|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
|
1-10 of 27 messages
|
Page 1 of 3
Next
|
|
Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by WD4HXG on October 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have watched over the last 40 years as the ability of a licensed amateur to erect an antenna have been dramatically eroded. Although local government zoning is a crucial part of this impediment the HOA has emerged as the 800 pound gorilla in most cases as some checks have been placed on local governments but not HOA's.
We have looked to expansion of PRB-1 to protect licensees from the Hitleresque empires but to date the FCC has emphatically resisted any attempts to break down or contain HOA fiefdoms and their ultra aggressive suppression of amateur's ability to erect antenna. The ARRL has exerted some effort to garner more codified and regulatory limits to protect the amateur but no signiciant inroads have been made to contain HOA's.
HOA's enjoy this protected class status because in the eyes of the FCC and legal venues they are private corporations. Yet one should question if they are indeed private corporations or illegal extensions of state and county governments mandated by statutory requirements. In many jurisdictions developers are forced to create the HOA by State Statutes otherwise the developer cannot legally construct the first home.
Since HOA's are by definition private corporations why would I think they could be illegal mini-goverments? HOA's in most jurisdictions are allowed to levy 'Fines' for infraction of HOA rules, interest and penalties on unpaid fines and they can levy special assessments for maintenance of common areas. If you fail to pay the 'Dues' (or in another familiar word 'TAXES') they can initiate legal proceeedings and subsequently attach your property. For all the fanfare of being a private corporation they have all the outward trappings of a local government. It would seem that State Legislatures have circumvented Constitutional protections for the citizen in this special case and that HOA's should be reclassified as township govenments rather than a private entity.
To that end does it seem possible to take the issue to the state courts and pursue redesignation of HOA's as local governments? Then PRB-1 could be applied to the HOA's.
|
| |
|
RE: Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by WW5AA on October 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's a lot easier to buy a house in an area without restrictions. HOA's and CCR's have been through the courts and upheld ad nausea. If someone signs on the line and gives up freedom for convenience its just like giving up freedom for security, in the end you get neither. Why should we involve the federal government in supporting someone’s hobby? In the end it's a matter of how important radio is to the individual.
The end of a democracy is when the citizens discover that they can vote themselves benefits!
73 de Lindy
|
| |
|
RE: Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by W7IBI on October 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Previously stated:
"Why should we involve the federal government in supporting someone’s hobby?"
The fed. govt. does issue our license to participate in the hobby, right?
Not arguing or complaining, just stating the obvious.
Chris
|
| |
|
RE: Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Anti-HOA Movement Reply
by W7IBI on October 17, 2008 Mail this to a friend!
Previously stated:
"Why should we involve the federal government in supporting someone’s hobby?"
The fed. govt. does issue our license to participate in the hobby, right?
Not arguing or complaining, just stating the obvious.
Chris<
::I get it, but this is a stretch. I have a pilot's license which doesn't permit me any special privileges of any sort other than to drive a small light aircraft. But I can't park one in my front yard, and if I have to drive 100 miles to the nearest airfield in order to exercise that privilege, that's my problem -- the government isn't going to do anything about it.
I also have a driver's license, but that doesn't permit me to park on the street overnight in areas where overnight parking isn't permitted.
Having a license doesn't mean much.
Unfortunately!
I think the obvious resolution is for hams to not buy properties having antenna restrictions, with or without HOAs. CC&Rs and HOAs are two separate things: One is a set of legal deed restrictions which are just as powerful and enforceable as municipal ordinances, and the other is an association which may or may not exist to oversee compliance with those restrictions, among other things.
As ubiquitous as CC&Rs are becoming, there are still hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wonderful properties all over America that don't have any.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by KF7CG on October 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I agree that there are still a good number of properties where antennas are pemitted. The percentage of those that are desirable, within reasonable commuting distance of employment, and financially accessible to the average Ham is decreasing.
CC&Rs and HOAs are the up and coming thing for local jurisdictions. They are a means by which community planners can ban or encourage behaviors that are outside the regulatory jurisdiction of a zoning board or municipal government. HOAs that are responsible for snow removal, trash pickup, and other "maintenance" functions are a way of economizing on services while still collecting taxes.
While there would be legal ramifications if an municipality were caught forcing a developer to include antenna bans in the CC&Rs, plausibly deniable hints that such bans would hasten plot approval have been overheard. In some areas, any subdivision of property must be done by a developer and must include some set of CC&R restrictions on property use. These tend to happen closer to population centers but have been observed as far as 30 miles from the city centers.
If this trend continues the day will indeed come that you have to live 50 miles from work to buy a place where you can put up your antenna. The areas that were just homes 40 years ago are now becoming "Architectural Preservation District" where changes to the home types and the types of structures allowed in the yards is limited. They don't seem to realized that about every thired house had a big TV antenna tower.
KF7CG
Blessed to live in the only slightly restricted countryside and also close to work. Same house cost more in rural setting than town!
|
| |
|
RE: Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Anti-HOA Movement Reply
by KF7CG on October 17, 2008 Mail this to a friend!
While I agree that there are still a good number of properties where antennas are pemitted. The percentage of those that are desirable, within reasonable commuting distance of employment, and financially accessible to the average Ham is decreasing.
