HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS
Locked
HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS
 
|
PLEASE CROSS-POST THIS TO AS MANY REFLECTORS, SEND TO AS MANY HAMS AND NON-HAMS AND PRINT IN AS MANY NEWSLETTERS AS POSSIBLE!!
FROM QRZ.COM: RADIO LAW: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS N4UM tells Newsline that he has begun a petition drive to the FCC. This, in an attempt to get the regulatory agency to void antenna prohibitions by developers and Home Owners Associations. As of this report the petition has garnered over 1000 signatures. N4UM says that he is doing this now because the FCC is currently requesting formal comments on emergency communications in amateur radio. The agency also wants to know the effects of impediments to the amateur radio service as part of the Docket GN 12-91 inquiry. Comments on this federal study close on May 17th. N4UM says that his petition will also close on this same day. You can find his petition on-line at tinyurl.com/antenna-rights (N4UM) I don't know how much good this will do, but I can't see how it could hurt any pending efforts. At minimum it will bring some more attention to the subject by all concerned. In any case, PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION! Allen N5XZ / KL5DX ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS
|
|
On 12-04-23 01:44 PM, Allen Brier N5XZ wrote:
> This, in an attempt to get the regulatory agency to void antenna > prohibitions by developers and Home Owners Associations. EP2C8Q208C8N It would also help to pass along information about antenna use in relation to amateur radio to the developers and Home Owners Associations to point out they are trying to restrict something that is licensed at a federal level. A lot (most?) of local antenna restrictions were to originally to stop the sprouting up of TV antennas that could "spoil the look" of a neighbourhood. -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're | powerful!" #include <disclaimer/favourite> | --Chris Hardwick ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Allen Brier N5XZ
> > RADIO LAW: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS this is a waste of time as they (FCC) have no jurisdiction over local laws which differ from community to community. 72, Ron, wb1hga ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
This is a VALID way of responding and is likely our ONLY chance. If you don't care about your hobby, don't do a thing. This has been in process by the ARRL for 3 years and the FCC said they would not address the "private contract" (CC&Rs) SO, the ARRL went to congress and THEY TOLD THE FCC to gather information about the impediments to amateur radio communications and emergency communications in particular by the home owners restrictions (CC&Rs). We have never had a chance like this and will not likely have one again in our lifetime to supply them with what they are being forced to "study" (and WITH the help and assistance of the ARRL). I do not think much of this "petition" having any effect at all except to make people think they did something and prevent them from doing what we have been requested to do by the ARRL. Go to www. arrl.org - click on Regulatory and Advocacy - on the left side, click on Federal - on the left side, click on CCR Study Information - Please read about "Overview of FCC Land Use Restriction Study" - PLEASE respond. - The deadline is April 25 for getting your information to the ARRL. There is a form you can fill out online and there is an email for you to attach your CC&Rs and an explanation of your radio installation as well as how well/poorly it functions and what you were prevented from installing. url is www.arrl.org/ccr-regulations and the email is [hidden email] . This is a VALID way of responding and is likely our ONLY chance. If you don't care about your hobby, don't do a thing. 73, de Jim KG0KP ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION
|
|
In reply to this post by roncasa
> this is a waste of time as they (FCC) have no jurisdiction over local > laws which differ from community to community. That is not true. Several years ago the FCC's OTARD (over the air reception device) ruling overturned restrictions against television antennas, satellite dishes, wireless internet antennas, etc. The FCC (and any federal agency) has the authority to preempt private contracts (and land use restrictions) when they are "contrary to public policy). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 4/23/2012 2:45 PM, ron wrote: > >> >> RADIO LAW: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS > > this is a waste of time as they (FCC) have no jurisdiction over local > laws which differ from community to community. > > 72, > Ron, wb1hga > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION
|
|
In reply to this post by roncasa
On 4/23/2012 11:45 AM, ron wrote:
> >> >> RADIO LAW: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS > > this is a waste of time as they (FCC) have no jurisdiction over local > laws which differ from community to community. Actually the FCC does have jurisdiction over local laws....that's what "PRB-1" is all about. The situation here is jurisdiction over unreasonable private land use contract restrictions, commonly known as "CC&Rs",not local laws. I am an attorney who deals with that professionally. I'll be glad to post info about what is going on if the moderators feel that it is worthwhile. There's a lot of misinformation floating around right now. --- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Elecraft K2/100 s/n 5402 ARRL Volunteer Counsel >From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION
|
|
In reply to this post by roncasa
While that may be true in some kind of libertarian fantasy land, in
