[GVARC] CC&R Discussions
Pat Barthelow
[email protected]
Tue, 04 Jun 2002 13:54:46 -0700
>From: WYsixK <[email protected]>
>To: "Rudy Marcelletti, K8SWD" <[email protected]>
>CC: "ham-law related account" <[email protected]>
>Subject: [ham-law] Re: HR4720
>Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Rudy,
>
>There is no place in the SF Bay Area where one can buy a tract house
>that is less than 20 years old at any price (and we have tract houses
>up to about $10 million) where outside antennas are allowed. It does
>not work to say "if you don't like it, don't live there" when there is
>no comparable property on which one can put up an antenna. The sum of
>all the CC&R's has prohibited antennas altogether and I never got to
>vote on it - either at the public or HOA level. I never got to
>negotiate the contract that goes with the property. If this was a
>problem in one or two tracts in each community, we could live with it.
>But since it has become so widespread that there is no place to go and
>buy a newish house where antennas are allowed - either in the desired
>community or in any of the nearby communities - it really is a
>prohibition made without any representation.
>
>
>--- "Rudy Marcelletti, K8SWD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Wait a minute--our country is governed by majority rule. But antenna
> > restrictions and ham radio go beyond that. Property interests are at
> > issue
> > and they are not subject to majority rule in the sense it is "equal
> > opportunity for all."
> >
> > If I have a piece of land and don't want antenna structures on it
> > messing up
> > the view, that is my prerogative. If I sell to people who are of the
> > same
> > mind set, they should be able to rely on one another as well as be
> > bound by
> > agreement, not to put up antennas. The government should not be
> > allowed to
> > come in and allow antennas, even when everyone there (except the ham
> > operator) don't want them. In my opinion, the ham operator should
> > not be
> > allowed to defeat the agreement--unless of course it was agreed to by
> > the
> > "condo association" after the ham bought the property. There is no
> > "fundamental right" to operate a radio and chase DX, or even help out
> > in
> > emergencies.
> >
> > I did not see where Stu said anything well in that regard. It may
> > sound
> > like I am against hams who live in antenna structured restricted
> > areas, but
> > I am not. It is just that it seems to me that many hams who do
> > choose to
> > live there, seem to think they have a "right" to operate and put up
> > antennas, even though they agreed to not do so. Just as one agrees
> > to build
> > a certain style and size of home, one agrees not to put up a tower.
> > If you
> > don't like it--don't agree to it.
> >
> > On the other hand, I am dead against the community governments
> > dictating
> > what one can or cannot do on there own land and to do so, must be in
> > the
> > health, safety and welfare of the community. Unless it is shown by
> > the
> > community that a 70 or 120 or 200 foot tower, if otherwise sound
> > construction, is jeopardizes the HSW of the community, the ham should
> > be
> > allowed to put it up. Unless he agreed not to by deed restriction!
> > The
> > problem lies in the fact that communities are all different and
> > uniform laws
> > need to be mandated on a federal level that will provide guidelines
> > for the
> > locals to follow. That is sort of being done now, state by state.
> > We are
> > working on it in MI. I hope to be a part of it.
> >
> > Simply because you have a driver license, you have no right to drive.
> > Driving is a privilege--just like ham radio. The majority says
> > "speed limit
> > 25" in residential areas. You are obligated because it is law.
> > Private
> > individuals can and do regulate public privileges. For example--"no
> > vehicles beyond this point" signs are common on private properties.
> > So what
> > if you have a government privilege to drive. If you drive there--you
> > get
> > towed. Or you face other consequences and sanctions (loss of
> > membership in
> > the country club).
> >
> > The majority is not trampling the rights of the little guy--there was
> > not a
> > right to begin with. It is a privilege. The FCC grants you a
> > privilege to
> > pursue your hobby. You may be called upon in time of need. Simply
> > because
> > you can't put up a tower where you live, doesn't mean you can't help
> > out
> > with your skills in other ways (help get a repeater back on the
> > air--run
> > relays at the hospital, etc.) You just don't have the "right" to do
> > your
> > hobby in places that you agreed to not do it in in the first place.
> > Rudy Marcelletti, K8SWD
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "n6kj" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
> > <[email protected]>;
> > <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 17:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ham-law] Re: HR4720
> >
> >
> > > Well said, Stu. My thoughts exactly. If everyone
> > > took the position that the majority should
> > > always be able to trample the rights of everyone else
> > > we'd still have racist laws that prohibit certain
> > > minority groups from moving into certain sub-divisions.
> > > For that matter, wireless internet users are a minority
> > > too, but they seem to be a "protected entity".
> > >
> > > Hams are a minority. DXers and contesters are an
> > > even smaller minority, but that doesn't mean we
> > > should not be accommodated. I don't remember the
> > > FCC saying that ham radio only existed for the
> > > purpose of emergency communications :-)
> > >
> > > Well said, Stu.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 May 2002, Stu Greene wrote
> > >
> > > >
> > > > At 02:53 PM 5/30/02 -0400, Rudy Marcelletti, K8SWD
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Simply because the FCC has PRB-1, and the government
> > > says the ham radio
> > > > >operators will help in time of emergency, not all
> > > hams NEED to be
> > > > >DX-pile-up busting capable. PRB-1 and progeny does
> > > not give them that
> > > > >right, and they don't need it. How is working a DX
> > > station in the middle
> > > > >of a desert in Africa CW for DXCC award related to
> > > helping out in a local
> > > > >emergency?
> > > >
> > > > If this view prevails, and I hope that it does not,
> > > the hobby will lose
> > > > its most vociferous and ardent supporters, DXers and
> > > contesters.
> > > >
> > > > Amateur radio encompasses more than traffic handling,
> > > emergency
> > > > communications and rag chewing. And contesters and
> > > DXers have the same
> > > > rights any other amateur should enjoy, namely, the
> > > ability to communicate
> > > > within the limitations of good operating practice and
> > > Part 97.
> > > >
> > > > To my mind, your view of ham rights is overly narrow
> > > and parochial.
> > > >
> > > > You added
> > > >
> > > > >What about the people who don't want towers in there
> > > nice sky line
> > > > >view? They are the majority.
> > > >
> > > > Aside from your spelling, you overlook that the
> > > measure hams are supporting
> > > > gives us, the minority, rights against obvious abuse
> > > by home owners
> > > > associations whose members are, of course, the
> > > majority.
> > > >
> > > > Those home owners don't want anything to block their
> > > view of other
> > > > subdivisions. They don't like towers supporting
> > > electric transmission
> > > > lines. The hate cellular towers. But they cannot
> > > live without television,
> > > > electric lighting, washing machines or their precious
> > > cell phones.
> > > >
> > > > We simply are asking for equal protection. You and
> > > people who think as
> > > > you, want to deny the minority of such protection.
> > > >
> > > > 73
> > > >
> > > > Stu
.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx