[Towertalk] Deed restrictions - It's about camels and frogs

[Jim Smith]

This suggests to me that it might be best to approach these associations 
saying something like, "We're having this problem and have been 
requesting the Gov't to solve it for us.  How about you guys 
specifically exempting ham antennas from the  agreements because of our 
public service and we'll stop bothering the Gov't about it."  I'm sure 
others could express it far better than this.

The idea being that now they won't have to spend money fending off the 
Gov't on this topic and maybe even end up looking good as well.  Just a 
thought.  No idea as to how effective this might be.

Why does a Canuck care?  If ham radio dies in the States, it dies 
everywhere.

73 de Jim Smith    VE7FO



K4IA@aol.com wrote:

>How to Understand the CCR Battle
>Hint:  It is about frogs and camels, not antennas
>
>I am a real estate attorney and in my time, I drafted lots of CCRs.  I can 
>assure you no developer I represented looked at any of them.  I just copied 
>the "standard form" which, I believe, originated with the Veterans 
>Administration.  VA had a set they would approve for VA loans.  How the 
>restrictions got into the VA documents, I'll never know because I am sure no 
>one at VA really cared about antennas.  The developer couldn't care less 
>about the details, or antennas, as long as he could control the Association 
>for as long and as cheaply as possible.  So, if no one cared, why is this a 
>big issue now?
>
>I suppose the restrictions were originally aimed at TV antennas.  Underground 
>utilities promised clear skies and a forest of TV antennas is pretty 
>unattractive.  One frog on your porch is cute.  A thousand frogs on your 
>porch are a plague.  When cable TV came along, I dropped the anti-antenna 
>provisions and no one ever noticed.  The hams in those neighborhoods don't 
>realize they had a friend on the inside.  By a stroke of the pen fifteen 
>years ago, I gave them a shot at having a decent signal.
>
>In the many thousands of transactions I have handled, I never heard anyone 
>ask for antenna prohibitions.  In fact, most homeowners regard their 
>association, and its rules, with contempt.  Too many hot-dogs end up running 
>these quasi-governments. We call them the "petunia police."  These are the 
>folks whose idea of fun is to prowl around the neighborhood with clipboards.  
>Impound the errant tricycle.  Arrest the toddler who left it on the front 
>porch.  Pummel the homeowner who picked the wrong shade of black for his 
>shutters.  Tear off the unauthorized storm door.  AAAAACK! IS THAT AN 
>ANTENNA?  
>
>These little tyrants clothe themselves in the mantle of "protecting property 
>values," acting for the "health, safety and welfare" of the community -- 
>lofty ideals that come to mean uniformity and conformity.  Uniformity and 
>conformity protect the status quo and keep the development "one-frog cute."  
>But, property rights are not the issue here.  Arguing property rights is a 
>losing battle -- you bought into these rules when you bought the house -- 
>discussion ended.  
>
>What happened?  Why did the FCC punt?  We would expect the FCC to be 
>favorable to hams and the FCC has no constituency on the other side of the 
>issue.  It should have been a slam-dunk for ARRL.  Why wasn't it?  Because, 
>it is not about antennas. 
>
>Three very powerful lobbies -- National Association of Homebuilders, National 
>Association of Realtors and the Community Associations Institute are making 
>lots of money building, selling and managing associations.  What they have 
>now works for them.  They will resist any effort to curtail their power to 
>decide what is best for the community.  The issue isn't a few ham antennas.  
>It is their very sovereignty at stake.  This is a turf war.  They know if 
>they allow the Feds a veto power on this issue, it will be demanded for other 
>issues.  Don't let the camel's nose under the tent or the rest of the camel 
>is sure to follow.  Folks, this is basic trade association politics.
>
>Compared to any one of these lobbies, ARRL is a QRPpp pip-squeak.  The three 
>together can crush anything or anyone.  I suspect some powers in Congress 
>have already been influenced (bought) and they told the FCC to lay off.  That 
>is how it works here in Washington.  If ARRL is to have any hope at all, they 
>will have to convince these powerful lobbies first, that preemption is not a 
>threat and secondly, that ham antennas are not a bad thing.  We are not a 
>camel -- only one cute little frog.  Good luck!
>
>
>Radio K4IA
>Craig "Buck"
>Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
>QRP ARCI #2550  FISTS #6702 CC 788 Diamond #64
>K1 #470    K2 #2460 
>fpQRP #442  QRP ARCI #2550
>