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


Todd, KA1KAQ ka1kaq at gmail.com
Sat Aug 22 10:55:47 EDT 2015


On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I bet most folks against this have never had to live in an HOA
> controlled development.


Good point, Rob. I agree - in fact, I bet 99.99999% of the people out there
still don't have to live in a home controlled by a HOA unless they want to.
Why? Freedom of choice. I'll agree that there will be the odd number here
or there that get a job transfer on the spur of the moment and don't have
time to look around, but they are the tiny exception. We had less than a
month to find a place before moving to NC, yet managed to avoid the myriad
of HOA-controlled developments simply by investing a little time and making
a few choices. I understand now that by today's standards, doing such can
make you a bad person for having something someone else chooses not to
have, but it is what it is.


> They remind me of the hams who run plasma TVs
> and don't care if it makes another ham miserable.  The same, I'm okay
> Jack and move if you don't like it mindset.


Or an equally-good comparison: the few who want to live in a HOA home and
sign the contract, then expect the HOA to change the rules to suit them.
The HOA could be compared to any number of private clubs out there, like
the Men's clubs that used to exist in different cities. Then one day the
feminist movement decided to cry discrimination and demand membership. In
this instance it was an open and shut case based on gender, but they didn't
want to be members anyway. They just didn't want someone else having
something they didn't like. Bravo.


>   And the whole intrusive
> government running my life thing--why don't y'all tear up your
> licenses and become pirates? Hey, the government can't tell me
>
whether or not I can run a transmitter on my own property, right?


Simple: certain things in a civilized society are classified as privileges
due to your ability to negatively impact others with your actions. While
you do have the right to apply and participate, you can lose that privilege
by misusing or otherwise abusing it. A certain amount of regulation is
necessary, like traffic lights in areas with traffic congestion. I'm sure
many of us can think of at least one spot with a light that does nothing
beyond burning electricity, aka over regulation.


> I object to this tyranny a.k.a. democracy and Congress!   Ha!  Well, if
> this "majority" on AMradio reflector is anything to go by, the
> majority are in favor of it.
>

Wow, Rob. I hate to use the term 'simple majority' in this case as so far
I've seen maybe half a dozen or so people respond favoring this approach.
Along with one list reply I've received several private replies from
members who just don't want to get involved in banging their heads against
the wall in this discussion. I've had to stay close to the phone the last
couple days waiting for a call from a trucking company, hence too much time
online, tsk tsk. But if you want to think that, again - you're still free
to do so. I do know Bernie Sanders would be proud of some of the arguments
put forth here for government intervention. He eats that stuff up. And
being from the Chicago area, I can understand why you'd see negative
reactions to the status quo as objectionable.

Another simple fact that is conveniently ignored is the fact that HOAs are
not government entities, they are private groups like clubs, in which we
are free *not* to participate. They are formed *specially* to control what
is and isn't allowed in the group. Again, you need to invoke that Freedom
of Choice thing, even make tough choices about what means more to you.
Don't like the HOA rules? Don't join. Based on that alone, I can't see how
this would get passed. Then again - you picked the perfect time and
administration to present it to. Even if Congress says no, the magic pen
can find a way.

With that, I'm done. Not only is it clear that the 'not able to tell the
difference' point has been reached in the discussion, Jim is right - the
hard, blunt realities involved in a serious discussion like this are too
much for some, and feelings can get hurt. And we don't want that, not in
today's world.

I just want to stress that, though I disagree with some, it ends there. My
observations and opinions are just that. Aside from Common Sense telling me
it's okay to disagree and move on, it's really not worth the effort to take
or make it personal. Very little in this life is.


Todd/KAQ   (o:


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 17 Nov 2017.