nbcblue at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 22 14:41:20 EDT 2015
If your 50 ft. or whatever tower would not fall on any other's property, then what is your issue with the restriction? I ask again, would you want a neighbour to erect a structure that if it fell it would fall on your property damaging your house? You mention the fence. Is this the neighbours fence? And you would gladly compensate them for any damages that would occur, very kind of you as that is what you should, but now the neighbour has a damaged fence he must spend time to have repaired even though you are paying for it. So just what is wrong with a restriction that says if you put up a structure that should it fall it will not fall on someone else's property? Seem very reasonable to me. We have too much of this "I am a ham radio operator and I should be allowed to do whatever I want."
Bill - K5MIL
<Why do I have a problem with this?
<Simple - The aforementioned 50 foot tower would NOT reach either
house on either side of me. Only <fences.
< I would gladly compensate them for any fence damages that would
< I resent the implication that I expect "special consideration",
when you don't even know what is or is not in < the mix!
< To erect a 50 foot tower that would reach either house, I'd have
to put it on the very peak of my roof! I < < <
never had any such
< In this instance, you are way off base!
<< On 8/22/2015 1:59 PM, W. Harris wrote:
<< Why do you have a problem with that? Would you want
a neighbours tower to fall on your property and << come crashing
through your roof? Some seem to think having a ham license
should give one special
<< Bill - K5MIL
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 17 Nov 2017.