[GreenKeys] FW: ARRL Request to Contact Your US Senators

[Kevin H. Phillips]

I will chime in a bit on this based on my experiences working with title 
insurance companies.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am also an 
attorney but have not played one on TV and have not practiced in more 
than 20 years so I will not base my comments on that part of my background.

These things (the HOA's, CC&R's, etc.) are, as far as I know, a pretty 
recent phenomenon and probably vary widely according to location.  There 
can also be City, County, and/or State regulations which come into 
play.  The variation is one rationale (in my mind) for having some sort 
of "smoothing" effect from Federal law or regulation.  Just to give some 
examples from the area where I live, the town nearest where I live (my 
"street" address although I live almost 20 miles into the country from 
it) was laid out in the mid 1800's.  There were usually no land 
restrictions imposed in those days so if a person owned one or more lots 
in what is known as the Bryan Original Townsite then they would 
theoretically be able to erect whatever antenna structure they desired 
that would fit on these very small old lots.  There might have been some 
deed restrictions in the early days but these would usually have been 
aimed at things like running a saloon or some other noxious business.  
There might also, as has been mentioned, some restrictions on selling to 
racial, ethnic, or religious groups. Those restrictions have all now 
been nullified or rendered unenforceable by Federal court decisions, 
laws, and/or regulations.

Around here, land owners began creating "suburbs" pretty early; I've 
seen some laid out in the 1870's and 1880's.  For the most part, there 
were usually no CC&R's back then either.  So, again, in theory there are 
no antenna restrictions on these old properties. However, the edges of 
these old subdivisions have often been chewed up by business which 
either exist in old houses or the houses have been torn down and the 
property built upon by a business.  In some cases in recent years, these 
older areas have been declared "historic districts" as an effort to curb 
development.  There might be something like a Home Owners Association 
put in place which has the power to enact restrictions on property use 
*or* there might be City ordinances in place which affect property use.

Deed restrictions became much more common as the suburbs expanded 
throughout the 20th Century.  These were usually pretty minimal with the 
most common restrictions being something like prohibiting commercial 
swine or chicken raising and sometimes the aforementioned racial or 
ethnic restrictions.  I have seen some old restrictions which prohibited 
African Americans from buying property or even being in the area unless 
they were house servants and then only for certain hours of the day.  As 
I mentioned, restrictions of that kind are no longer enforceable.      I 
have seen restrictions on discharging firearms or even the type or size 
of firearm that could be used on the property.

The subdivision where I lived when I was first licensed, only about 6 
years after getting married which was a great shock to my wife!, was 
laid out in the 1970's.  There was no HOA and the CC&R's contained 
minimal restrictions.  I don't remember exactly what they were but they 
were the "basic" things prohibiting commercial animal operations, junk 
cars in the driveway, etc.  There was nothing to prohibit me putting up 
whatever kind of antenna system I wanted other than the size of the lot 
which was pretty small.   I know some local hams who live in a "nicer" 
subdivision than the one I lived in, and was a few years younger, who 
also had no prohibitions against antennas.  They had modest 50-60ft 
towers with tribanders and maybe dipoles supported on the tower.

I am not sure when the restrictions prohibiting antennas came about . . 
. or why.  Around here, I would guess it was sometime in the 1980's or 
1990's.  The "why" is a question I have.  I have seen older 
neighborhoods (I should say subdivisions from the '50's and '60's) where 
TV antennas still exist.  Perhaps with the advent of cable TV folks 
somehow developed the idea that antenna support structures were 
unsightly.  I personally have no objection to them; they are things of 
great beauty and examples of engineering marvel!

There "may" always be some options on where a person lives but I 
understand there can be some dictates governing this.  Perhaps a person 
is physically unable to keep up larger yard and needs a more modest area 
or a townhome.  I know one local ham who used to live on a small acreage 
place in the country where he had towers, etc. After his son-in-law died 
he and his wife moved to live closer to their daughter and so wound up 
in a subdivision which restricted antennas.  He found, however, that the 
HOA allowed flagpoles in the front yard so he erected a flagpole and 
inserted a wire antenna inside it (then the HOA complained about the 
color he painted the flagpole).  He also ran a longwire antenna around 
the top of his wooden fence behind the house.  No one except the 
squirrels seemed to notice.

My wife and I moved to the country 10 years ago where there are no 
"legal" restrictions on antenna support structures.  My own restrictions 
are that my XYL prohibits any antenna support structure touching the 
house and preferably out of her line of sight from the house.  So, my 
86ft tower had to be sited about 125ft from my shack.  I therefore have 
a very long run of cable to my antenna.  I *have* managed to put up a 
small fiberglass pole outside the shack for my 220mHz and 2m antennas 
but it does not extend into her line of sight from the driveway.  I am 
currently in the process of building a second tower near the first which 
should be devoted to VHF antennas.  I met a lot of grumbling even about 
that . . . but I won't get taken to court unless it is Divorce Court!

I think the bottom line is that in addition to HOA or CC&R restrictions 
there might also be city, county, or state restrictions (as someone 
mentioned) which are not uniform around the country.  I do agree with 
Jeff that the stated reasons for the proposed national law are a bit 
disingenuous . . . well, perhaps *more* than just a bit disingenuous.  
To my knowledge, a ham around my area cannot participate in emergency 
communications unless they have completed the required courses in the 
Incident Command Structure, and whatever other training is required, and 
receives credentials either from the State or local authorities.  It 
isn't like it was in the days of "The Old Man" with his "Old Betsy" 
rig.  Not just anyone can "play" in emergency situations anymore, as far 
as I am aware, unless perhaps it was some really extreme situation where 
the rules would be waived.  But, there *is* always that possibility and, 
like the Boy Scouts, we want to be prepared . . . don't we???

I would be interested to know if hams outside the USA have similar 
property restrictions and how they manage to live with them and still 
operate effectively.

73

Kevin
W5TTY

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus