Another serious concern...most CC&R's I've read stipulate if you lose the
lawsuit, you pay all court costs and Assocation attorney fees which can get
really costly!!
S I G H!!! /k6sdw
>From: "Gary Ferdinand W2CS" <W2CS@bellsouth.net>
>To: "WYsixK" <wy6k@yahoo.com>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
>Subject: RE: [Towertalk] deed restrictions
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
>Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:04:35 -0500
>
>
> >
> > This is practical advice, not legal advice. If you put it up rather
> > than ask for permission, they have to go to the expense of suing you to
> > get it down. And the expense of this will likely be more than any one
> > neighbor is willing to bear, unless you have the misfortune of having a
> > lawyer for a neighbor. However, a homeowner's association (if there is
> > one) may be able to spread the expenses out among all the homeowners
><SNIP>
>
> > Remember, any violation of the CC&Rs counts. Improperly parked
> > cars or motorhomes, prohibited colors on houses, improperly kept
> > landscaping, small DSS sat dishes, prohibited animals, etc. All of
> > these are common CC&R violations that do not normally attract much
> > attention. But you can turn them to your advantage. In an ironic
> > twist, the tighter and more restrictive the CC&Rs the more likely you
> > are to find lots of violations. A really common attitude is that ham
> > antenna are bad but DSS dishes are OK. This works to your advantage.
> >
>
>One pitfall to the last sentence: In fact DSS dishes ARE OK. They are
>specifically permitted by a premptive FCC ruling. See http://www.fcc.gov.
>Lots of very specific words there that make no bones about it: No zoning
>rules or CC&Rs can disallow DSS dishes. The wording specifically talks
>about
>CC&Rs. They must accomodate DSS dishes in a place that allows good
>reception. They can also regulate the construction standards by which they
>are put up. But they cannot disallow them. So, that's not a good thing to
>compare with.
>
>I wish we had language like that specific to ham radio "antenna support
>structures." At least recently the ARRL appears to have changed its
>long-standing policy of not rocking the Washington boat by becoming more
>aggressive both with the FCC and in Congress. Likewise the individual
>state
>efforts maybe bear some fruit someday.
>
>However, the approach you mention is fraught with financial risk. First,
>you risk an injunction that requires you to pull everything down while the
>case is coming to court. Second, you risk the court case outcome itself.
>Your idea to first gather the evidence of other, unchallenged violations
>before doing anything is spot-on. However, the approach does not
>necessarily work: You could be told to comply with the CC&Rs and also
>given
>encouragement to file lawsuits against the other violations if you felt the
>need. Hardly a desireable outcome.
>
>I've decided my wires are hidden well and cause no neighbor heartburn, but
>a
>tower(s) would be over the top (no pun) and I'd prefer to have good
>relations rather than be the piriah of the development. Someday maybe NC
>will have a law like VA or we'll have some Federal help. I'm not holding
>my
>breath. I guess I could always buy a farm...
>
>GL/73,
>
>Gary W2CS
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
|