On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:39:12 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>If I as a ham, buy a house with the knowledge that towers are not prohibitied,
>and you as a neighbor move in next door, with the knowledge that towers are
>not prohibited (we both signed off on the closing papers where restrictive
>covenents were reviewed, right?), then you have no complaint to make about
>my towers, when I subsequently exercise the use of my property subject to
>the restrictions placed on them when I purchased the house.
Restrictive covenants are a different issue from zoning laws. I've
not dealt with covenants personally, but I understand they are MUCH
harder to get around. Zoning laws can be appealed or changed by the
usual political processes, but covenants are a civil agreement. Even
they can be changed, however; witness the old private racial covenants
which were outlawed by the Civil Rights Act. It's not easy, but it is
>> Making such a change is itself legal, whether we like it
>> or not.
>But they're not generally retroactive....if my tower was erected in accordance
>with all permits and regulations in effect at the time of installation, you're
>going to have a hard time telling me it's now illegal after the fact!
Not generally retroactive, true, but they can be. PRB-1 is one
example which works in our favor. Most of the changes don't.
>>>If an individual doesn't agree with the neighbor exercising his right
>>>to do whatever's legal on their property, that individual has two
>>>choices... either move, or accept the tower (junkyard, steel mill).
>>Actually there is a third choice: Work to get the rule/law/ordinance
>What rule/law/ordinance? Re-read the sentence above:
>"If an individual doesn't agree with the neighbor exercising his right
>to do whatever's legal on their property".
>The discussion is over a perfectly legal use of ones property... that *is* the
>crux of this
I still maintain there is a third choice as stated above.
Laws/rules/ordinances CAN be changed. Am I wrong?
73, Bill W7TI