you haven't already read them in advance, then you better read them before signing. Unfortunately, you're usually so excited about your new home, and there's such a mountain of paperwork in front of you, this step can be missed. Then it's "oops!" when you go to erect an antenna.
If someone waits until closing, they've waited far too long. What are you going to do - walk away?
With the exception of a person that becomes a ham after purchase, the only one who "dropped the ball" is the clueless home buyer. Then they come on these forums and complain they can't have antennas ::).
True - but a LOT of hams today bought their present homes before they became hams.
There's also the "hot market" problem. I saw this in action back in 2004-5.
Back then, I was thinking of moving. Looked at a lot of homes in this general area. Had to stay in the same township for family reasons.
Back then the market was HOT. A house would go on sale at noon, and by 6 pm there were three signed offers, all at or above asking price, no contingencies, no conditions, pre-approved financing. The disclosure documents did NOT reveal CC&Rs.
How is anyone supposed to perform due diligence in such a market? By the time a potential buyer scheduled a home inspector, or looked up the deed restrictions, or even talked it over with their spouse, the house was GONE. SOLD.
In many cases, the houses that were affordable and needed some TLC were bought by developer/renovators who bought them for the land, tore them down and put up a McMansion that sold for top dollar.
-----
Some things to remember about real estate:
1) Most of the people involved don't make any money until there is an actual sale.
2) Most of the people involved buy and sell more real estate in a month than you will in your entire life. They're pros at it, you're not. Combine this with Rule 1 and it's clear who has the upper hand.
3) Most of the people involved have NO idea what amateur radio is, let alone what you mean by "putting up an antenna". If they do have an idea, it's generally completely inaccurate.
4) ALWAYS employ a COMPETENT real estate attorney. Not just any lawyer, but one who specializes in real estate. You may think you know what a particular document says, but your interpretation doesn't mean beans if you're wrong.
5) Explain to both your realtor and your attorney, in writing, what is and is not acceptable in any house you will buy. If either tries to get you to buy something that violates what you wrote, replace them.
6) Insist on seeing any and all documents long before closing - and long before signing anything. There should be NOTHING new at the closing.
-
N2EY,
I agree with most of what you said (aren't you lucky ;D). But a couple of clarifying comments:
*Extensive* CC&R's didn't come into being until around the late 1970's-early 1980's. Nobody, including realtors, really thought about them on a house built in 1950. But if you weren't given a copy, no matter how insignificant they are, you should have been. Who knows...you could have been seriously affected by something enforceable in them. I think it's been implied that our discussions here have been fairly modernized...1980's to the present.
As far as walking away at closing, why not? It's done all the time on other issues in real estate transactions. I know it's painful, but if you're priority is to have a workable ham radio antenna, it'll be more painful if you buy and find out later you can't.
I did clarify my statement about "clueless" home buyers with the "exception of those who become hams after the purchase".
Buying in a "hot market" where there's no time to read documents?...tough timing and bad luck if you're pressed to buy something. Then it's time to assess your priorities...normal living conditions or another agenda, like "must have an antenna". Sometimes you can't have both. But markets like that will usually reach a bubble in a relatively short period of time, and eventually burst.
I agree with your six things to remember, except with #2. It's up to you and your due diligence to insure that YOU have the upper hand. Buying a home is a big decision.
73, Bob K7JQ
-
.
As far as walking away at closing, why not? It's done all the time on other issues in real estate transactions. I know it's painful, but if you're priority is to have a workable ham radio antenna, it'll be more painful if you buy and find out later you can't.
Walking out of a closing is quite common in commercial real estate transactions. There is usually nothing compelling anyone from going through with a purchase and residential real estate is or shouldn’t be any different. If someone is about to be homeless if they don’t complete a purchase immediately, they have “dropped the ball”. There is always another house.
“Not having time” to review CC&Rs is a weak excuse. Especially for anyone who is interested in the affect on lifestyle.
And while most people never heard of ham radio, everyone understands the words “antenna” and “tower” so if someone can’t communicate that effectively with a broker or closing agent, that too is a self-inflicted problem which can’t rationally be explained away.
-
.
As far as walking away at closing, why not? It's done all the time on other issues in real estate transactions. I know it's painful, but if you're priority is to have a workable ham radio antenna, it'll be more painful if you buy and find out later you can't.
Walking out of a closing is quite common in commercial real estate transactions. There is usually nothing compelling anyone from going through with a purchase and residential real estate is or shouldn’t be any different. If someone is about to be homeless if they don’t complete a purchase immediately, they have “dropped the ball”. There is always another house.
“Not having time” to review CC&Rs is a weak excuse. Especially for anyone who is interested in the affect on lifestyle.
And while most people never heard of ham radio, everyone understands the words “antenna” and “tower” so if someone can’t communicate that effectively with a broker or closing agent, that too is a self-inflicted problem which can’t rationally be explained away.
you could have made the offer contingent upon reading and accepting the CC&R .
You really aren't compelled to go through with a bad transaction. I was at closing back when the interest rates were going crazy high. At the table, the bank informed that there was another FED hike so they were going to charge another point and a half on the mortgage. I said NO DEAL. You should have seen the jaws drop! There was a pow wow and I got the mortgage for the original rate.
If you drop your drawers, you'll get what you deserve. :o ::) ;D
-
N2EY,
I agree with most of what you said (aren't you lucky ;D). But a couple of clarifying comments:
*Extensive* CC&R's didn't come into being until around the late 1970's-early 1980's.
True. Point is, they have a long sad history. Their original purpose in many cases was to keep "those people" out of "our nice neighborhoods".
From what I have read, the big reason for no-antennas CC&Rs was cable TV. The developers and cable TV folks worked out a deal: new developments were wired for cable while being built, the houses were advertised as "cable ready", and when homeowners discovered the poor reception they got with "rabbit ears", most of them signed up for cable.
Nobody, including realtors, really thought about them on a house built in 1950.
Where I live, the land had been a farm, and IIRC zoning wasn't in effect then. So most of the deed restrictions were about things that zoning and nuisance ordinances would cover.
One that was of particular interest was the requirement that only a single family home with a sale price of at least $10,000 could be built on the lot. Old timers say that's what these homes sold for back then.
But if you weren't given a copy, no matter how insignificant they are, you should have been. Who knows...you could have been seriously affected by something enforceable in them.
That's why I insistedon seeing them before I signed anything.
I think it's been implied that our discussions here have been fairly modernized...1980's to the present.
True. My point was that CC&Rs aren't new, and that even "old" houses can have them. And even if they are obscure, all it takes is ONE Gladys Kravitz neighbor to make a fuss.
As far as walking away at closing, why not? It's done all the time on other issues in real estate transactions. I know it's painful, but if you're priority is to have a workable ham radio antenna, it'll be more painful if you buy and find out later you can't.
How would that work in real life?
Consider this situation: A married couple with kids needs a bigger house in a good school district. Their existing house is too small and a long commute to their jobs.
They fix up their existing house and put it on the market, and find a new, bigger house in a good school district that has what they need - AND they can afford it. And their old house sells.
They have two closings on the same day - one in the morning for their old house, one in the afternoon on their new house. The day before closing, the movers came and loaded all their stuff into the moving van, to be delivered to the new house the day after closing.
The first closing goes smoothly; their old house is sold. But at the closing on the new house something comes up - how do they just walk away? Where do they live until they find another house?
I did clarify my statement about "clueless" home buyers with the "exception of those who become hams after the purchase".
I wasn't disagreeing. Just pointing out that, unlike when you and I started out, there are many many hams today getting started after becoming homeowners, not when they were teenagers.
Buying in a "hot market" where there's no time to read documents?...tough timing and bad luck if you're pressed to buy something. Then it's time to assess your priorities...normal living conditions or another agenda, like "must have an antenna". Sometimes you can't have both. But markets like that will usually reach a bubble in a relatively short period of time, and eventually burst.
And then what - move again? For many, that's just not practical.
In my case, I stayed where I was and fixed up the house. Still here. The bubble burst in 2008 - four years later.
I agree with your six things to remember, except with #2. It's up to you and your due diligence to insure that YOU have the upper hand. Buying a home is a big decision.
I agree, and I'm going to reword #2.
How about this:
2) Most of the people involved buy and sell more real estate in a month than you will in your entire life. They're pros at it, you're not. Combine this with Rule 1 and it's clear who can control the situation IF you let them. So always remember that YOU are the customer, and insist on what YOU require, and complete explanations and written guarantees.
-
True. Point is, they (CC&R's) have a long sad history. Their original purpose in many cases was to keep "those people" out of "our nice neighborhoods".
From what I have read, the big reason for no-antennas CC&Rs was cable TV. The developers and cable TV folks worked out a deal: new developments were wired for cable while being built, the houses were advertised as "cable ready", and when homeowners discovered the poor reception they got with "rabbit ears", most of them signed up for cable.
