The Villages - Biased?

[RevGary]

Just got word from a long time family friend, and 'Ham' radio operator, that he and his wife were told that if they apply for residencey at The Villages, that they will be turned down by the Board of Directors because of his hobby... Ham Radio. The Villages will NOT allow any type of tower or antennas in their communities because they are 'unsightly'. These same Ham Operators are the ones who assist the Red Cross and other Agencies with communications in the event of a natural disaster, but aren't "good enough" to be granted residency in a "gated" community such as The Villages. Anyone else run into this type of situation?

 

[jim202]

It would be my guess that the board of directors has not had to run afoul of
any government legal issues at this point. It would seem that no one has pointed
out the limitations of their position. If someone wanted to take them to task, I
would be there would be some re-writing of their restiction. It only takes money
to change the legal stand the board of directors think they have. Problem is most
hams don't have the money to sink into a farse like this. It is almost better to move
on and find another community.

I ran into a slightly different issue in some property I bought in a town north of
New Orleans. The community had a covenent that they thought covered everything.
I put up my tower after talking with the Parish zoning people. The parish and town
had no restrictions covering a ham antennas. When the community board made a
visit to the house and said the antenna tower had to come down, I asked why. They
said they didn't like the looks of it. I proceeded to draw them a map to the
courthouse. Told them this was so they wouldn't get lost is finding their way their.
Told them to please sue me over the antenna. Also told them that when they lost
the case, I would collect dammages and sue them for harrasment.

Jim

Just got word from a long time family friend, and 'Ham' radio operator, that he and his wife were told that if they apply for residencey at The Villages, that they will be turned down by the Board of Directors because of his hobby... Ham Radio. The Villages will NOT allow any type of tower or antennas in their communities because they are 'unsightly'. These same Ham Operators are the ones who assist the Red Cross and other Agencies with communications in the event of a natural disaster, but aren't "good enough" to be granted residency in a "gated" community such as The Villages. Anyone else run into this type of situation?

 

[dkostrey]

Info

Try looking here . . .

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/antenna-restrictions.html

 

[N4DES]

Sure sound like he and his wife have been found guilty, that being granted an FCC Amateur Radio License, even before commiting the crime like trying to put up an "unsightly antenna or tower".

Sounds like plain discrimination to me and if he has this in writing, which I hope he does, I would be heading right to the Feds and my attorney.

 

[dsmall]

I love this radio hobby, but this is not uncommon so I'm not sure why all the surprise. Many home developments (including mine) have association rules and I read the one's here before deciding to buy. I for one am glad they have the rules, though as in this case, it can be a downer with a hobby. Heck, I have to have permission to paint my front door (including what color)!

I am familar with the Villages, as my folks live there. There are dozens of nice communities around those parts that may allow an antenna set-up.

Again, I am a huge radio fan, but it isn't going to be accepted everywhere.

 

[RevGary]

We did a little research this morning regarding this situation and it seems that the Board is pretty much free to 'manage' the lives of their residents and their property contained in the development area under Florida law section 190. I also found THIS sad commentary in which The Villages is allegedly violating Federal Law regarding something as unobtrusive as Satellite Dishes... read on:

http://www.ccfj.net/FCC.htm

In the opinion of some researchers, who have published their findings on the net, this type of gated community 'dictatorship' is completely Un-American and violates our 230 year tradition of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. How can a Ham Operator strive for a nice retirement LIFE in a great part of the state when his or her LIBERTIES are being surpressed and he or she can not enjoy a hobby, which eliminates their PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? The Villages seems, on the surface, to be restricting entry and running their 'subjects' lives and in so doing, are allowing ONLY a certain 'type' of person into their community - those who take orders, don't complain about rules and are content to be manipulated. Didn't Germany do something similar in 1939?

Amateur radio participants and scanner fans - take heed... these restrictions apply to your possible future. Best of luck.

 

[n4voxgill]

right or wrong, all discrimination is not illegal. Only specific and enumerated acts are illegal and the list contains such things as race, sex, national origin and a few other items.

As a ham radio operator I would not want to live in any place that had a home owners association. You give up many rights when you voluntarily buy deed restricted property. With the exception of satelite antenas the FCC has not got involved in deed restrictions. Years ago my wife wanted to move several times, each time I asked about deed restrictions and every one of the places had them, so that ended the conversation.

 

[N4DES]

So what would happen is someone wanted to erect a TV antenna in accordance with the FCC
Rules? I'm sure there would be another lawsuit as the HOA rules weren't modified for this.

As to the discrimination, the OP stated that they were being told "no" because his hobby is amateur radio. If he did all of his communication from his car and never asked to erect an antenna there would be no difference, still discriminatory as he would not need to put an antenna up. It was obvious that either someone at the HOA did their homework or may have seen his AR tag. The right thing for the association to of done was to specificially advise the couple of the antenna restrictions in writing, stating that they understanding that he is an amateur radio operator and outside antennas are not allowed, and let them make the decision.