reality the FCC (through PRB-1) and the rest of the federal government has a wide range of authority which can impact (or invalidate) local laws. This is why one can't legally buy a newly manufactured machine gun in any state, or start a marijuana commune, even in states where the cannabis has been decriminalized. That the FCC has chosen not to enforce PRB-1 doesn't mean that the agency doesn't have the authority to do so. The current administration seems to have a more traditional view of the FCC's place in the regulatory landscape than has been the case since Reagan. 73, Scott, N9AA On 4/23/12 2:45 PM, ron wrote: >> RADIO LAW: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS > this is a waste of time as they (FCC) have no jurisdiction over local > laws which differ from community to community. > > 72, > Ron, wb1hga > > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS
|
|
In reply to this post by Kevin Cozens-2
I'll not disagree with you but my view is more cynical. It's all
about the money. From what I see, many of the things in CC&Rs are put there by the developer to ensure no one does anything to reduce his ability to sell units for top dollar. Things like permitted colors, no cars parked outside, no chain link fences, no split level and on and on. Since most people are not affected by these they willingly accept them. Once in place no Association is willing to change them for fear of reducing values. Since they are so prevalent in new developments and have been for many years it has the effect of red lining for hams. My views - your delete key David K0LUM At 2:36 PM -0400 4/23/12, Kevin Cozens wrote: >A >lot (most?) of local antenna restrictions were to originally to stop the >sprouting up of TV antennas that could "spoil the look" of a neighbourhood. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION
|
|
In reply to this post by Scott Manthe-2
PRB-1 is not a law. It was a recommendation to local jurisdictions that
they allow reasonable antenna accommodation for ham radio. When the FCC acted to allow antennas for satellite TV, the commission chose not to include ham radio. In recent years, ham radio has proven itself so useful/helpful during disasters that apparently the commission has chosen to review its past decision. I'm not aware of what kicked this off, but it sure is about time. 73, Barry On 4/23/2012 3:26 PM, Scott Manthe wrote: > While that may be true in some kind of libertarian fantasy land, in > reality the FCC (through PRB-1) and the rest of the federal government > has a wide range of authority which can impact (or invalidate) local > laws. This is why one can't legally buy a newly manufactured machine gun > in any state, or start a marijuana commune, even in states where the > cannabis has been decriminalized. > > That the FCC has chosen not to enforce PRB-1 doesn't mean that the > agency doesn't have the authority to do so. The current administration > seems to have a more traditional view of the FCC's place in the > regulatory landscape than has been the case since Reagan. > > 73, > Scott, N9AA > > > On 4/23/12 2:45 PM, ron wrote: >>> RADIO LAW: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS >> this is a waste of time as they (FCC) have no jurisdiction over local >> laws which differ from community to community. >> >> 72, >> Ron, wb1hga >> >> > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION
|
|
In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > ...Several years ago the FCC's OTARD (over the air > reception device) ruling overturned restrictions against television > antennas, satellite dishes, wireless internet antennas, etc. The > FCC (and any federal agency) has the authority.. ============== Yep. This has been the case for many years and QST has reports frequently about this or that case wherein a ham's attorney has used the federal regulation to overturn some local law and allow antenna construction. The ARRL has an in-house legal adviser to help hams use the federal regs for this purpose. The specific purpose of at least one currently proposed petition is to strengthen the existing protection that hams are supposed to have against local legislation, by citing specific instances in which a ham's inability to put up an antenna was deemed to have prevented effective emergency communications. Our DX club recently asked members to send in specific examples of this sort of clash, if they know of any. Tony KT0NY -- http://www.isb.edu/faculty/facultydir.aspx?ddlFaculty=352 ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION
|
|
In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4
Hi Joe:
My HOA had to add an addendum to it's rules to accommodate the use of a dish up to 1 meter in diameter, per the FCC ruling. Prior to that, the rules only "permitted" a dish up to 18" in diameter. Federal law will always pre-empt state or local laws, including CC&Rs. 73 de Ray K2ULR On Apr 23, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > >> this is a waste of time as they (FCC) have no jurisdiction over local >> laws which differ from community to community. > > That is not true. Several years ago the FCC's OTARD (over the air > reception device) ruling overturned restrictions against television > antennas, satellite dishes, wireless internet antennas, etc. The > FCC (and any federal agency) has the authority to preempt private > contracts (and land use restrictions) when they are "contrary to > public > policy). > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS
|
|
In reply to this post by David Christ
