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


KC9CDT via AMRadio amradio at mailman.qth.net
Sat Aug 22 07:10:44 EDT 2015


Scott,
Well said....
Why would any ham NOT support all of us other hams that need help in reasonable accommodations??
I would hope all hams would support fellow hams.
This NOT to support a HOA, it is the opposite...it is to support fellow hams.
73,
Lee
 

Lee Simmonds
Summit DCS LLC
 
260-799-4077 Office
260-403-6936 Cell

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: scott via AMRadio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
To: Todd, KA1KAQ <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
Cc: Donald Chester <k4kyv at charter.net>; Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 9:43 pm
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R.


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
______________________________________________________________
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 kc9cdt at aol.com

 


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 23 Nov 2017.