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.
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. I believe the main reasons for ham radio antenna restrictions are aesthetics and safety.
True. My point was that CC&Rs aren't new, and that even "old" houses can have them. And even if they are obscure, all it takes is ONE Gladys Kravitz neighbor to make a fuss.
I believe Gladys Kravitz has been modernized to "Karen" ;D.
How would that (walking away) work in real life?
Consider this situation: A married couple with kids needs a bigger house in a good school district. Their existing house is too small and a long commute to their jobs.
They fix up their existing house and put it on the market, and find a new, bigger house in a good school district that has what they need - AND they can afford it. And their old house sells.
They have two closings on the same day - one in the morning for their old house, one in the afternoon on their new house. The day before closing, the movers came and loaded all their stuff into the moving van, to be delivered to the new house the day after closing.
The first closing goes smoothly; their old house is sold. But at the closing on the new house something comes up - how do they just walk away? Where do they live until they find anoher house?
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.
I think that for the overwhelming majority of the population, CC&R's are not a major hurdle in a house buying decision. 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.
Bob K7JQ
-
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" ;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.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 ;).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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"?
-
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.
-
Here is the specific wording:
Station Antenna Devices
•Antennas for AM/FM/HF amateur (HAM) radios or Internet are covered in FCC regulations station antenna structures.
•This regulation is limited to state and local regulations and does not apply to HOAs (Home Owner Associations)
LWR HOA
HAM radio operators are required to obtain prior consent from the Modification Committee prior to installing an outside antenna. Free standing antennas (towers) are not authorized and antennas in common areas are prohibited.
Location of Antennas
•Prohibited in common areas.
•No antenna shall be mounted on the front of a residence or on the front half of either side of a residence.
•Antennas permanently attached or mounted must be well-secured to the residence.
•Antennas should not be visible from the street.
•If the antenna is visible by a neighbor (side or back) the homeowner Installing the antenna should get a written statement from the/all neighbor(s) that he/she or they have no objection to its placement and submit such statements to the Modification Committee.
•Only one antenna per residence Is authorized.
•An FCC Radio license Is required for station operations.
Antenna Installation
•Prior approval must be obtained from the Modification Committee prior to placement or installation of any antenna upon property governed by the HOA covenants and restrictions.
•All written requests for the placement and installation of any aerial antenna shall Include a detailed diagram of the dimensions and proposed location of the antennae’s placement.
•Poles or masts may be used to mount an antenna provided the antenna does not rise above thereof line to be visible from the street.
NOTE: No reasonable request from Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) HAM operators will be refused given the antenna will be used for the safety of Lakewood Ranch residents during an emergency.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
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.
A comment on boilerplates...
A local ham (nuclear engineer and a US Navy veteran, BTW) serves on his municipalities Zoning Board, and is currently involved in updating their Zoning regulations.
They hired an “expert” consultant, who handed them a one-size-fits-all boilerplate, which, he claims, is the one “Everyone” is adopting.
That’s how it starts, you see.
The Zoning Board has been reviewing the boilerplate ever since, and are insisting on many changes. For one thing, it’s a rural township, so many urban-related items don’t apply. (And I’m not just talking about Antennas).
The Expert has some issues with this. Seems he’s not used to being questioned. I guess his expertise... and his boilerplates... have simply been accepted in the past.
-
They hired an “expert” consultant, who handed them a one-size-fits-all boilerplate, which, he claims, is the one “Everyone” is adopting.
That’s how it starts, you see.
The Zoning Board has been reviewing the boilerplate ever since, and are insisting on many changes. For one thing, it’s a rural township, so many urban-related items don’t apply. (And I’m not just talking about Antennas).
The Expert has some issues with this. Seems he’s not used to being questioned. I guess his expertise... and his boilerplates... have simply been accepted in the past.
An expert consultant is often someone who was canned from a job as about useless; others never held a real job. Often they get big severance packages in order to keep lawyers away. Amazingly the sheeple in this country blindly accepts whatever they say since they know nothing to start with.
Ive discredited several "consultants" in this area as well as on the Internet.
Carl
-
An expert consultant is often someone who was canned from a job as about useless; others never held a real job. Often they get big severance packages in order to keep lawyers away. Amazingly the sheeple in this country blindly accepts whatever they say since they know nothing to start with.
Ive discredited several "consultants" in this area as well as on the Internet.
Carl
Still recall one memorable interview I had when looking to hire someone with specialized experience and he described himself to me as not just an expert but rather a “recognized expert”. As it turned out, he was neither.
What W3WN described was the proper and typical diligence of the regulatory authority to consider advice and review recommendations but make their own decisions. Only the uninformed unthinkingly and often blindly accept the opinion of others. To put it in the proper context, it’s wise to invite the “right” people to lunch.
-
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...
Developing raw land for new housing costs a lot of $$. The real estate developer typically goes to bank(s) to secure financing.
A number of years ago I came across information on the interweb that claimed an underlying major reason for the proliferation of HOA's for new housing development was that the banks require real estate developers to implement HOA's in order to secure the needed financing. The developers sign on the dotted line after plugging in HOA boilerplate to satisfy the lender's requirement.
Unfortunately I have never been able to relocate the interweb info.
-
"If the antenna is visible by a neighbor (side or back) the homeowner Installing the antenna should get a written statement from the/all neighbor(s) that he/she or they have no objection to its placement and submit such statements to the Modification Committee."
While well intended, this leads us back to Gladys. That's a problem.
You can talk it up, and talk it down. And talk all around it. Or? Make an ad hominin attack against me.
And STILL? We need to ELIMINATE THE HOA MAN AND GLADYS FROM THE EQUATION.
They didn't like OTARD, either. But the sky didn't fall down when that went through. Gladys, Karen, and Ken need to be told to take a hike.
That's How It Is.
73 DE W8LV BILL
-
"If the antenna is visible by a neighbor (side or back) the homeowner Installing the antenna should get a written statement from the/all neighbor(s) that he/she or they have no objection to its placement and submit such statements to the Modification Committee."
While well intended, this leads us back to Gladys. That's a problem.
You can talk it up, and talk it down. And talk all around it. Or? Make an ad hominin attack against me.
And STILL? We need to ELIMINATE THE HOA MAN AND GLADYS FROM THE EQUATION.
They didn't like OTARD, either. But the sky didn't fall down when that went through. Gladys, Karen, and Ken need to be told to take a hike.
That's How It Is.
73 DE W8LV BILL
Seems you don’t understand the concept - it’s called mutual respect for neighbors. They have a right to express an opinion. Whats important to understand here is that a diversity of opinions bothers you.
-
"Seems you don’t understand the concept - it’s called mutual respect for neighbors. They have a right to express an opinion. Whats important to understand here is that a diversity of opinions bothers you"
Nonsense. We don't CARE about Glady's aesthetic "opinions" one iota. We want the "opinions" of Gladys, Karen, and Ken REMOVED FROM THE DECISION. Entirely. Entirely! We want Gladys, Karen, and Ken to give US the mutual respect WE deserve. Nothing more, and nothing less! And if Karen agrees that our antenna is not ugly, and then she moves and Gladys and her pain in the you know what husband Ken now takes residence and "decides" that our antenna is ugly, we're back to Square One. That's why we need an OTARD like recession, to HEEL these busy-body types entirely. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a regulation. 73 DE W8LV
-
We want Gladys, Karen, and Ken to give US the mutual respect WE deserve.
Lets see if you can figure out all by yourself how you -
just demonstrated you have no clue what "mutual" means, and
that you apparently have none.
For added points, see if you can find anywhere in that document where it says neighbors have veto power or does it in fact state only that they must be asked for an opinion. Do you comprehend that distinction?
If these questions are too confusing, let me know and I'll write slower.
-
And if Karen agrees that our antenna is not ugly, and then she moves and Gladys and her pain in the you know what husband Ken now takes residence and "decides" that our antenna is ugly, we're back to Square One. 73 DE W8LV
You're not back to square one. If the HOA approved your antenna while Karen lived there, and she moves, it doesn't matter what Gladys and Ken think if they moved in after the fact. They saw your (approved) antenna when contemplating the purchase. If they didn't like it, they can look elsewhere.
Bob K7JQ
-
"Seems you don’t understand the concept - it’s called mutual respect for neighbors. They have a right to express an opinion. Whats important to understand here is that a diversity of opinions bothers you"
Nonsense. We don't CARE about Glady's aesthetic "opinions" one iota. We want the "opinions" of Gladys, Karen, and Ken REMOVED FROM THE DECISION. Entirely. Entirely! We want Gladys, Karen, and Ken to give US the mutual respect WE deserve. Nothing more, and nothing less! And if Karen agrees that our antenna is not ugly, and then she moves and Gladys and her pain in the you know what husband Ken now takes residence and "decides" that our antenna is ugly, we're back to Square One. That's why we need an OTARD like recession, to HEEL these busy-body types entirely. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a regulation. 73 DE W8LV
I agree 100%!
