Things vary widely by area, and who it is that's making the decisions.
I had a bit of a LARGE issue back in the early 90's...somebody that had
a badge and
a patrol car was a bit of non-friendly...still haven't met the guy, I
I was told that he took a petition with 318 signatures downtown, and
*shook* it at
them. But, OTOH, he would NOT give it to them. I have to wonder *why*.
I'm not going to say any more, because that would be conjecture, and
the SOB might
I WON, it was a "test case".....and he couldn't even see my house from his.
(I probably couldn't really afford a lawyer right now, but I was making
almost nothing at the
time... and I STILL prevailed...sometimes good things happen...PRB-1 was
in effect at the time, too,
and people thought maybe some people downtown should have gone to bat
for me... not so...t'was
just MY problem...)
On 2/4/2012 9:17 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:51:53 -0600
> From: Jon<firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower lawsuit
> To: email@example.com
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Is it at the back of the lot ?
> Put a satellite dish or two on it...say it's to get a better signal.
> ## and provide your neighbor with free satellite for life too.
> ## VE6SH used to be the legal rep for RAC here in Canada. He had great
> success in some cases, where
> the amateur in question had bought a home in a new development...which had a
> ton of restrictions on it.
> Now contrary to what our friend Eddy may think, if you buy a home with
> restrictions on it, here in
> Canada, you have screwed yourself big time. Some near me will have all sorts
> of restrictions on them,
> like all driveways must be exposed aggregate, no clotheslines, no this, no
> that, no bird feeder's, no
> satellite dish's, no tv ants, no ham radio period. [as a sideline, some woman
> north of me wanted to
> save the environment, and put up a clothesline]. City hall said "no". A huge
> legal battle ensued. I
> think city hall won.]
> The ham won....simply cause he could prove that his neighbors' had
> themselves violated many
> of the rules that were in place, and had done so for years.
> The judge agreed, and allowed the install of the tower.
> The rules on setbacks upsets me. To have a tower fall full length and
> still remain on your
> own property is pretty tough if a ham lived on a typ city lot..like 50' x
> 120' or similar.
> Freestanding towers, like Trylons are designed to break at the 40'
> level..and not at the base.
> They will not fall full length. A UST crank up is the same deal, they
> break 3 x sections up.
> Now if a 100' tall tree on my own property, falls down on my neighbors'
> house, the neighbors'
> own house insurance covers the damage. If the neighbor does not have
> insurance, he is outa
> luck. My insurance does NOT cover my neighbors' home. Same deal with my
> later... Jim VE7RF
> TowerTalk mailing list
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4784 - Release Date: 02/03/12
TowerTalk mailing list