I'm with you Jim.
It seems to me that CC&R's may well be the biggest threat to the future
of ham radio. At least in California, it is virtually impossibe to buy
in any newish development and not be prohibited by CC&Rs from having an
outside antenna. The only reasonable thing to do is locate on the
outskirts of town on a single lot that was subdivided before the
current CC&R "restrict everything" trend began. This usually
constrains one to older homes. It is a non-starter for someone to say,
"Well, if you don't like it - go buy somewhere else." There is no
where else to buy comparable property that is without restrictions - at
least in California.
It appears that a developer somewhere put everything he could think of
into the restrictions on some development he was doing. Then other
developers got those CC&Rs and used them as a starting point. They
added anything they could think of and then their lawyers added
anything they could think of. Then the next developer used those
CC&R's as his starting point and so on.
There is a development in the East Bay on quarter acre lots with prices
starting around $2 million in which the CC&Rs specify acceptable house
colors, curtain colors, curtain sytles, prohibits the use of ANY power
tools, specifies that no autos can be more than 10 years old, no
outside antennas, no kids toys visible from the street, no motorhomes
may be parked (even for a visit), etc.
I somehow don't think all the guys that died fighting for freedom had
in mind that we would sign away those hard-won freedoms in order to
minimize the risk real estate developers face.
There is essentially a "market fixing" scheme (among developers and
planning commissions) in place in California in that there is a tacit
agreement that no developers will put new developments in place that
lack highly restrictive covenants. Maybe there is some way to attack
them on the basis that there is collusion among developers or because
there is no alternative available anywhere in California for equivalent
property that is free of such restrictions.
I have observed that planning commissions, architectural review
committees, and homeowner's associations tend to be staffed by people
who truly believe they know the better way to live. Most planners
studied urban planning in college. They relish the power to lead all
us slugs out of the darkness and show us "the enlightened" way to live
(I've actually been given this lecture). Combine that with the
paranoia felt by a developer with big bucks at risk and homeowners
whose entire net worth is the equity in their homes - and you have the
mess we have today.
I'm not sure Nazi's is an inappropriate tag for this bunch.
Michael
--- WB9UWA Jim Shaffer <wb9uwa@gte.net> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I think I have to agree with Mikes assement. "Nozis" is an accurate
> description
> for most Homeowners associations as they relate to towers. When I was
> visiting
> open houses in Florida for a possible move, I was laughed
> out of the house for even suggesting that there might be a way
> to accomodate a ham with a tower. This was not even a remote
> possibility and she was not hearing me. I was not amused.
>
> The "no tower" restiction isn't even producing a practical result
> either.
> The objective is estetics, yet many of these deed restricted
> subdivisions
> are built right next to huge ugly power lines and poles, often as
> large as
> 24"
> diameter and 70 feet tall.
>
> Deed restrictions are putting a strangle hold on our ability
> to carry out ham radio. The rubber stamp, no towers part
> is to blame. I am looking for a place to live and must face the
> choice
> of living in a slum or living without a tower (possible exaggeration,
> but
> not much
> of one!). My choices are substantially reduced to the point that I
> must stay
> where I am.
>
> A positive and helpful post on this subject would include several
> ideas
> showing how to solve this growing problem. A lonely spot in the
> Country
> is not an economic reality for me.
>
> 73, Jim Shaffer, WB9UWA.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Subich, K4IK <k4ik@subich.com>
> To: Mike Lazaroff K3AIR <K3AIR@arrl.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 3:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [Towertalk] deed restrictions
>
>
> >
> > > From: Mike Lazaroff K3AIR
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 5:34 PM
> > > To: towertalk@contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Towertalk] deed restrictions
> > >
> > >
> > > When I sold real estate, I advised all my ham clients to avoid
> CC&R
> > > developments like the plague if they had *any* intention of
> staying on
> the
> > > air. Until these homeowner association nazis are reigned in,
> it's still
> a
> > > good idea.
> > >
> >
> > Back off the attack level just a bit. Although some homeowner
> associations
> > are serious about enforcing their CC&Rs, "homeowner association
> nazis" is
> > unnecessary ... and I'm offended by it.
> >
> > In case anyone cares, there are CC&R associations that do not
> prohibit
> > amateur antennas. There are at least four hams in my community ...
> at
> > least three have towers. I made very certain before making an
> offer on
> > my property that the CC&Rs did not prohibit towers and talked to
> some of
> > the hams already in the community before closing.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > ... Joe, K4IK
> >
> > PS. I just happen to be Vice President of the homeowner's
> association.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Towertalk mailing list
> > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Towertalk mailing list
> Towertalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/
|