In the end it comes down to "who determines exactly what is "ugly"?"
-
"You're not back to square one. If the HOA approved your antenna while Karen lived there, and she moves, it doesn't matter what Gladys and Ken think if they moved in after the fact. They saw your (approved) antenna when contemplating the purchase. If they didn't like it, they can look elsewhere."
No. It's back to SQUARE ONE when KAREN was allowed to call the shots, and it's "No Antenna For You!" Karen MUST be eliminated from the process. We don't want KAREN approving or disapproving anything! We need Legal RELIEF from Karen, because she's a PITA!
73 DE W8LV BILL
-
"You're not back to square one. If the HOA approved your antenna while Karen lived there, and she moves, it doesn't matter what Gladys and Ken think if they moved in after the fact. They saw your (approved) antenna when contemplating the purchase. If they didn't like it, they can look elsewhere."
No. It's back to SQUARE ONE when KAREN was allowed to call the shots, and it's "No Antenna For You!" Karen MUST be eliminated from the process. We don't want KAREN approving or disapproving anything! We need Legal RELIEF from Karen, because she's a PITA!
73 DE W8LV BILL
Zero score. You get an F and need to repeat the class. the test was easy too.
-
"You're not back to square one. If the HOA approved your antenna while Karen lived there, and she moves, it doesn't matter what Gladys and Ken think if they moved in after the fact. They saw your (approved) antenna when contemplating the purchase. If they didn't like it, they can look elsewhere."
Bob K7JQ
No. It's back to SQUARE ONE when KAREN was allowed to call the shots, and it's "No Antenna For You!" Karen MUST be eliminated from the process. We don't want KAREN approving or disapproving anything! We need Legal RELIEF from Karen, because she's a PITA!
73 DE W8LV BILL
Bill,
Calm down...you're sniffing too much solder smoke and raising your blood pressure ;D.
You're way off base. "Karen's" approval/disapproval/opinion has nothing to do with CC&R's...she doesn't "call the shots". It's strictly the HOA's approval or rejection of antenna proposals, based on the wording of the CC&R's. I have no idea where you come up with "eliminating Karen from the process" ???.
-
"You're not back to square one. If the HOA approved your antenna while Karen lived there, and she moves, it doesn't matter what Gladys and Ken think if they moved in after the fact. They saw your (approved) antenna when contemplating the purchase. If they didn't like it, they can look elsewhere."
Bob K7JQ
No. It's back to SQUARE ONE when KAREN was allowed to call the shots, and it's "No Antenna For You!" Karen MUST be eliminated from the process. We don't want KAREN approving or disapproving anything! We need Legal RELIEF from Karen, because she's a PITA!
73 DE W8LV BILL
Bill,
Calm down...you're sniffing too much solder smoke and raising your blood pressure ;D.
You're way off base. "Karen's" approval/disapproval/opinion has nothing to do with CC&R's...she doesn't "call the shots". It's strictly the HOA's approval or rejection of antenna proposals, based on the wording of the CC&R's. I have no idea where you come up with "eliminating Karen from the process" ???.
That's not entirely true. If the next door "Karen" hears that your petitioning the "board" for approval to install an antenna. If she's a true "Karen", she will rile up the neighbors and exaggerate how ugly they will be, tell them that it will interfere with their telephones, TV's, WiFi, (this is the one I like) their hearing aids. Then they show up at the meeting, and you might as well forget about the antenna. Experienced this once with our kids playing in our own property.
So Yes the "Karen's" can effect the out come.
Gary W1MOW
-
Stop kissing the HOA Hinie. HOAs don't want the rules changed for one reason, and one reason only: So that they can control the outcome, and that outcome is: NO antenna for you! And forget getting the written permission of neighbors that can "see" your antenna! Gladys, Karen, and Ken have NO BUSINESS here. Let Gladys mind her own business. Let Ken worry about his own "big issues" like cutting his grass in a manicured geometrical pattern, and Karen can continue to watch the Hallmark Channel and even marry her cat if she wants to, provided cat is willing... But removing them from the process is the only way! Invalidating the CC&Rs with an OTARD type ruling is the only way! And stop dissing the ARRL. Grow up, support the ARRL, and get a pair.
73 DE W8LV BILL
-
"You're not back to square one. If the HOA approved your antenna while Karen lived there, and she moves, it doesn't matter what Gladys and Ken think if they moved in after the fact. They saw your (approved) antenna when contemplating the purchase. If they didn't like it, they can look elsewhere."
Bob K7JQ
No. It's back to SQUARE ONE when KAREN was allowed to call the shots, and it's "No Antenna For You!" Karen MUST be eliminated from the process. We don't want KAREN approving or disapproving anything! We need Legal RELIEF from Karen, because she's a PITA!
73 DE W8LV BILL
Bill,
Calm down...you're sniffing too much solder smoke and raising your blood pressure ;D.
You're way off base. "Karen's" approval/disapproval/opinion has nothing to do with CC&R's...she doesn't "call the shots". It's strictly the HOA's approval or rejection of antenna proposals, based on the wording of the CC&R's. I have no idea where you come up with "eliminating Karen from the process" ???.
That's not entirely true. If the next door "Karen" hears that your petitioning the "board" for approval to install an antenna. If she's a true "Karen", she will rile up the neighbors and exaggerate how ugly they will be, tell them that it will interfere with their telephones, TV's, WiFi, (this is the one I like) their hearing aids. Then they show up at the meeting, and you might as well forget about the antenna. Experienced this once with our kids playing in our own property.
So Yes the "Karen's" can effect the out come.
Gary W1MOW
Imagination can be a tricky thing - don’t let it interfere with reality. 8LV already went down that hole and can’t see any light.
-
Yawn...the VSK "response" is about as predictable as Armageddon...
Which leads us back to?
"You can talk it up, and talk it down. And talk all around it. Or? Make an ad hominin attack against me.
And STILL? We need to ELIMINATE THE HOA MAN AND GLADYS FROM THE EQUATION."
That's How It Is.
Soon? It will be time for a crybaby to get the posts locked down!
With TRUTH?
So It Goes...
73 DE W8LV
-
Bill,
Calm down...you're sniffing too much solder smoke and raising your blood pressure ;D.
You're way off base. "Karen's" approval/disapproval/opinion has nothing to do with CC&R's...she doesn't "call the shots". It's strictly the HOA's approval or rejection of antenna proposals, based on the wording of the CC&R's. I have no idea where you come up with "eliminating Karen from the process" ???.
That's not entirely true. If the next door "Karen" hears that your petitioning the "board" for approval to install an antenna. If she's a true "Karen", she will rile up the neighbors and exaggerate how ugly they will be, tell them that it will interfere with their telephones, TV's, WiFi, (this is the one I like) their hearing aids. Then they show up at the meeting, and you might as well forget about the antenna. Experienced this once with our kids playing in our own property.
So Yes the "Karen's" can effect the out come.
Gary W1MOW
Gary,
It sounds like a "Karen" complained about your kids before or during an HOA meeting. Perhaps some HOA's operate that way, meaning your situation or opening up a specific homeowner's Architectural Committee request to all the other homeowners at a meeting for their opinions and influence. But that's not the way it's supposed to work.
The only reason for a referendum and vote of the homeowners at a meeting is if a specific CC&R is being proposed for a total change, modification, addition, or deletion for *all members*. If an antenna restriction CC&R includes the words..."unless approved by the Architectural Committee", it opens up the opportunity to apply for an *individual's* antenna proposal, just like any other request for an alteration/improvement of a home's exterior. It's not your neighbor's or any other homeowner's business regarding what you request of the Architectural Committee. How would"Karen" know of your proposal if you didn't tell her? In the 29 years I've lived in three HOA's, not once have I received any notice of another homeowner's application for an Architectural Committee's review. Not via snail mail, email, or at an HOA meeting. A competent Committee will take all aspects into consideration during the review. They make the decision, NOT "Karen".
-
Eliminating the HOA Man from the equation eliminates outright the problems with all incompetent HOA Committees, CC&R's, Busybodies, and other jacked boot and Fascist types of all varieties.
73 DE W8LV BILL
-
Eliminating the HOA Man from the equation eliminates outright the problems with all incompetent HOA Committees, CC&R's, Busybodies, and other jacked boot and Fascist types of all varieties.
73 DE W8LV BILL
Bill, I hate to break it to you. But with all the legalities that builders face...construction loans; liability; safety; marketing; sales; federal, state, county, and municipal laws and regulations...you'll never eliminate CC&R's and the "HOA Man" communities. No sense complaining. If it doesn't fit your needs, live elsewhere. And the dreaded, scary "Karens" are everywhere ::). Judging by your qrz.com page, you live out in the wide open spaces...good for you. With all that land, did you ever upgrade from an Outbacker whip mounted on a tripod?
