From: waco@cbnewse.cb.att.com (john.l.broughton)
Subject: Re: Deed restrictions banning ham antennas
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:03:46 GMT
Keywords: Some random thoughts


This probably belongs in .policy, but is being posted here as most of
the other postings were here.

Some random thoughts on deed/homeowner association CC&Rs.

  1. I don't think restrictions are generally able to be removed via
     negotiation; congrats to the ham who could do so.

  2. You may not have the opportunity to research them before signing
     a contract to purchase a home, as was the case for me and my present
     home (ran across it on a Saturday while driving around for a quick
     look at some real estate listings; it was for sale by owner -- came
     back Sunday for a 2nd look and signed a contract).  However, you can
     do what I did.  I wrote a rider to the contract stating that if there
     were any CC&Rs or village ordinance prohibiting towers and/or antennas,
     the contract would be void.  The seller did not object.  The next
     day I obtained a copy of the village ordinance regarding antennas and
     towers.

     Also, please note that some municipalities consider towers to be
     "structures" and treat them just like they would a storage shed or
     garage.  This can be to the disadvantage of the ham because they usually
     have height restrictions that are applicable for buildings, but not
     antennas and supporting structures.

  3. While it can't hurt to press the FCC to extend PRB-1 logic and rules
     to CC&Rs, there is probably a better way.  Get Congress to modify
     the Communications Act.  Congress makes the law and the FCC is charged
     with implementing it.  I would think there would be fewer lawsuits;
     PRB-1 is challenged often and judges sometimes rule against the ham and
     for the restrictions in spite of PRB-1 -- BUT YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW IT BY
     READING QST -- c'mon, ARRL; give us the good news with the bad!!

     This is basically what invalidated CC&Rs disallowing minorities to
     live in certain neighborhoods.  Having been a title officer in a past
     life, I was amazed that at one time almost every subdivision in the
     western suburbs of Chicago had deed restrictions against blacks living
     in them except as servants.  The Civil Rights Act prohibited enforcement
     of the restrictions which were not necessarily removed from deeds.

  4. I feel it is important to our hobby to remove these restrictions.  It
     is very rare nowadays around this area to find a new subdivision that
     doesn't prohibit outside antennas.  This is usually not for RFI problems,
     but for aesthetic purposes; don't we all want politically correct
     neighborhoods and be free from the having to gaze upon "unsightly" TV,
     satellite and amateur antennas?

  5. There must be some legal eagles out there who have the time and
     inclination to research this problem to see if the data support the
     FCC's conclusion that CC&Rs are part of a negotiated contract, or
     are in most cases a "take it or leave it" proposition.

  6. Individual hams can help by always asking the question when looking
     for property and making sure their opinions are strongly expressed
     to developers, builders, real estate agents/brokers and village
     officials when they find restrictions.  Hams have been instrumental
     in obtaining exemptions from scanner laws through many state legislatures
     rather than the FCC.  This approach should work at the federal level also.


73, WB9VGJ
John L. Broughton
AT&T
Naperville, IL
john.l.broughton@att.com
att!john.l.broughton