[TowerTalk] [BULK] - Re: [BULK] - Re: [BULK] - Re: Tower Re strictions

[Steve Katz]

Hi Steve,

The house I had with the restriction on liquor sales was in L.A. (West
Hills).  I figured the guy who sold the land to the developer must have
been a teetotaler.  L.A. was pretty antenna friendly.  When I was living 
with my folks in Santa Monica in the 1950s, the zoning administrator was 
a neighbor.  I asked him about putting in a tower and he said there were 
no rules one way or the other, so go ahead (that probably has changed a 
bit).

::Hi Bob.  Actually, it hasn't changed much.  Although the Coastal
Commission admins anything within a few miles of the ocean, so Santa Monica
has more rules than inland locations do.  L.A. remains a very ham-friendly
city, with the only problem being private deed restrictions in some places.
Curiously enough (check it out, this is very true), the more affluent the
neighborhood, the less likely there will be any deed restrictions at all.
Newport Beach, where the average home is probably $2-1/2 million or so,
permits amateur towers to 70 feet without the need for any variance or CUP.
Hidden Hills, just a few miles SW of West Hills, has an average home value
of ~$3 Million and has no CC&Rs at all -- there are hundreds of homes there,
and quite a number of hams.  The notion that CC&Rs mean a "better community"
somehow just doesn't wash, anywhere.  It's baloney.


When I lived in Tucson, AZ it seemed that antenna restrictions were
everywhere (covenents, not city or county requirements).

::I agree, from my research, AZ is among the worst on this count -- in fact,
until I did quite a lot of research, I reckoned CC&Rs actually started in AZ
(they didn't).

::73, Steve WB2WIK/6