| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.08.00 23:38l 177 Lines 6934 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_224B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/224B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0LAN<DB0RBS<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<DB0OVN<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000818/2108Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:5714 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_224B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 00 20:22:38 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_224B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> contractual agreements.
> (I snipped the FCC's comments on a petition that was presented by the ARRL)
>
> I was told by a real-estate agent that restrictions and covenants are
> similar to leans against the property and
> are held as public record at the County Dead Office. They are not signed
> by or agreed to by persons that
> purchase the property. They are adopted by the land developers and I guess
> you can that they are policed
> by the Home Owners Associations!
>
> If I purchase the property and pay cash for it but I don't sign the covenant
> or agreement. How can that be an
> agreement between two parties and how can I be restricted by the covenants?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 02:05:54 GMT
From: Gary Danaher <gdanaher@home.com>
Subject: Antenna Restrictions and Covenants
I also live in Texas, am NOT an attorney, but spent 6 years on a city planning
and zoning commission in a suburban city. In this state covenants are attached
as has been stated, but they are not enforced by any government agency, but
rather by homeowners associations. If a development is sold with covenants,
but
there is no HA created, then those covenants are effectively null and void. A
single neighbor could have the potential for forcing litigation, but then they
likely would have to call into question all violations to the covenants
effectively taking on the whole neighborhood. Not impossible, but not likely.
jack albert wrote:
> Trying to purchase a new house without Antenna restrictions or covenants is
> really difficult and
> I'm a little bit confused on the FCC policies concerning the private
> contractual agreements.
> (I snipped the FCC's comments on a petition that was presented by the ARRL)
>
> I was told by a real-estate agent that restrictions and covenants are
> similar to leans against the property and
> are held as public record at the County Dead Office. They are not signed
> by or agreed to by persons that
> purchase the property. They are adopted by the land developers and I guess
> you can that they are policed
> by the Home Owners Associations!
>
> If I purchase the property and pay cash for it but I don't sign the covenant
> or agreement. How can that be an
> agreement between two parties and how can I be restricted by the covenants?
>
> -------------SNIP--------------
>
> Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2
> Before the
> Federal Communications Commission
> Washington, D.C. 20554
>
> In the Matter of )
> )
>
> Modification and Clarification of Policies and )
> Procedures Governing Siting and Maintenance ) RM-8763
> of Amateur Radio Antennas and Support )
> Structures, and Amendment of Section 97.15 )
> of the Commission's Rules Governing the )
> Amateur Radio Service. )
>
> ORDER
>
> Adopted: November 18, 1999 Released: November 19, 1999
> By the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
>
> -----SNIP---------
> -----SNIP---------
>
> III. Discussion
> 6. The Commission's policy with respect to restrictive covenants is
> clearly stated in the MO&O establishing a limited preemption of state and
> local
> regulations. In the MO&O, the Commission stated that PRB-1 does not reach
> restrictive covenants in private contractual agreements.17 The Petitioner
> argues
> that enforcement of a covenant by the court constitutes "state action", thus
> converting what otherwise would be a private matter into a matter of state
> regulation and, thus, subject to the Commission's limited preemption
> policy.18
> Notwithstanding the clear policy statement that was set forth in PRB-1
> excluding restrictive covenants in private contractual agreements as being
> outside the reach of our limited preemption,19 we nevertheless strongly
> encourage associations of homeowners and private contracting parties to
> follow
> the principle of reasonable accommodation and to apply it to any and all
> instances of amateur service communications where they may be involved.
> Although we do not hesitate to offer such encouragement, we are not
> persuaded
> by the Petition or the comments in support thereof that specific rule
> provisions bringing the private restrictive covenants within the ambit of
> PRB-1
> are necessary or appropriate at this time. Having reached this conclusion,
> we
> need not resolve the issue of whether, or under what circumstances, judicial
> enforcement of private covenants would constitute "state action."
>
> -----SNIP---------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:45:35 -0400
From: "Bob Lewis" <rlewis@staffnet.com>
Subject: Antenna Restrictions and Covenants
Your real estate agent is correct. By becoming owner of the property
you automatically accept all covenents and restrictions recorded with
the county even though you did not personally sign off on them. The
real kicker is that one of the covenents is usually that you agree to
abide by the decisions of the governing board of the homeowners
association. If 15 years from now they decide to restrict antennas you
may be prevented from adding any new antennas (existing antennas my be
grandfathered).
The only solution is to move to the country I guess.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 05:10:29 -0400
From: no.spam@no.junk.mail.net
Subject: Antenna Restrictions and Covenants
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 02:05:54 GMT, Gary Danaher <gdanaher@home.com> wrote:
>I also live in Texas, am NOT an attorney, but spent 6 years on a city
planning
>and zoning commission in a suburban city. In this state covenants are
attached
>as has been stated, but they are not enforced by any government agency, but
>rather by homeowners associations. If a development is sold with covenants,
but
>there is no HA created, then those covenants are effectively null and void. A
>single neighbor could have the potential for forcing litigation, but then
they
>likely would have to call into question all violations to the covenants
>effectively taking on the whole neighborhood. Not impossible, but not likely.
>
I won in a covenant battle over my 55 foot tower in Tucson Az. Actually it was
damn easy. I claimed 'selective enforcement' by finding and documenting over
50
various violations of the covenant in my small neighborhood. The
pond-scrum-sucking lawyer for the builder (there was still some construction
going on) eventually threw in the towel. Didn't cost me a dime except for the
processing of the pictures.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 02:05:54 GMT
From: Gary Danaher <gdanaher@home.com>
Subject: Antenna Restrictions and Covenants
I also live in Texas, am NOT an attorney, but spent 6 years on a city planning
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_224C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