Bob K7JQ
-
Yawn...the VSK "response" is about as predictable as Armageddon...
73 DE W8LV
Curious metaphor - how predictable is Armageddon?
Do you yet realize the HOA rules which you initially completely misunderstood do not have any plausible nexus to your imaginative nonsense construct? If not, why not try understanding rather than demonstrate a lack thereof?
And this isn’t personal - simply informative. You just don’t ‘get it’!
-
Oh, I understand it just fine. And why ad hominem attacks are made. And who makes them. And why. To the point of complete predictabllity!
The HOA's were eliminated from TV reception by OTARD, and they can be eliminated from Amateur Radio.
They almost were, in recent history.The Politics have shifted, and the Useless such as Former Silly Sunshine Senator Nelson and other dinosaurs have been defeated. More of these Status Quo Old Boy Network Types WILL be defeated. VOTE in EVERY Election, for that to happen sooner than later.
The HOAs are NOT inevitable, they can be DEFEATED. Just ONE Supreme Court Ruling and their days are over, and they know it. That's why they maintain a lobby. Well, we have one, too!
In the mean time, place every stealth antenna you can. Those in the Sunshine State can place Ham radio on your boats (or you likely have already) and a big battery/Solar/Wind or shore power will allow you to "mobile (Maritime? ;-)) repeat" to and from your home: HOA Man defeated again!
Caulk 'em in, or up the side of a tree. Or hook up to your mobile antenna, the one on the truck in your driveway. Or "mobile repeat" from your vehicle however you can.
Don't forget the attic, you don't get too many wind or foul weather problems there ;-) and ignore the crap that you see about HF being attenuated in any significant way by foil backed insulation, it's simply not true.
Put an antenna right under the siding. And don't forget the SECOND FLOOR if you have one: After all, there's only RF there when you are operating!
Just about every embassy uses the top floor of their buildings
to place their own "stealth" antennas, even if they have them on the roof, to do the "Monkey Business" that all embassies "do": That's right, I said it.
A fiberglass door is TRANSPARENT to RF... Might you have a humungous double garage door? Or Two?
That might be a great antenna location. A LOOP is something like 68% efficient (no, I don't remember the exact figure, Google it.) All other things being equal, that's not too bad, and no ladders, gin poles, safety harnesses, or bucket trucks are involved. (And after having a stroke, I'm not climbing anything again, other than a step ladder. Ever.) Are you YOUNG, or approaching the average age of most Hams? Or are you PAST that? You might think about skipping the climbing thing altogether. We read of tragedies from this amongst our brethren too often, because once is too often... And never discount QRP operation: Big Towers and Amps are WAY over rated, even if they do sell ad space in magazines and have unfortunately discouraged too many prospective and new hams from really getting into the hobby...
An S-Meter/Watt table PROVES this: QRP Rocks!
Oh yea, I forgot magnet wire, sure it's weak, but you can replace it now and then for MUCH LESS than a tower that's come down in the ice and wind.
Remember: No matter what? Your arms are too short to box with God.
(P.S. Speaking of fiberglass, if you are in Ottawa or D.C. by the embassies and consulates, take a gander at the top floors/roofs. Notice any FIBERGLASS panels up there? Well, I'm pretty sure that what's likely BEHIND them aren't there to get the ball games from back home...just saying.)
SUPPORT THE ARRL, who work for the best interests of Amateur Radio Operators EVERYWHERE.
HOAs will NEVER act in our interest: Instead, they are a TOOL of Control and Conformity by their very definition who will always act as agents for KEN, KAREN, and GLADYS . And don't be fooled the by the HOA collaborators, appeasers, lapdogs, and apologists who troll here. I've put them on notice that I'm on to them (again) and they know it.
73 DE W8LV BILL
-
Oh, I understand it just fine.
I’m sure you think that but you really don’t... and rants don’t serve the purpose you think they do.
-
That's why they maintain a lobby. Well, we have one, too!
Now that is some funny stuff, I don't care who you are. How is that working out for ya?
-
Yawn...the VSK "response" is about as predictable as Armageddon...
73 DE W8LV
Curious metaphor - how predictable is Armageddon?
< snip >
Well, since you asked...
It was a Bruce Willis action movie. Totally predictable. Very enjoyable, but totally predictable.
-
Yawn...the VSK "response" is about as predictable as Armageddon...
73 DE W8LV
Curious metaphor - how predictable is Armageddon?
< snip >
Well, since you asked...
It was a Bruce Willis action movie. Totally predictable. Very enjoyable, but totally predictable.
and pure fiction, largely melodramatic and filled with inaccuracies. But we all know he wasn’t referring to a science fiction movie
-
and pure fiction, largely melodramatic and filled with inaccuracies
Not uncommon with many posts on Eham
-
Buying a home in a HOA with the intent to pursue ham radio makes about seance as getting your pilot license and wanting to park your plane in your driveway.
-
Buying a home in a HOA with the intent to pursue ham radio makes about seance as getting your pilot license and wanting to park your plane in your driveway.
What does trying contacting the people from the dead have to do with getting your pilots license?
https://www.airparkmap.com/home
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1iZzR4PzTHJ-jXhNByere6X7qyYE&ll=29.124175456546528%2C-81.88557470399905&z=16
https://www.airparkmap.com/home/new-mexico-airparks
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1iZzR4PzTHJ-jXhNByere6X7qyYE&ll=32.8091221980062%2C-107.93239240723778&z=15
-
I can see both sides. But, the home owners do this to keep a 1963 Caddy on blocks as a storage unit out.
Simple solution is for a ham not to move in to a governed community. They likely do to some extent because they don't want to look at jacked up cars.
Then they want an exception for something that is just as much an eye sore to many.
-
I never understood why anyone would think that the ARRL should get involved in fighting HOAs. That was the home owner's choice to sign the HOA contract. I don't want my dues squandered trying to undue bad choices made by other ARRL members.
Like Judge Judy says; "You must follow the terms of the contract".
If you wish to contest the terms of your HOA contract, SPEND YOUR OWN MONEY.
Stepping down from my soapbox... ;D
-
I never understood why anyone would think that the ARRL should get involved in fighting HOAs. That was the home owner's choice to sign the HOA contract. I don't want my dues squandered trying to undue bad choices made by other ARRL members.
Like Judge Judy says; "You must follow the terms of the contract".
If you wish to contest the terms of your HOA contract, SPEND YOUR OWN MONEY.
Stepping down from my soapbox... ;D
You seem to forget, many are ARRL members, and it IS their money. No need to be an arrogant and condescending ham. Cant speak nice, dont speak at all is how I was raised.
-
I never understood why anyone would think that the ARRL should get involved in fighting HOAs. That was the home owner's choice to sign the HOA contract. I don't want my dues squandered trying to undue bad choices made by other ARRL members.
Like Judge Judy says; "You must follow the terms of the contract".
If you wish to contest the terms of your HOA contract, SPEND YOUR OWN MONEY.
Stepping down from my soapbox... ;D
You seem to forget, many are ARRL members, and it IS their money. No need to be an arrogant and condescending ham. Cant speak nice, dont speak at all is how I was raised.
Not trying to be condescending at all!
HOA Hams are asking the ARRL to bail them out of a legal problem that they created for themselves.
I don't see how that would be within the purview of the ARRL.
By your logic, since I am a ham and I have a legal problem, the ARRL should provide legal aid?
Maybe pay my parking tickets too?
I don't think so...
-
"HOA Hams are asking the ARRL to bail them out of a legal problem that they created for themselves."
No they are not. The proposal was for the ARRL to provide the ham with some printed instructions and hand-outs to help with the ham's presentation to his HOA board requesting an antenna exemption to the rules. This is something that is permitted by most HOAs. It has nothing to do with the ARRL providing hams with legal services.
-
"HOA Hams are asking the ARRL to bail them out of a legal problem that they created for themselves."
No they are not. The proposal was for the ARRL to provide the ham with some printed instructions and hand-outs to help with the ham's presentation to his HOA board requesting an antenna exemption to the rules. This is something that is permitted by most HOAs. It has nothing to do with the ARRL providing hams with legal services.
If you consider who is asking, this makes no sense. People who actually live in HOAs, with few exceptions, are NOT the ones complaining or asking for anything. That is the irony here.
It's generally people who don't live with any antenna limitations who are inserting themselves in others' lives while ironically whining about rights and freedom.
The ARRL never asked anyone living in an HOA if or what help they/we wanted or needed. They don't have a clue how many hams may be affected adversely by HOA rules. What they have done is waste a lot of time and effort failing to find a solution to a problem which doesn't exist except for a very small fraction of our hobby they cant quantify.
-
"HOA Hams are asking the ARRL to bail them out of a legal problem that they created for themselves."