CC&Rs and HOAs are the up and coming thing for local jurisdictions. They are a means by which community planners can ban or encourage behaviors that are outside the regulatory jurisdiction of a zoning board or municipal government. HOAs that are responsible for snow removal, trash pickup, and other "maintenance" functions are a way of economizing on services while still collecting taxes.
While there would be legal ramifications if an municipality were caught forcing a developer to include antenna bans in the CC&Rs, plausibly deniable hints that such bans would hasten plot approval have been overheard. In some areas, any subdivision of property must be done by a developer and must include some set of CC&R restrictions on property use. These tend to happen closer to population centers but have been observed as far as 30 miles from the city centers.<
::Yeah, and a whole lot farther. I was shocked to find, while househunting for a possible retirement site (in the future), that places seemingly in the middle of nowhere often have CC&Rs. XYL and I looked in the Ozarks of southwestern Missouri a couple of years ago and found homes on 3 acre lots far from anything and everything that were very nice, affordable, low taxes, lots of advantages...that is, until I discovered they all had restrictive covenants.
I was in the process of making a down payment on one, but thankfully part of my due diligence was to do a title search prior to even opening escrow. That revealed the existence of sixteen pages of covenants, restricting such things as border fences or walls, antenna towers and all sorts of stuff.
I withdrew the offer and we left the area.
That was way more than 30 miles from any kind of metro area; just a sad statement of the way things are.
If they gave me the house for free I wouldn't live there, although if I got it free, I'd certainly flip it for a profit.
:-)
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by AA4PB on October 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC has concluded that the restictions are a private agreement between you and the HOA and you voluntarily agreed to them. The one thing we have going for us is that the FCC has prevented the restriction of Satellite TV dishes by the very same HOAs. If the FCC sees fit to step in for the TV dishes, why not ham antennas?
|
| |
|
RE: Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Anti-HOA Movement Reply
by AA4PB on October 17, 2008 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC has concluded that the restictions are a private agreement between you and the HOA and you voluntarily agreed to them. The one thing we have going for us is that the FCC has prevented the restriction of Satellite TV dishes by the very same HOAs. If the FCC sees fit to step in for the TV dishes, why not ham antennas?<
::The OTARD rule doesn't cover only satellite TV dishes, it covers all TV reception antennas, which can include beams and such as well as DBS dish antennas. The ruling is pretty clear why they acted: Broadcast television is a free and beneficial service for users, and 99+% of all American households are users.
It would be nice if a similar ruling were made to exempt antennas from CC&Rs, but I'm not holding my breath.
Easier to just avoid CC&Rs in the first place by not investing any money in properties having them.
|
| |
|
RE: Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by WD4HXG on October 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I realize there have been numerous HOA battles in court and they seem to invariably win. What I am wondering is if they can be challenged as a defacto mini-government since their initiation is mandated by State Legislatures in many locations and they perform many of the same form, fit and functions of a local government. If they were forced into being defined as local governments then they would have to contend with PRB-1.
I do not live in a development with an HOA but would like see the back of these dictatorial empires broken. The last one that had it's clutches on me was in 1992 and it felt really good ditching the leeches.
|
| |
|
RE: Anti-HOA Movement
|
Reply
|
|
by K4RAB on October 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with you that HOAs are the major nemesis of hams wanting to find a good place to live without antenna restrictions. But I agree with WW5AA and WB2WIK that the best solution is to find a home without CC&R's and HOA's.
In some areas of the country, that is easier said than done if you restrict your search to newer houses.
HOAs are the primary means for municipalities to engage in "load shedding." That is a scheme where a separate entity, the HOA, is set up to force the homeowner to pay for such services as streets, lighting, swimming pools and other commonly shared facilities separately so that the local government does not have to pay for these things. At the same time, that same local government taxes these homes at full rate. In the anti-HOA movement, this is known as double taxation. Then there are the dreaded CC&Rs, which usually are boilerplate stuff from the computer hard drive of a local law firm that specializes in HOAs and condominiums. Needless to say, ham antennas are high up on the hit list of these regulations.
Many hams seem to think that antennas are the biggest problem with HOAs, but that is far from the case. As a matter of fact, antennas are the least of your worries in an HOA regime. Take a look at http://www.pvtgov.org, http://www.onthecommons.us, http://www.thehoaprimer.org and http://www.ccfj.net. Few, if any, of the problems addressed on these sites have anything to do with ham radio, but all are the result of a failed social experiment called the "common interested development." The problem is that as long as the money flows into the coffers of developers who build CIDs, they will continue to build them. The costs, legal and financial, of the failure of this type of housing will be borne by, you guessed it, the owners, who, unfortunately, are owners in name only! So much for the American Dream of homeownership.
To top things off, take a look at http://www.freecondobook.com for a free e-book called the "Wrath of Condo" and then look at http://www.otterkey.com. Be warned that the Otter Key site has some explicit language not suitable for children.
One thing to understand is that the HOA situation has been thoroughly tried in the courts, so if you think you have a legal leg to stand on after you sign the papers, you are in for a very expensive round of litigation! You can cite the U.S. Constitution all you want and the court will throw your case out saying "You signed the papers!"
Bottom line, as stated elsewhere in this thread, is to avoid HOAs altogether, even if you don't have a ham license!
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forum, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forum Manager.
|
|
|