 

[sbkeith]

First - let's remove discrimination from this topic. In Florida, there are only 7 reasons you can be discrimated against for: Race, Sex, Creed, Religion.. yada yada yada

The Villages won't deny you to live there just because you have a Ham license. That's stupid to even imply. THAT issue violates the Federal Fair Housing Act and the state's equivalent. That's like not allowing him to live there because he has a pilot's license or a concealed firearms permit.

He is free to buy a house in the Villages just like everyone else can. But, and here's what this entire conversation boils down to: It's all about compliance with established rules and regulations. Under Florida Real Estate law (FSS 475 and others) if a community is deed restricted or has additional restrictions place on it from a HOA, etc. The owner/developer is required to provide the customer a copy of the Restrictive Covenants prior to any sales closing. (Purchase agreement in laymen's terms)

This also has to be documented in the final title closing paperwork because these restrictions are filed right along with the deed of the property. They are legally binding.

This is all known before someone puts a cent down towards a home/parcel in Florida.

Homeowner's Associations are not all bad. You don't necessarily "give up" rights to become a member of one. You also gain rights as well.

It all depends on how you look at it. Period. There is no good or bad to it, it's just how you decide to live. The Villages, like most CDD and deed restricted communities place restrictions on what you can and can't do because this basic level of management is put in place to protect the residents. There are NUMEROUS instances where this is a good thing: A few are...

The guy who decides to make his yard a car parts depository, or his private garage for all the broken down cars he collects.
The guy who wants to paint his house pink because he thinks its the best color for attracting space aliens.
The guy who plays his music at 500 gazillion decibels when you want to swing in your hammock in your backyard with your honey.
The guy who NEVER mows his yard or does a thing to maintain it and all the weeds crawl into your yard.

And yes, there are NUMEROUS instances where they are bad as well. I have to apply for a variance just to change the color of my front door just like dsmall. Or put in cement curbing around my trees.

He is free to live anywhere he wants, enjoy his hobby, and continue on with life. If there are restrictions on the placement of antennas, its not a discriminatory thing, its a quality of life issue the HOA has previously established for all residents of that community. HOAs are not dictatorships - they are a democratically run, publicly and legally accepted entities.

We should not be so quick to cry foul and "get my lawyer and sue them." I can tell you - you will not win. There are very few instances in Florida where HOA's re-write restrictive covenants, other than those which were legally deficient as a matter of law from the very inception. VERY FEW.

After becoming a resident, he can petitiion the ARB of that HOA and request an exception for an antenna. This is then voted on by the residents or HOA Board (however it is defined) and waaahlaa. You get the decision.

No one is picking on him because he is a Ham. But, whether we like it or not, a private association can (and does) tell you what you can and can't do in that private association.

I - am a radio geek. I love em, I play with them. But even so, I would not appreciate a Ham tower in my neighbor's yard after I paid 400G for my house.

This is just a fact of life, unfortunately. Does it impede on my hobby? You bet. Did I know this BEFORE I bought my house? You bet. Should the HOA jump up and change the rules just because I want to put a tower in my backyard? Absolutely not. No one forced me to live here. I could have bought a home in a non-HOA area and done my thing (insofar as maintaining compliance with Fed/State/Local laws)

Is it a shame he can't throw a tower up at the Villages? Who knows? It's all relative. We all scream we are being picked on because we are in this hobby and this is what we do and the Government continues to tighten his restrictive grip on our hobby. But, put the shoe on the other foot. Would you like an maximum security prison built right next to your house? I wouldn't.

Let's say you own Walmart. Why should someone be able to tell you in an area that is zoned for commercial establishments that you can't build a Walmart there? It happens every day here in America.

For the good of the whole. It's written into almost every judicial opinion regarding the pursuit of happiness as you stated.

Look - I am neither for or against the OP's argument here. I believe we are all short sided and tunnel visioned because of our love for HAM (and all the associated hardware that comes with it...)

We need to remember, in a community - there are plenty of people that don't think like us and just because we have no problem with something, that they won't.

We still live in a great country!

 

[sbkeith]

Does anyone know the name of a good surgeon? My fingers just fell off from that last post....

 

[kingpin]

So what would happen is someone wanted to erect a TV antenna in accordance with the FCC
Rules? I'm sure there would be another lawsuit as the HOA rules weren't modified for this.

.

By law, they have to let you have a way to receive OTA(over the air) signals. Most people these days are using cable or satellite so seeing these is rare. They have to at least allow you to place an outdoor antenna at a reasonable height in order to receive a decent signal. I put up a 30 foot tower in my backyard in my subdivision and put a tv antenna on it to "justify the need for the tower" along with everything else that's on it. LOL No one has said a thing.