No they are not. The proposal was for the ARRL to provide the ham with some printed instructions and hand-outs to help with the ham's presentation to his HOA board requesting an antenna exemption to the rules. This is something that is permitted by most HOAs. It has nothing to do with the ARRL providing hams with legal services.
It will cost the ARRL money to prepare and print the documents.
Perhaps they can produce a publication which can be purchased at the ARRL store if there is enough interest?
Hams buy books that appeal to their particular interests, right?
Another option might be to have a Ham, who was successful in getting an exemption, author an article in QST detailing his experiences and methods. ( no treasury funds required)
The antenna exemption,in the final analysis,is like tilting at windmills. The resident is at the mercy of the whims of their HOA. It's totally the luck of the draw.
I can understand the frustration, but it came as result of a personal choice.
-
This thread started on March 1, 2021, and has accumulated nine pages of comments so far. As a veteran of living in three HOA's in the last 30 years, I've commented extensively here. So, I'm gonna comment again on.......Naaah, I'll pass ;D ;D ;D.
73 and good luck, Bob K7JQ
-
K1VSK gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big HOA.
-
A lady built a house here just across the railroad tracks that have been here since at least before the Civil War and tried to seek legal action to get the trains to stop blowing the horn at the crossing.
-
A lady built a house here just across the railroad tracks that have been here since at least before the Civil War and tried to seek legal action to get the trains to stop blowing the horn at the crossing.
At her age, you would think she wouldn't even hear the train whistle.
-
A lady built a house here just across the railroad tracks that have been here since at least before the Civil War and tried to seek legal action to get the trains to stop blowing the horn at the crossing.
At her age, you would think she wouldn't even hear the train whistle.
When my wife first moved in with me a train came through and she jumped up from the bed saying what is that noise. I'm like , what noise ?
You learn to tune it out from childhood I suppose.
-
When my wife first moved in with me a train came through and she jumped up from the bed saying what is that noise. I'm like , what noise ?
You learn to tune it out from childhood I suppose.
Vinny Gambini: Does that freight train come through here at 5:00 A.M. every morning?
Hotel Clerk: No, sir, it's very unusual.
Vinny Gambini: [the next day, after Vinny was awakened by the train] Yesterday you told me that freight train hardly ever comes through here at 5:00 A.M. in the morning.
Hotel Clerk: I know. She's supposed to come through at ten after 4:00.
-
I had an uncle with an apartment on the 3rd floor facing the Jamaica NY Elevated line. Visits were not pleasant until he moved to a back facing apartment.
As a kid I rode just about every foot of the NYC rail transportation and many of its electric trolleys. One $.10 or .15 ticket was all it took to ride them all. Sure beat being home on rainy weekend and holiday days.
Carl
Ham since 1955
-
It's pointless to expect the ARRL to get involved in the HOA issue. The time to strike was decades ago.
The ARRL knows the battle is lost, and taking advantage of smaller electronics, they can steer the narrative of the hobby away from the traditional home QTH.
Don't take my word for it. The proof is in QST. Years ago it was about building your home station, now it's all POTA, SOTA and "get outside". Articles about portable antennas etc. There are now more ads of the same.
It all started when Gertrude did not like the ugly tower outside her window, the ARRL did not act accordingly at that time. HOAs are well aware of the hidden and attic antennas so now there HOA rules specifically prohibiting any radiating of RF. It went from appearance to specifically making sure there is no amateur operation in subdivisions.
For an organization, which is supposed to be an advocate, they failed at this one. Understanding this impacts their membership and revenue, they have adjusted with the times.
-
I think the ARRL was trying at least! I once lived in a HOA. The first thing, when I read the restrictions was regarding flag poles! I asked if I could erect a flag pole in the back yard! There was nothing in the rules about this! They asked how tall? I told them 30-40 feet. They said seeing it was in the back yard I could do it, but I could only fly the American flag and nothing else. I agreed. I made an HF vertical with buried coax and radials. One of the board members saw me bury some radials and asked me what that was? I told him they were for ground protection in case of a lightning strike to the pole! Guess what? Hook, line and sinker! Up went my flag :)
-
I think the ARRL was trying at least! I once lived in a HOA. The first thing, when I read the restrictions was regarding flag poles! I asked if I could erect a flag pole in the back yard! There was nothing in the rules about this! They asked how tall? I told them 30-40 feet. They said seeing it was in the back yard I could do it, but I could only fly the American flag and nothing else. I agreed. I made an HF vertical with buried coax and radials. One of the board members saw me bury some radials and asked me what that was? I told him they were for ground protection in case of a lightning strike to the pole! Guess what? Hook, line and sinker! Up went my flag :)
To be clear, are you suggesting people lie about compliance with contract terms to which they agree?
-
There were no provisions or forbiddance of antenna's or flag poles in the contract. It was an open subject. I didn't want to tell them the flag pole was also an antenna, or it would start problems which would be only opinions and objections would not be based on legality. The flag pole was very concealed as far a recognizing it was an antenna. There were no contract terms that anybody agreed to! I decided to not inform anybody it was a dual purpose flag pole even though it was legal-out of sight, out of mind. In contractual law, nothing is implied unless written.
-
There were no provisions or forbiddance of antenna's or flag poles in the contract. It was an open subject. I didn't want to tell them the flag pole was also an antenna, or it would start problems which would be only opinions and objections would not be based on legality. The flag pole was very concealed as far a recognizing it was an antenna. There were no contract terms that anybody agreed to! I decided to not inform anybody it was a dual purpose flag pole even though it was legal-out of sight, out of mind. In contractual law, nothing is implied unless written.
Therein lies the ‘rest of the story’.
Felt compelled to ask to do something for which there is no contractual or any other limitation?
I can understand being a good neighbor and asking abutters but you apparently asked only the HOA for something they don’t restrict.
-
There were no provisions or forbiddance of antenna's or flag poles in the contract. It was an open subject.
With nothing in the CC&R's specifically regarding antennas or flagpoles, one would think that there's open season on what you could do with either, without permission from the HOA.
But I'm sure there's another provision dealing with "Additions, construction, aesthetic improvements, etc to the house or property". Which would require plans submitted to the Architectural Committee for approval. Erecting a tower, vertical, or flagpole would fall under this provision, and if not first approved by them, they could make you remove it. Displaying the American flag is allowed by Federal law, but HOA's have the right to restrict how and where it is allowed to be displayed.
-
States can pass laws that invalidate CC&Rs.
Florida, Arizona, and Idaho have passed flag laws that specifically target overzealous HOAs.
-
States can pass laws that invalidate CC&Rs.
But not ham radio antenna CC&R prohibitions. Even PRB-1 can't touch them.
-
States can pass laws that invalidate CC&Rs.
But not ham radio antenna CC&R prohibitions. Even PRB-1 can't touch them.
It's all a dead end that ARRL should not spend any more time, effort, or money on.
( which is what this thread started being about)
-
Smart move by the ARRL. They'd be wide open for lawsuits from all directions. If you are in an HOA, you signed a contract agreeing to abide by their rules and restrictions. It sucks, but that's the way it is.
-
Smart move by the ARRL. They'd be wide open for lawsuits from all directions.
Lawsuits from who?? And for what?? The ARRL was just lobbying congress to pass Federal legislation banning CC&R's from prohibiting ham radio antenna restrictions in HOA communities. Just like the Federal OTARD rule did for TV satellite dishes and over-the-air receiving antennas. No law against trying.
-
Smart move by the ARRL. They'd be wide open for lawsuits from all directions.
Lawsuits from who?? And for what?? The ARRL was just lobbying congress to pass Federal legislation banning CC&R's from prohibiting ham radio antenna restrictions in HOA communities. Just like the Federal OTARD rule did for TV satellite dishes and over-the-air receiving antennas. No law
against trying.
Lawsuits from the HOA's. Lawsuits from operators who followed the ARRL's guidance and lost.
-
Smart move by the ARRL. They'd be wide open for lawsuits from all directions.
Lawsuits from who?? And for what?? The ARRL was just lobbying congress to pass Federal legislation banning CC&R's from prohibiting ham radio antenna restrictions in HOA communities. Just like the Federal OTARD rule did for TV satellite dishes and over-the-air receiving antennas. No law
against trying.
Lawsuits from the HOA's. Lawsuits from operators who followed the ARRL's guidance and lost.
Lawsuits against a lobbying organization would qualify for a SLAPP action. Suing for bad advice when no expectation if it would work, ARRL is not your Lawyer, YMMV. It's pointless to expect the ARRL to get involved in the HOA issue. The time to strike was decades ago.
The ARRL knows the battle is lost, and taking advantage of smaller electronics, they can steer the narrative of the hobby away from the traditional home QTH.
Don't take my word for it. The proof is in QST. Years ago it was about building your home station, now it's all POTA, SOTA and "get outside". Articles about portable antennas etc. There are now more ads of the same.
