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


scott via AMRadio amradio at mailman.qth.net
Fri Aug 21 21:42:06 EDT 2015


There's yet another way to look at this, tho.

Lots of folks deal with HOAs and get permission for modest(maybe not reasonable, but modest) accommodations from the HOAs and their neighbors.  Not all the covenants say no, many say you need permission.  And not everyone that lives in an HOA impacted area moved there because they hate antennas or want everything painted the same way.

So often, it's a negotiation.  If it's established that an HOA needs to be reasonable in this regard because the Federal law preempts to some extent the ability of a private group to legislate about exclusively federal matters like communication,it makes that negotiation easier.  Ask lots of folks about how PRB1 helped them.  Not perfect, but definitely positive.

So reasonably supporting a bill that provides for reasonable accommodation doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.  Laws change that impact what you can do with property without grandfathering sometimes, and that's the way the law works, and it's why there is a process.

So as much as I appreciate the sanctity of contract, if there's a legal process with a valid basis to modify the existing covenants, go for it.  That's the way things work.  And if your contract happens to be modified a bit after you fought hard to prevent it, well, it happens sometimes, especially if you tried to contract for something that wasn't yours to control.  And if it goes through, and you're the guy getting the break, maybe don't go nuts and try to make the neighborhood look like an NSA site.

The sad part is that the case will be argued like everything else these days, from the extremes, no antennas versus huge towers, instead of what the much more likely scenarios will be for most folks, a fighting chance for a modest antenna to enjoy a potentially helpful hobby, that they'd otherwise be denied, without wrecking the character of the neighborhood.

I'm writing my guys, with a reasonable story like that.

Ymmv.

Scott ka9p





Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to ka9p at aol.com


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 17 Nov 2017.