It's sad we have to fight these things but although we see towers of a work of art, most people see them as an eyesore and don't want to have to look at them. These close minded people also are all about "re-sale value" of their homes and in my experience, feel an unsightly tower would bring down the value of the neighborhood. My tower brings down the value no more than the migrant workers renting the houses 5 doors up from mine but that's another rant on another board.

 

[N4DES]

Yeah I know that they have to...it was just an observation of their re-written HOA R&R's that didn't mention it. I did the same as you on the approved backyard tower, it has multiple uses to include OTA and DSS, but serves other purposes as well and can't be seen from the front of the house which keeps everyone in the front office happy.

 

[n4voxgill]

From the FCC Media Bureau website:

As directed by Congress in Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of1996, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the Over-the-Air ReceptionDevices (“OTARD”) rule concerning governmental and nongovernmental restrictionson viewers' ability to receive video programming signals from direct broadcastsatellites ("DBS"), broadband radio service providers (formerlymultichannel multipoint distribution service or MMDS), and television broadcaststations ("TVBS").

The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, andit prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use ofantennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennasincluding direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter(39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cableantennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay orprevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost ofinstallation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptablequality signal.

Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies torental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balconyor patio.

On October 25, 2000,the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-endantennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendmentbecame effective on May 25, 2001.

The rule applies to individuals who place antennas that meet sizelimitations on property that they own or rent and that is within theirexclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners,and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balconyor patio, in which to install the antenna. The rule applies to townhomes andmanufactured homes, as well as to single family homes.

The rule allows local governments, community associations and landlords toenforce restrictions that do not impair the installation, maintenance or use ofthe types of antennas described above, as well as restrictions needed for safety or historic preservation. Undersome circumstances where a central or common antenna is available, a community association or landlord may restrict the installation of individualantennas. The rule does not apply tocommon areas that are owned by a landlord, a community association, or jointlyby condominium or cooperative owners where the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area. Such common areasmay include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit. Therefore,restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable.

This Information Sheet provides general answers to questionsconcerning implementation of the rule, but is not a substitute for the actual rule. For furtherinformation or a copy of the rule, contact the Federal CommunicationsCommission at 888-CALLFCC (toll free). The rule is alsoavailable via the Internet by going to links to relevant Ordersand the rule.

Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?

A: The rule applies to the following types ofantennas:

(1) A "dish" antenna that is onemeter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designedto receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-homesatellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals viasatellite.

(2) An antenna that is one meter or less indiameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programmingservices via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmitfixed wireless signals other than via satellite.

(3) An antenna that is designed to receivelocal television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above theroofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.

In addition, antennas covered by the rule maybe mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmitan acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with thetransmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above theroofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes.Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered bythis rule.



Q: What are "fixed wirelesssignals"?

A: "Fixed wireless signals" are anycommercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wirelesstechnology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wirelesssignals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to afixed location. This definition does notinclude, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio (butsee 47 C.F.R. §97.15), Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital AudioRadio Services ("DARS") signals.

 

[W4KRR]

Though I have no cite, I have heard of HOA's that forbid MOBILE antennas!

 

[N4DES]

amateur ("HAM") radio (but see 47 C.F.R. §97.15)

What did you mean by this? I read 97.15 but missed the point you were trying to make.

 

[n4voxgill]

I wasn't trying to make a point, I copied and pasted all of that directly from the FCC website and I think the FCC was refering to the section that addresses amateur antennas since antennas are what the whole sections was about. If you need further amplification I suggest you contact the FCC as it is their document.

 

[N4DES]

Oh...got ya. Thanks!

 

[RevGary]

KS4VT - The ARRL has a discussion and recap of their petition located here:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/prb-1/prb1afr.html

 

[n4voxgill]

Sadly, this petition has just layed there since it was filed 5 years ago. The Wireless Bureau continues to say they don't need to change anything. The petition points out how covnents and home owner associations can prohibit antennas for amatuer radio operators and we need relief from the FCC.

I will be surprised if the FCC ever acts on it. In the mean time, hams better watch where they buy or rent, because they can certainly be prohibited from putting up an antenna.

 

[n4voxgill]

I may be wrong on the status, I know there were some filings in 2002, and my memory, as poor as it is, that there is still requests pending, but that may not be right.

I know that on 11-15-2000 the FCC ruled,

"ARRL directed much of its rulemaking petition, and the bulk of its Petition for Reconsideration, to arguing that the Commission has authority to preempt CC&Rs that restrict amateur operations. In the Order, we declined to address this argument because we were not persuaded that such action, even if authorized, is "necessary or appropriate at this time."

In other words the fCC preempted local government zoning regulations, but stayed out of the CC&R and home owner association battle, not even saying they felt they had authority to pre-empt them.