|[AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301|
ka1kaq at gmail.com
Thu Aug 20 13:25:38 EDT 2015
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:27 PM, <kc9cdt at aol.com> wrote:
> Not so fast....
> If I don't want to live in the country, a poor economic area, or in town,
> or a older home.....AND I want a retirement area that offers lots of nice
> things to do as well as nice NEW homes...where do I go.
> NOWHERE as ALL new home areas are restricted in EXACTLY the same way.
> That's the issue...why should I be FORCED to go live somewhere I don't want
You answered your own question, Lee - "...AND I want a retirement area that
offers a lot of nice things to do as well as nice NEW homes....". You're
not being "FORCED" to do anything, you're choosing what you want.
We all make choices, you choose to live in an area with restrictions. You
already know that clearly before signing. You've laid out in your
description what means more to you. I'm not disagreeing, just saying don't
expect everyone else who already moved there who *isn't* a ham (99.999%) to
give up one of the things they moved there to avoid just to accommodate
you, me, any other ham.
The area of NC near where we live (called the Research Triangle) is the
fastest growing area in the country right now. There are plenty of
'convenient, new' homes in HOAs surrounding my wife's school. We chose to
sacrifice a little convenience for privacy and property rights. Not to move
into a restricted development where we're told what we're allowed to do
with our property, or tell others to change to suit us. The trade off for a
26 mile drive is 3 acres, less traffic, and virtually no restrictions. Not
for everyone, I agree.
That was our choice. Your choice, your preference is to move into an area
you already know ahead of time restricts at least one of your interests.
The good thing is, no one is holding a gun to your head. You're free to
choose otherwise, based on what means the most to you. We did the same.
Here's a pretty clear test of whether this 'initiative' makes sense. Say
you, me, Rob, and 50 other hams move to a development with large building
lots and a HOA set up specifically for ham radio use. We love our towers
and wires. Things are great. Then someone from Berkley CA moves in. They
decide they don't like the looks of those ugly metal things and instead
want unobstructed views of the sky, horizon, trees and clouds. They file
suit to have all of us remove our aerials to suit their wishes. What would
you say - "Are you $&*@ crazy?? Didn't you read the the contract? This area
is set up for hams!" or would you say "Yes, good point - we should
That's the common sense part I made reference to. Seems people can always
find an exception when it suits their situation. The 'I want my cake and
eat it too, make it so, Government' syndrome. That seems to be the case
with this attempt at further government intervention.
I like being out a ways where I can play with my radios, work on my
vehicles, and shoot my guns. City folks prefer the convenience of the
city/community setting and its amenities. We just have to decide what means
more to us. There are trade offs with both.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 22 Feb 2018.