It all started when Gertrude did not like the ugly tower outside her window, the ARRL did not act accordingly at that time. HOAs are well aware of the hidden and attic antennas so now there HOA rules specifically prohibiting any radiating of RF. It went from appearance to specifically making sure there is no amateur operation in subdivisions.
For an organization, which is supposed to be an advocate, they failed at this one. Understanding this impacts their membership and revenue, they have adjusted with the times.
You can limit Visible Antennas (NOT OTARD) but hidden stuff in Louisiana is ultra vires, on the subject of RF, Louisiana doesn't a Communications Commission, sorry Karen,
-
I think Hawaii has come closet to getting the state to help hams with HOAs. They passed a bill and it died on the Governor's desk.
-
but hidden stuff in Louisiana is ultra vires,
This is a good point, though it may require a good local lawyer.
A friend of mine has had a lot of success putting up external antennas in his HOA. He doesn't have a 70 foot tower or anything, but he does have a good lawyer -- and, several antennas.
In Arizona, at least, it appears that any regulation that does not plausibly have to do with protecting property values is "ultra vires" -- beyond their legal power. They can put "no indoor antennas" in their regulations if they like, but legally, (if I go by my friend, IANAL etc) it is just a bluff. They don't like to pay legal fees, either, especially futile ones.
-
Not all people have to follow all the rules.
Some rules are intended for only some people.
And we have a class of people today who just change the rules ex post facto when there's an "above the fold" PR outbreak on them.
If you can get away with it today, that validates it must be ok.
Welcome to the here and now--this is progress!
-
States can pass laws that invalidate CC&Rs.
But not ham radio antenna CC&R prohibitions. Even PRB-1 can't touch them.
Not correct. CC&Rs are adjudicated under state law, typically governed by state statute. As such, a state's legislature can invalidate them, or a portion thereof, if it so chooses.
In Florida, restrictive property covenants are governed under Florida State Statute 720. That chapter was created by the state legislature. With few exceptions, the legislature can take back what it gives, including invalidating part or all of a restrictive covenant.
Paul, W9AC
-
Lots of lawyers (or pseudo-lawyers) commenting here, with fancy terms…ultra vires; ex post facto; SLAPP action. I looked ‘em up…you learn something every day ;).
But I don’t know if anyone could dispute the fact that CC&R’s are legally binding agreements when you purchase a property. If you choose to violate them, you do so at your own risk, and are subject to the remedies as stipulated in the agreement. Am I wrong? Are there loopholes around them? Inquiring minds want to know ;).
-
Lots of lawyers (or pseudo-lawyers) commenting here, with fancy terms…ultra vires; ex post facto; SLAPP action. I looked ‘em up…you learn something every day ;).
But I don’t know if anyone could dispute the fact that CC&R’s are legally binding agreements when you purchase a property. If you choose to violate them, you do so at your own risk, and are subject to the remedies as stipulated in the agreement. Am I wrong? Are there loopholes around them? Inquiring minds want to know ;).
My wife, who ia an attorney, has a couple of favorite sayings:
"You can sue anyone for anything" (One of the problems with today's society.)
"Laws and contracts are written by a Human. (It used to be "man", but today...)No human is perfect. If you hire a smart lawyer, and spend enough money, chances are you may find a loophole, no matter how tiny or ridiculous "
Gary W1MOW
-
Lots of lawyers (or pseudo-lawyers) commenting here, with fancy terms…ultra vires; ex post facto; SLAPP action. I looked ‘em up…you learn something every day ;).
But I don’t know if anyone could dispute the fact that CC&R’s are legally binding agreements when you purchase a property. If you choose to violate them, you do so at your own risk, and are subject to the remedies as stipulated in the agreement. Am I wrong? Are there loopholes around them? Inquiring minds want to know ;).
Like any other contract, it's open to negotiation. To draw a parallel, workers form unions to give them a better chance to negotiate terms of a contractual agreement. In other words, strength in numbers. There's nothing wrong with having a representative body do the negotiating for you. The reason hams want to live in HOA communities is really quite simple. Most new neighborhoods being built are HOA controlled. I did not say custom homes being built on open land, I am saying that if you want a home built within the past 10 years there's very little chance of finding that home in a neighborhood without an HOA. It can be written that the homeowner freely sings a contract, blah blah blah. For most armatures operators ham radio is a hobby, representing part of their total home owning needs. If one needs to relocate homes for any number of reasons, ham radio is only part of the equation. I am fortunate enough to live in an area where HOA's really don't exist. Sadly, the opportunities to find similar neighborhoods in populated areas are dwindling. Of course one could always move to an older home in a down neighborhood but that to me is not a viable option.
-
"Laws and contracts are written by a Human. (It used to be "man", but today...)No human is perfect. If you hire a smart lawyer, and spend enough money, chances are you may find a loophole, no matter how tiny or ridiculous "
Gary W1MOW
In my line of work, it happens with flawed charging documents. I take advantage of those inaccuracies in court and it often results in a client paying less money to defend their case.
Paul, W9AC
-
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. That's too technical for the average homeowner.
Based on past attempts and failures, no matter what the ARRL proposes, I doubt if we're ever gonna see federal legislation to override CC&R's and accommodate amateur radio antennas.
It's either go stealth, or don't move into such a community if antennas are a priority.
Bob K7JQ
Exactly.
-
But I don’t know if anyone could dispute the fact that CC&R’s are legally binding agreements when you purchase a property. If you choose to violate them, you do so at your own risk, and are subject to the remedies as stipulated in the agreement. Am I wrong? Are there loopholes around them? Inquiring minds want to know ;).
The list of "loopholes" is nearly endless. Most issues do not arise from the CC&R per se but from promulgation by the HOA or similar body. A small sampling of how an HOA rule can be struck down or limited through adjudication:
- Local, State or Federal preemption, denial, restriction or allowance
- Procedural deficiencies such as failure to notice a meeting, improper elections, failure to publish, etc.
- Unreasonableness or no useful purpose
- Discriminatory or targeting in purpose or realization
- Overreach of authority or purpose
- Selective enforcement of the rule
- Glenn W9IQ
-
But I don’t know if anyone could dispute the fact that CC&R’s are legally binding agreements when you purchase a property. If you choose to violate them, you do so at your own risk, and are subject to the remedies as stipulated in the agreement. Am I wrong? Are there loopholes around them? Inquiring minds want to know ;).
The list of "loopholes" is nearly endless. Most issues do not arise from the CC&R per se but from promulgation by the HOA or similar body. A small sampling of how an HOA rule can be struck down or limited through adjudication:
- Local, State or Federal preemption, denial, restriction or allowance
- Procedural deficiencies such as failure to notice a meeting, improper elections, failure to publish, etc.
- Unreasonableness or no useful purpose
- Discriminatory or targeting in purpose or realization
- Overreach of authority or purpose
- Selective enforcement of the rule
- Glenn W9IQ
None of which are “loopholes” but rather conditions stipulated by statute which establishes authority for HOAs to manage and oversee compliance with CC&Rs. Your list is actually all process related. Most successful challenges deliver solely from process violations, e.g. the HOA didn’t follow their own rules.
None of which is applicable to the subject matter but makes for a good opportunity for someone to vent about issues which don’t affect them.
-
States can pass laws that invalidate CC&Rs.
But not ham radio antenna CC&R prohibitions. Even PRB-1 can't touch them.
Not correct. CC&Rs are adjudicated under state law, typically governed by state statute. As such, a state's legislature can invalidate them, or a portion thereof, if it so chooses.
In Florida, restrictive property covenants are governed under Florida State Statute 720. That chapter was created by the state legislature. With few exceptions, the legislature can take back what it gives, including invalidating part or all of a restrictive covenant.
Paul, W9AC
W9AC - perhaps you know the answer to this:
1) I recall cases where a resident (usually an elderly military veteran) in an HOA community put up a flagpole to fly the US flag, and was told it violated the HOA rules. A legal battle ensued, and the legislature passed a "Right To Fly" law that invalidated the no-ground-mounted-flagpoles HOA rules. True?
2) I recall cases where residents in HOA communities wanted to use clotheslines for their clothes but there were rules against it. Running a clothes dryer uses a LOT of energy, and the result is a "Right To Dry" movement to pass laws ensuring it. True?
3) With the growing number of EVs and home solar installations, will there be battles between residents wanting to have charging stations and/or solar panels and HOAs saying no?
73 de Jim, N2EY
-
A lady built a house here just across the railroad tracks that have been here since at least before the Civil War and tried to seek legal action to get the trains to stop blowing the horn at the crossing.
At her age, you would think she wouldn't even hear the train whistle.
"Remember this
If you'd be spared
Trains don't whistle
Because they're scared.
Burma Shave
-
K1VSK gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big HOA.
BRILLIANT!!!
Too few will get the reference, though.
