First, I am not aware of any study or evidence to support the claim that
ham antennas harm property values. All I know is that the house right
behind me in densely populated Silicon Valley sold easily at least three
times since I put up my 89' motorized crank-up over 28 years ago, and it
always sold at higher and higher prices.
Lenders may require CC&Rs for other reasons, but antenna restrictions
should play no significant role.
As retired FCC attorney N3JT points out in his rebuttal to the ARRL
<http://files.constantcontact.com/40babb3f001/cd81cb95-e983-494b-a16a-13dfa693870a.pdf>
:
"While ARRL suggests that HOA limits on antennas can be blamed on lenders,
HOAs always have had the right to allow antennas. At best, ARPA gives HOA
boards the ability to hide behind federal law to deny permission for any
antenna other than perhaps a small whip for 2m on a railing behind a
single-family home in a community. Aesthetics as a basis for denial now
becomes federal mandate (instead of a contractual issue) under standards
that can be easily subverted into an outright denial. How this is not worse
than matters now stand is mystifying, unless of course the HOA board is
inclined toward granting antennas in the spirit of ARPA. That could happen,
and to that extent, ARPA would be helpful. But then there is reality."
73,
Bob, N6TV
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Dave Thompson <thompson@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> I doubt there is a subdivision built in the last 25 or 30 years that does
> nor require a HOA. Why, because the financial institutions require the
> restrictions before they lend any money to the developer to get the
> subdivision
> started. I feel the act tried to cure the dog after the fact. I think the
> real approach is to get banks et al to change the set of rules at their end
> before the funding starts.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|