|[AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R.|
garyschafer at largeriver.net
Sat Aug 22 12:12:40 EDT 2015
A couple of points that are forgotten here:
What about the people that move into one of those places and later decide
they would like to become a ham. Should they then be required to move to a
non HOA residence?
This may be keeping many new potential hams away.
Nice real estate is becoming hard to find without restrictions. For about 20
years I lived in a home with HOA restrictions. At that time ham radio was a
lower priority with career and good schools for the kids a higher priority.
There were few places to buy a new home in the area with out any
restrictions that I could afford.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AMRadio [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of
> Todd, KA1KAQ
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 9:56 AM
> To: Rob Atkinson
> Cc: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R.
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com>
> > 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
> still don't have to live in a home controlled by a HOA unless they want
> Why? Freedom of choice. I'll agree that there will be the odd number
> or there that get a job transfer on the spur of the moment and don't
> 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
> of HOA-controlled developments simply by investing a little time and
> a few choices. I understand now that by today's standards, doing such
> 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
> 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.
> this instance it was an open and shut case based on gender, but they
> 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
> 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
> by misusing or otherwise abusing it. A certain amount of regulation is
> necessary, like traffic lights in areas with traffic congestion. I'm
> 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,
> > 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
> I've seen maybe half a dozen or so people respond favoring this
> 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
> the wall in this discussion. I've had to stay close to the phone the
> couple days waiting for a call from a trucking company, hence too much
> online, tsk tsk. But if you want to think that, again - you're still
> to do so. I do know Bernie Sanders would be proud of some of the
> 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
> not government entities, they are private groups like clubs, in which we
> are free *not* to participate. They are formed *specially* to control
> is and isn't allowed in the group. Again, you need to invoke that
> 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
> 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.
> observations and opinions are just that. Aside from Common Sense telling
> it's okay to disagree and move on, it's really not worth the effort to
> or make it personal. Very little in this life is.
> Todd/KAQ (o:
> 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 garyschafer at largeriver.net
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 18 Feb 2018.