-
But I don’t know if anyone could dispute the fact that CC&R’s are legally binding agreements when you purchase a property. If you choose to violate them, you do so at your own risk, and are subject to the remedies as stipulated in the agreement. Am I wrong? Are there loopholes around them? Inquiring minds want to know ;).
The list of "loopholes" is nearly endless. Most issues do not arise from the CC&R per se but from promulgation by the HOA or similar body. A small sampling of how an HOA rule can be struck down or limited through adjudication:
- Local, State or Federal preemption, denial, restriction or allowance
- Procedural deficiencies such as failure to notice a meeting, improper elections, failure to publish, etc.
- Unreasonableness or no useful purpose
- Discriminatory or targeting in purpose or realization
- Overreach of authority or purpose
- Selective enforcement of the rule
- Glenn W9IQ
None of which are “loopholes” but rather conditions stipulated by statute which establishes authority for HOAs to manage and oversee compliance with CC&Rs. Your list is actually all process related. Most successful challenges deliver solely from process violations, e.g. the HOA didn’t follow their own rules.
I agree with Don K1VSK. I was referring to *established* CC&R's, that you signed onto upon purchase of the property. They're not in violation of any Federal, State, or Local laws, and the HOA is not in violation of any of the other five points that Glenn posted. IOW, the HOA is doing everything correct in equal enforcement to all members of the community. No "negotiations" with the HOA possible. They strictly prohibit ham radio antennas, end of discussion.
In the event of a case going to court, can an attorney find a *legal loophole* that could overturn that particular CC&R, and allow you to erect a ham radio antenna?
-
W9AC - perhaps you know the answer to this:
1) I recall cases where a resident (usually an elderly military veteran) in an HOA community put up a flagpole to fly the US flag, and was told it violated the HOA rules. A legal battle ensued, and the legislature passed a "Right To Fly" law that invalidated the no-ground-mounted-flagpoles HOA rules. True?
2) I recall cases where residents in HOA communities wanted to use clotheslines for their clothes but there were rules against it. Running a clothes dryer uses a LOT of energy, and the result is a "Right To Dry" movement to pass laws ensuring it. True?
3) With the growing number of EVs and home solar installations, will there be battles between residents wanting to have charging stations and/or solar panels and HOAs saying no?
73 de Jim, N2EY
4) I recall several cases where a HOA homeowner had to choose between watering their lawn because the HOA required it, or following the county and/or state drought restrictions (supposedly superseding the HOA rule) of not watering your lawn, washing your car, etc, and risk getting fined.
-
K1VSK gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big HOA.
BRILLIANT!!!
Too few will get the reference, though.
If you like that, you should relate to this easily:
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
-
W9AC - perhaps you know the answer to this:
1) I recall cases where a resident (usually an elderly military veteran) in an HOA community put up a flagpole to fly the US flag, and was told it violated the HOA rules. A legal battle ensued, and the legislature passed a "Right To Fly" law that invalidated the no-ground-mounted-flagpoles HOA rules. True?
2) I recall cases where residents in HOA communities wanted to use clotheslines for their clothes but there were rules against it. Running a clothes dryer uses a LOT of energy, and the result is a "Right To Dry" movement to pass laws ensuring it. True?
3) With the growing number of EVs and home solar installations, will there be battles between residents wanting to have charging stations and/or solar panels and HOAs saying no?
73 de Jim, N2EY
4) I recall several cases where a HOA homeowner had to choose between watering their lawn because the HOA required it, or following the county and/or state drought restrictions (supposedly superseding the HOA rule) of not watering your lawn, washing your car, etc, and risk getting fined.
That’s actually a good example of showing flexibility - In the case I am familiar with, the HOA agreed to temporarily suspend watering requirements because of the drought. It happens frequently in California and more infrequently here. HOAs often modify rules for various reasons.
Interestingly, the only thing they cannot change is a closed mind.
-
1) I recall cases where a resident (usually an elderly military veteran) in an HOA community put up a flagpole to fly the US flag, and was told it violated the HOA rules. A legal battle ensued, and the legislature passed a "Right To Fly" law that invalidated the no-ground-mounted-flagpoles HOA rules. True?
First, see the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005. That pertains to federal protections.
Florida has its own statute: FS 720.304:
"...(2)(a) Any homeowner may display one portable, removable United States flag or official flag of the State of Florida in a respectful manner, and one portable, removable official flag, in a respectful manner, not larger than 4 1/2 feet by 6 feet, which represents the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, or a POW-MIA flag, regardless of any covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements of the association.
(b) Any homeowner may erect a freestanding flagpole no more than 20 feet high on any portion of the homeowner’s real property, regardless of any covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements of the association, if the flagpole does not obstruct sightlines at intersections and is not erected within or upon an easement. The homeowner may further display in a respectful manner from that flagpole, regardless of any covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements of the association, one official United States flag, not larger than 4 1/2 feet by 6 feet, and may additionally display one official flag of the State of Florida or the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard, or a POW-MIA flag. Such additional flag must be equal in size to or smaller than the United States flag. The flagpole and display are subject to all building codes, zoning setbacks, and other applicable governmental regulations, including, but not limited to, noise and lighting ordinances in the county or municipality in which the flagpole is erected and all setback and locational criteria contained in the governing documents..."
Looking at the legislative history, the statute has been amended several times, beginning in 2003. In Florida, it's silly for an HOA to tamper with the interpretation and legislative meaning of the statute -- to the point where I would consider a damages claim to recover legal defense fees against my own HOA if they pursued it, even with sovereign immunity and personal indemnification clauses. An HOA should know the statute and/or be guided by legal counsel who should know the statute. It may, or may not hold but the HOA would think long and hard about pursuing a future action that could be protected by law.
Jim, as to the other instances you mentioned, I have not followed those cases closely enough to comment.
Paul, W9AC
-
That’s actually a good example of showing flexibility - In the case I am familiar with, the HOA agreed to temporarily suspend watering requirements because of the drought. It happens frequently in California and more infrequently here. HOAs often modify rules for various reasons.
Interestingly, the only thing they cannot change is a closed mind.
In the cases that I am familiar with, the homeowner was heavily fined and only after the homeowner sued the HOA and won, were the fines dismissed.
Interestingly, it took legal action by the homeowner for the HOA realize that common sense should prevail and the HOA rules were revised to where the county and/or state's rules prevailed over the HOA's rules.
-
We've now shown all the ways that various governmental laws can invalidate and override CC&R's due to patriotism (displaying flags), and environmental concerns (electrical energy savings with clotheslines and solar panels, prohibiting watering lawns in a drought)...issues that can be catastrophic to the safety and welfare of the population as a whole. Getting a little off the subject.
In keeping with the topic in a ham radio forum, what legal argument can be proposed to invalidate/override CC&R ham radio antenna prohibitions? The EMCOMM angle has been shot down repeatedly.
-
We've now shown all the ways that various governmental laws can invalidate and override CC&R's due to patriotism (displaying flags), and environmental concerns (electrical energy savings with clotheslines and solar panels, prohibiting watering lawns in a drought)...issues that can be catastrophic to the safety and welfare of the population as a whole. Getting a little off the subject.
In keeping with the topic in a ham radio forum, what legal argument can be proposed to invalidate/override CC&R ham radio antenna prohibitions? The EMCOMM angle has been shot down repeatedly.
What is the specific wording regarding the prohibition of amateur radio antennas?
- Glenn W9IQ
-
Why do you post stupid replies that have nothing to do with the subject at hand
HOA's were created to keep undesirables out of the neighborhood. How is that stupid or off topic?
Keep out undesirables... that's a laugh!!
We have a pretty good HOA here, but there's no way they can keep out undesirables. We have about 1,100 houses in this development and a lot of them are rental properties. Take for instance the neighbor (and I use that term loosely) whose house and property look like a war was fought in it. He has more junk (cars and other crap) in the drive, front yard and back yard, and in the garage, that it looks like a scrap yard opened for business. All the HOA can do is send letters to the property owner, but that's it, it's then up to the property owner to make things right. Obviously, in my case, the neighboring property owner is only concerned about one thing... his rent being paid on a timely basis.
73 de Jim - KE8G
-
We've now shown all the ways that various governmental laws can invalidate and override CC&R's due to patriotism (displaying flags), and environmental concerns (electrical energy savings with clotheslines and solar panels, prohibiting watering lawns in a drought)...issues that can be catastrophic to the safety and welfare of the population as a whole. Getting a little off the subject.
In keeping with the topic in a ham radio forum, what legal argument can be proposed to invalidate/override CC&R ham radio antenna prohibitions? The EMCOMM angle has been shot down repeatedly.
What is the specific wording regarding the prohibition of amateur radio antennas?