On Apr 23, 2012, at 2:31 PM, David Christ wrote: > Once in place no Association is willing to > change them for fear of reducing values. Since they are so prevalent > in new developments and have been for many years it has the effect of > red lining for hams. My experience with these things, is that it ends up having virtually nothing to do with home values. The typical "no radio transmitters allowed" clauses would ban garage door openers, cell phones, and Wifi, but they don't of course. HA's bring out the worst in the power hungry individuals and control freaks who typically populate them, and who would be happy to foreclose on your house because the color of your awnings offend them personally. I'd love to see the FeeCee tell these groups to pound sand. As much as we scream about "freedom", we seem to be willing to give it up anytime time abrogation is offered. I suspect the NRA would be willing to go broke supporting any homeowner who wanted to put a 16" gun turret on his roof as a 2nd Amendment right, but of course an antenna of any kind is a problem :) (I suspect this is going to hit "end of thread" any minute) :) ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNAPROHIBITIONS
|
|
I live out of town on 40 acres. My two towers are in easy view of a state
highway out front. They can be seen for over a mile. Around here my towers and antennas are landmarks. It's nice to have a little antenna farm and have it appreciated by others...........................8>) Used to live in a sub division that had a nuisance ordinance. They were up in arms about a little 40 foot Rohn with a tribander and couple v/uhf antennas above. The crack pro next door who was in and out her place all night long with various johns was obviously not as much a nuisance as I was. Not to mention her brother who was arrested 26 times in one year. The cops were there a few times a month for one thing or another. Amazing how these control freaks disappear when something really unsavory shows up. One of the freaks called me out one night with a pistol in his back pocket. A brief conversation with him resulted in me not getting shot and him never getting very close to me again..........................8>) I truly sympathize with those fighting antenna restrictions. I lived that life most of mine. Now I consider myself a lucky guy. My closest neighbor is just over a quarter mile away. And what great folks they are. GL es 73 all. Mike Sanders KOAZ -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Grant Youngman Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 15:00 PM To: Elecraft List Subject: Re: [Elecraft] HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNAPROHIBITIONS On Apr 23, 2012, at 2:31 PM, David Christ wrote: > Once in place no Association is willing to > change them for fear of reducing values. Since they are so prevalent > in new developments and have been for many years it has the effect of > red lining for hams. My experience with these things, is that it ends up having virtually nothing to do with home values. The typical "no radio transmitters allowed" clauses would ban garage door openers, cell phones, and Wifi, but they don't of course. HA's bring out the worst in the power hungry individuals and control freaks who typically populate them, and who would be happy to foreclose on your house because the color of your awnings offend them personally. I'd love to see the FeeCee tell these groups to pound sand. As much as we scream about "freedom", we seem to be willing to give it up anytime time abrogation is offered. I suspect the NRA would be willing to go broke supporting any homeowner who wanted to put a 16" gun turret on his roof as a 2nd Amendment right, but of course an antenna of any kind is a problem :) (I suspect this is going to hit "end of thread" any minute) :) ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4954 - Release Date: 04/23/12 ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS
|
|
In reply to this post by Grant Youngman
The CC&Rs that are effectively shutting down Amateur Radio in many
residential areas desperately need to be superseded by the FCC. I would also add that although towers and beams are nice, they really aren't necessary for effective communication and in some situations aren't advisable. In my neighborhood, for example, high winds and the proximity of other homes are enough to keep a tower off my my wish list -- the liability alone would keep me up at night. What the CC&Rs lack is "reasonable accommodation" -- for example, I could easily string up a multiband wire antenna across the back of my house and it wouldn't even remotely be an eyesore. Or I could use a ground-mounted vertical. Or both. But under the present set of circumstances, I have to hide the fact that I'm a ham in order to keep from being severely penalized by the HOA nannies. I really hope the FCC finally mans up and does something about the CC&R problem. There have been efforts to fix this at the state level, and most of those fail. A federal mandate is what is needed! Steve, AI7AZ Vail, AZ On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Grant Youngman <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On Apr 23, 2012, at 2:31 PM, David Christ wrote: > > > Once in place no Association is willing to > > change them for fear of reducing values. Since they are so prevalent > > in new developments and have been for many years it has the effect of > > red lining for hams. > > My experience with these things, is that it ends up having virtually > nothing to do with home values. The typical "no radio transmitters > allowed" clauses would ban garage door openers, cell phones, and Wifi, but > they don't of course. HA's bring out the worst in the power hungry > individuals and control freaks who typically populate them, and who would > be happy to foreclose on your house because the color of your awnings > offend them personally. > > I'd love to see the FeeCee tell these groups to pound sand. As much as we > scream about "freedom", we seem to be willing to give it up anytime time > abrogation is offered. I suspect the NRA would be willing to go broke > supporting any homeowner who wanted to put a 16" gun turret on his roof as > a 2nd Amendment right, but of course an antenna of any kind is a problem :) > > (I suspect this is going to hit "end of thread" any minute) :) > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Kane-2
Thanks for jumping in, Phil.
