[AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R.


Todd, KA1KAQ ka1kaq at gmail.com
Fri Aug 21 20:08:14 EDT 2015


On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Donald Chester <k4kyv at charter.net> wrote:

>
> So please explain how my putting up an unobtrusive antenna, such as a
> dipole
> strung between trees in the back yard of  my own property, in any way
> injures or violates the "rights" of other residents living  down the
> street?
>

In the typical situation like you or I have, it doesn't. But HOAs aren't
typical, and once they open the door to 'reasonable accommodation' they
might as well have nothing. What about the guy who wants to operate on 160?
Height and size of the aerial vary just a bit from a 2 meter Jpole.

 Zoning laws governing tower and antenna  installations didn't
> suddenly disappear once the FCC enacted PRB-1.
>

Agreed. But if you buy a piece of property and sign a contract not to do
something, you are bound by it. That's what contracts are for. They govern
specific situations, just like zoning laws do. It's amazing how people can
so conveniently forget this part when it involves something they want.


> So we only have whatever "rights" that the vast majority goes along with?
> Isn't that, by definition, mob rule? Before the 1960s, large swathes of the
> country had Jim Crowe laws
>
<snipped out excessive amount of hype and unrelated nonsense>

Apples and oranges, Don. But I understand. It's easier to ignore or forget
the facts when they don't support your argument. Such is the case here.

You're leaving out the one most obvious and important fact of all: no one
is being forced to sign a contract or live there, and it's not some crime
being perpetrated on existing residents who were in place before the HOA
was conceived.

In this case, buying a home in an area controlled by a HOA is *purely
voluntary*. You choose to ignore this and instead compare it to racial
discrimination forced on others, etc etc etc. That's quite a leap, even for
you. (o:


> Just my personal opinion; it's "pretty pathetic" that a licensed amateur
> radio operator would oppose a very small step towards allowing fellow hams
> to enjoy their hobby in a reasonable manner on a piece of property they
> bought, paid for and pay taxes on.  "I've got mine and therefore don't give
> a damn about anybody else."
>

Yes, that's exactly it, Don. I want no one else to enjoy amateur radio.
It's more fun to talk to myself.

Once more you ignore the facts as well as what I've said previously. It
goes more like "If I can figure it out(aka I've got mine), so can you(have
yours). Don't join a HOA if you want to enjoy ham radio(because you sign
away your rights and they don't give a damn)". I *encourage* others to do
as most of us do: don't forfeit your rights for the sake of convenience,
appearances, and whatever else these HOAs with their "NEW" homes and other
amenities offer. There are new homes being built outside HOAs daily. HOAs
suck, pure and simple. But at least they're voluntary. Unless your wife
requires it. But you still get to choose - stay married or live elsewhere.
Yep, life is full of choices and sacrifices.

Your argument is based on a false premise: that someone bought property
then had this nonsense forced on them. Not true. These people willingly
chose location, age of home, convenience, wife's opinion etc over the
freedom to erect a tower, aerials, or anything else excluded in the
contract they *freely and willingly signed*.


> American property rights and petty suppression of liberty in one's own home
> has to be one of the closest things we've ever had in this country to
> Soviet
> style communism.
>

Except for the fact that 98+% of the people who sign seem astute enough to
read and understand what they're signing and are perfectly content to live
with their decision. These folks are the ones HOAs are built for, not those
who want old junk in their yard, towers around, or a firing range in their
backyard. Hence the 'agreement' or contract.

Then again - your approach encourages suppression of rights by abdicating
them to the government in favor of some immediate gratification. Much more
Soviet-esque. We already have the liberty you're claiming has been taken so
long as we don't foolishly sign it away. Or get the government involved.

Something else to keep in mind: this mess has the potential to do
considerable future damage to the amateur community when we're seen as a
bunch of sniveling crybabies who sign on the dotted line, then whine to the
government to intervene on our behalf when we decide we don't want to
follow the contract we agreed to. We're not talking about local elected
governments suppressing their citizens' rights, we're talking about private
homeowners associations that individuals willingly join.

My argument here isn't against hams enjoying their hobby, Don. My argument
is about the personal freedom to choose, and those few who would invite the
government in to interfere on their behalf and encroach on the the rights
of all others, to satisfy their desires. That scares me. It's not about
discrimination, Jim Crowe, or any of the other attempts at misdirection. My
argument is the one for personal freedoms and personal rights. Simple as
that.

Your argument here is based on property rights after the fact. I think in
the real world that's referred to as Buyers Remorse. Yes - by free choice,
I've 'got mine' as far as having a home to live in that isn't restricted.
So do you. Lee and anyone else has that same opportunity based on what they
want to choose. He's made it clear he wants all the benefits offered by the
HOA community first and foremost - he just doesn't want to be subjected to
the agreement he signs aka hold up his side of the bargain. Remember - no
one is making anyone sign anything here.

So yes, it really is as simple as basic contract law, and you clearly
support the 'big government control' position, choosing to wrap it up as a
case of 'supporting your fellow ham'. As if anyone who doesn't agree must
be anti-ham, or against amateur radio. Reminds me a lot of the old ARRL
argument that if you're not a member, you must be against supporting
amateur radio, or more recently the political argument that if you disagree
with the president it's because you're a racist.

Thanks, I'll pass and hang onto my personal rights and freedoms as well as
my license. Those who agree with your position are free to sign away their
liberty in exchange for living in a shiny new HOA, then run to the
government to come save them from the choice they've made. After all, the
nanny state mentality has worked wonders for this country for the last 7
years. Self-responsibility? Accountability? They're out getting drunk with
Common Sense, traits no longer needed in the brave, new world.

No hard feelings, Don - we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You like your position, I like mine, and for the time being, at least,
we're still free to do so. And it's as good a time as any to consider the
old addage 'Never argue with a fool.....'. I'm sure it can be seen as not
position-specific in this case.

~ Todd/KAQ


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 23 Nov 2017.