- Glenn W9IQ
Hi Glenn,
A specific statement like "Radio transmitting and/or receiving antennas are prohibited". Or even specifying "amateur radio antennas". Some might add "...unless approved by the Architectural Committee"...a possible crack in the armor. Assuming no "loopholes"/conditions that you previously posted apply, and denied approval by the Architectural Committee, what else can legally be proposed to allow an antenna?
The other CC&R remedies/overrides posted here are all well and good, but have nothing to do specifically with radio antennas. They're just skirting the issue...governmental CC&R overrides based on environmental, health, safety, and welfare concerns of the general population. I don't see where ham radio antennas would apply for such overrides.
73, Bob K7JQ
-
Obviously there is no Federal "override" of ham radio antenna restrictions by an HOA - PRB-1 stopped short and the ARRL effort failed. You are left to negotiate with or persuade the HOA to reach a compromise or you will need to pursue legal action if you don't wish to pursue stealth with its associated risk.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
Obviously there is no Federal "override" of ham radio antenna restrictions by an HOA - PRB-1 stopped short and the ARRL effort failed. You are left to negotiate with or persuade the HOA to reach a compromise or you will need to pursue legal action if you don't wish to pursue stealth with its associated risk.
- Glenn W9IQ
Nor State or local overrides. With no legal "loopholes"or other HOA conditions evident (they perform their enforcement requirements by the book), everything short of negotiating has failed. And if negotiation (if even possible) with the HOA also fails, what's the sense of pursuing legal action? It's basically an exercise in futility and a gross waste of money. The HOA holds all the cards with a full set of legal remedies.
So all the previous posts on circumventing other CC&R issues are moot when it comes to specifically dealing with a blanket CC&R prohibition of ham radio antennas. You're choices are not operating, going with stealth antennas, mobile, portable, or remote via internet. Or move.
-
So all the previous posts on circumventing other CC&R issues are moot when it comes to specifically dealing with a blanket CC&R prohibition of ham radio antennas. You're choices are not operating, going with stealth antennas, mobile, portable, or remote via internet. Or move.
Even if you don't see it as viable, others may choose to negotiate or litigate.
- Glenn W9IQ
-
So all the previous posts on circumventing other CC&R issues are moot when it comes to specifically dealing with a blanket CC&R prohibition of ham radio antennas. You're choices are not operating, going with stealth antennas, mobile, portable, or remote via internet. Or move.
Even if you don't see it as viable, others may choose to negotiate or litigate.
- Glenn W9IQ
Obviously their choice. I wish them luck ;).
-
A friend of mine from back in the CB days had a Cadillac Hearse with a 40 foot crank up mounted on it. Pictures are on the web, search for Undertaker CB Hearse.
I wonder what an HOA would have to say about that?
Another friend has a 'Toter Home' with a 3 section 27 foot antenna on it. On top of that he had a 5 element Yagi.
Usually you can't have an RV in the area for a length of time, unless behind fences, etc.... But what a great setup for an HOA 😂🤣
--Shane
WP2ASS / ex KD6VXI
-
That’s actually a good example of showing flexibility - In the case I am familiar with, the HOA agreed to temporarily suspend watering requirements because of the drought. It happens frequently in California and more infrequently here. HOAs often modify rules for various reasons.
Interestingly, the only thing they cannot change is a closed mind.
In the cases that I am familiar with, the homeowner was heavily fined and only after the homeowner sued the HOA and won, were the fines dismissed.
Interestingly, it took legal action by the homeowner for the HOA realize that common sense should prevail and the HOA rules were revised to where the county and/or state's rules prevailed over the HOA's rules.
A search of LexisNexus revealed no case resulting in that outcome. Can you cite any reference or state court in which this proceeding occurred?
-
Is the horse dead yet?
-
Is the horse dead yet?
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with bashing HOAs. Didn’t you realize yet this topic exists merely to provide a venue for some to whine? Or write imaginative anecdotal stories. Usually concurrently.
-
Is the horse dead yet?
As long as there are Hams and HOAs, it will never go away.
-
You know the HOA battle is lost when hams are now doing Walmarts On The Air.
-
"We have a pretty good HOA here, but there's no way they can keep out undesirables. We have about 1,100 houses in this development and a lot of them are rental properties. Take for instance the neighbor (and I use that term loosely) whose house and property look like a war was fought in it. He has more junk (cars and other crap) in the drive, front yard and back yard, and in the garage, that it looks like a scrap yard opened for business. All the HOA can do is send letters to the property owner, but that's it, it's then up to the property owner to make things right. Obviously, in my case, the neighboring property owner is only concerned about one thing... his rent being paid on a timely basis."
73 de Jim - KE8G
I wonder how detailed the HOA regs there really are? Has anyone really pushed the junkyard filth violators? All over the news lately are stories of how continuous HOA violations are now being met met with liens on their properties in order to force foreclosures to eliminate violators and take their property.
-
"We have a pretty good HOA here, but there's no way they can keep out undesirables. We have about 1,100 houses in this development and a lot of them are rental properties. Take for instance the neighbor (and I use that term loosely) whose house and property look like a war was fought in it. He has more junk (cars and other crap) in the drive, front yard and back yard, and in the garage, that it looks like a scrap yard opened for business. All the HOA can do is send letters to the property owner, but that's it, it's then up to the property owner to make things right. Obviously, in my case, the neighboring property owner is only concerned about one thing... his rent being paid on a timely basis."
73 de Jim - KE8G
I wonder how detailed the HOA regs there really are? Has anyone really pushed the junkyard filth violators? All over the news lately are stories of how continuous HOA violations are now being met met with liens on their properties in order to force foreclosures to eliminate violators and take their property.
It's impossible to generalize -all HOAs are different. Having said that, just as municipalities can place liens and seek to foreclose and take property for various reasons, so too can some HOAs do that.
If you really want to know the answer to your question, simply search the relevant HOA rules to see what enforcement authority they have. Many municipalities, zoning boards, fire departments, etc... will have similar restrictions.
It is hard to regulate common courtesy and respect for others and some people don't like HOAs because they require both.
-
"We have a pretty good HOA here, but there's no way they can keep out undesirables. We have about 1,100 houses in this development and a lot of them are rental properties. Take for instance the neighbor (and I use that term loosely) whose house and property look like a war was fought in it. He has more junk (cars and other crap) in the drive, front yard and back yard, and in the garage, that it looks like a scrap yard opened for business. All the HOA can do is send letters to the property owner, but that's it, it's then up to the property owner to make things right. Obviously, in my case, the neighboring property owner is only concerned about one thing... his rent being paid on a timely basis."
73 de Jim - KE8G
I wonder how detailed the HOA regs there really are? Has anyone really pushed the junkyard filth violators? All over the news lately are stories of how continuous HOA violations are now being met met with liens on their properties in order to force foreclosures to eliminate violators and take their property.
I can answer that from the perspective of a landlord. So many rules and regulations have been passed to protect tenants from enforcement. Because of that, bad tenants tend to do what they want and can get away with it as long as the rent is paid. Evictions are getting more difficult as the woke nation defends those who have no regard for rules. In the case of an HOA, the property had a lien put on it, yet I could not collect damages or evict the bum. In the end, I had to sell the property at a rather large loss to get out from the liens and the bad tenant.
The takeaway here is the HOA can enforce rules, but don't expect them to help you if you have a bad tenant. It is still your name on the contract with the HOA, and that is where the enforcement goes. So compliance with the HOA falls on your shoulders which can be difficult to impossible.
-
I can answer that from the perspective of a landlord. So many rules and regulations have been passed to protect tenants from enforcement. Because of that, bad tenants tend to do what they want and can get away with it as long as the rent is paid. Evictions are getting more difficult as the woke nation defends those who have no regard for rules. In the case of an HOA, the property had a lien put on it, yet I could not collect damages or evict the bum. In the end, I had to sell the property at a rather large loss to get out from the liens and the bad tenant.
The takeaway here is the HOA can enforce rules, but don't expect them to help you if you have a bad tenant. It is still your name on the contract with the HOA, and that is where the enforcement goes. So compliance with the HOA falls on your shoulders which can be difficult to impossible.
Such are the perils of being a residential landlord, especially in a HOA/CC&R controlled community. It’s up to you to properly vet prospective tenants to avoid damage to your property and CC&R violations. Of course, despite your due diligence, things can still go south. You, as the property owner, are on the hook for your tenant’s actions.
Perhaps extra language can be added to the lease, providing remedies to evict if CC&R compliance is not met by the tenant?
One reason I never got into rental property investments. The potential aggravation wasn’t worth it to me ;).
-
Perhaps extra language can be added to the lease, providing remedies to evict if CC&R compliance is not met by the tenant?
If only it were that easy. The woke whims of state and local government make writing such things into a lease more and more difficult. And enforcement almost impossible. I understand the reasoning, to protect people from slum lords, but often those same protections hurt the good landlords as well. As usual, government never writes things in a fashion that meets a middle ground.