I did not respond with comments because these private contracts do not affect me - yet. This is an established neighborhood with no HOA or CC&Rs, so no problem putting up antennas. In fact, my neighbor to the west is also a ham and has higher VHF antennas than I have HF antennas. Also, I do not currently participate in emergency communications. However, It's almost impossible to buy a new home, or a home that was built in the last several years, without running into this restriction. I've never quite understood why these restrictions don't expire when all of the homes in a given development have passed ownership from the developer to the individual homeowners. That is, in absence of a HOA. 73 de Jim - AD6CW On 4/23/2012 12:18 PM, Phil Kane wrote: > Actually the FCC does have jurisdiction over local laws....that's what > "PRB-1" is all about. The situation here is jurisdiction over > unreasonable private land use contract restrictions, commonly known as > "CC&Rs",not local laws. I am an attorney who deals with that > professionally. I'll be glad to post info about what is going on if > the moderators feel that it is worthwhile. There's a lot of > misinformation floating around right now. --- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane > Elecraft K2/100 s/n 5402 ARRL Volunteer Counsel >From a Clearing in > the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Reed
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Steve Reed <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...What the CC&Rs lack is "reasonable accommodation" -- for example, I > could easily string up a > multiband wire antenna... -------------------- I'm sure all hams would agree with Steve. A clarification of the existing regs would give hams much more leverage in attempts to cram down a "reasonable accommodation" over the objections of local officials. Some have succeeded, and whenever one does QST crows about it -- but many have failed. My town is kinda snooty but there have been some hams on zoning boards etc and a precedent was established a long time ago that antennas are okay if they aren't too obtrusive (whatever that may mean). My solution was to mount a hex-beam on my chimney. It's hardly visible from the road. In general, antennas mounted on a house seem to be out of the purview of the vigilantes. Some of my buddies even have roof tripods and tri-banders. If some standard could be set so that every ham could have the same rights we enjoy here, 'twould be a consummation devoutly to be wished. Tony KT0NY -- http://www.isb.edu/faculty/facultydir.aspx?ddlFaculty=352 ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION [END of Thread]
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Jim Low man
Folks - This OT thread is exceeding our max posting quantity threshold.
Please take it to direct email. [Thread closed] 73, Eric Elecraft List moderator --- www.elecraft.com On 4/23/2012 3:16 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: > My XYL is a real estate broker here in Oregon and one of the things most > often found on a buyer's "must have" list for a home is *NO HOA*. > > As a result, HOA's here tend to bring down the value of a property. > > CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions on what you can do with > property you buy) may exist even with no HOA. They often have expiration > dates written into them, and they are frequently voided by state and federal > laws. For example, I once owned a home built in the 1920's whose CC&Rs > included a prohibition from hanging my laundry out on a clothesline on > Sundays. Having no clothesline I didn't test it. > > Anyone owning or contemplating owning property should know what CC&Rs are > attached to it or if there are none. If your Realtor isn't helpful, contact > the company who insured your title to the property. > > 73, Ron AC7AC > > > -----Original Message----- > > However, It's almost impossible to buy a new home, or a home that was built > in the last several years, without running into this restriction. > > I've never quite understood why these restrictions don't expire when all of > the homes in a given development have passed ownership from the developer to > the individual homeowners. > That is, in absence of a HOA. > > 73 de Jim - AD6CW > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS [End of thread]
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Tony Estep
This thread (with a slightly different subject line) is also closed.
73, Eric Elecraft List Moderator, from time to time.. --- www.elecraft.com On 4/23/2012 2:40 PM, Tony Estep wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Steve Reed<[hidden email]> wrote: > >> ...What the CC&Rs lack is "reasonable accommodation" -- for example, I >> could easily string up a >> ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION
|
|
In reply to this post by Jim Low man
I have frequently seen real estate ads that actually say "No HOAs" as a
selling point. Just the opposite of what it was like 20 years ago or so. On Apr 23, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: > My XYL is a real estate broker here in Oregon and one of the things most > often found on a buyer's "must have" list for a home is *NO HOA*. > > As a result, HOA's here tend to bring down the value of a property. > > CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions on what you can do with > property you buy) may exist even with no HOA. They often have expiration > dates written into them, and they are frequently voided by state and federal > laws. For example, I once owned a home built in the 1920's whose CC&Rs > included a prohibition from hanging my laundry out on a clothesline on > Sundays. Having no clothesline I didn't test it. > > Anyone owning or contemplating owning property should know what CC&Rs are > attached to it or if there are none. If your Realtor isn't helpful, contact > the company who insured your title to the property. > > 73, Ron AC7AC > > > -----Original Message----- > > However, It's almost impossible to buy a new home, or a home that was built > in the last several years, without running into this restriction. > > I've never quite understood why these restrictions don't expire when all of > the homes in a given development have passed ownership from the developer to > the individual homeowners. > That is, in absence of a HOA. > > 73 de Jim - AD6CW > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jim Low man
On 4/23/2012 3:16 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> If your Realtor isn't helpful, contact > the company who insured your title to the property. No Ron, find a new Realtor who is helpful 73, Fred K6DGW - Northern California Contest Club - CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012 - www.cqp.org ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [HAM]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |