Probable UL sighting: satellite dish garden furniture
Q-switch
"There are actually fashionable blocks in liberty's place of irigin on
Earth, the USA, where house-owners are not allowed to have a satellite dish.
He who violates the ban will be sued for lowering the value of his
neighbors' property by making the neighborhood ugly with technical
modernities.
There are actually satellite dishes sold in the USA camoflaged as garden
furniture..."
A google on satellite dish garden furniture turns up lots of hits, mostly on
houses for hire, but no companies selling parabolic garden chairs.
Q-switch
[1] Goteborgs-posten from Gothenburgh, Sweden. February 28, page 4. Text
translated from Swedish.
Paul Tomblin
>"There are actually fashionable blocks in liberty's place of irigin on
>Earth, the USA, where house-owners are not allowed to have a satellite dish.
That's certainly true of Canadian housing developments with facist
policies such as in Kanata, where you have a list of about 4 colours
you're allowed to paint you house, etc.
>There are actually satellite dishes sold in the USA camoflaged as garden
>furniture..."
I haven't seen that, although I have seen a plastic fake boulder you could
put over a satellite dish to hide it.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
Flying is not dangerous; crashing is dangerous.
Bert Hyman
news:DYvf8.22152$n4.41...@newsc.telia.net:
> There are actually satellite dishes sold in the USA camoflaged as
> garden furniture..
Maybe not garden furniture, but landscape rocks:
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Mitch Barrie
wrote:
# I haven't seen that, although I have seen a plastic fake boulder you could
# put over a satellite dish to hide it.
That would look good on the roof of my house!
Mitch
Ralph Jones
>In a previous article, "Q-switch" <n...@a.ngroup> said:
>>"There are actually fashionable blocks in liberty's place of irigin on
>>Earth, the USA, where house-owners are not allowed to have a satellite dish.
>
>That's certainly true of Canadian housing developments with facist
>policies such as in Kanata, where you have a list of about 4 colours
>you're allowed to paint you house, etc.
>
>>There are actually satellite dishes sold in the USA camoflaged as garden
>>furniture..."
>
>I haven't seen that, although I have seen a plastic fake boulder you could
>put over a satellite dish to hide it.
The technology of clandestine antennas is well-known to Amateur Radio
operators, who have been suffering under various combinations of
ordinances, codes and covenants for many years -- especially the last
couple of decades, in which no-antenna covenants have become
practically universal in new housing. Comparatively few of them use
large dishes, but remarkable things can be done with trees, flagpoles
and even apartment-house drainpipes.
rj
Dan Hartung
> From today's morning paper [1]:
>
> "There are actually fashionable blocks in liberty's place of irigin on
> Earth, the USA, where house-owners are not allowed to have a satellite dish.
> He who violates the ban will be sued for lowering the value of his
> neighbors' property by making the neighborhood ugly with technical
> modernities.
> There are actually satellite dishes sold in the USA camoflaged as garden
> furniture..."
>
> A google on satellite dish garden furniture turns up lots of hits, mostly on
> houses for hire, but no companies selling parabolic garden chairs.
This seems to be the state of the art:
http://www.dishcover.com/thecover.htm
Camouflage, yes; as garden furniture, no.
And certainly restrictions on dishes are ubiquitous; a quick google turns
up cites in California, Vermont, Quebec, England, and the Faeroe Islands.
But there is a cite:
http://www.clearsat.com/product.htm
Yes, it's a dish that also functions as an umbrella table.
Dan "Honey, is the game over? There's too much glare" Hartung
--
Dan Hartung * dan [at] dhartung [dot] com
Lake Effect weblog: http://www.lakefx.nu/
CHICAGOSTORIES: post yours @ chicagostories.org
Bob Ward
<red...@goathill.net> wrote:
>-:On 28 Feb 2002 20:25:26 GMT, ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin)
>-:wrote:
>-:
>-:# I haven't seen that, although I have seen a plastic fake boulder you could
>-:# put over a satellite dish to hide it.
>-:
>-:That would look good on the roof of my house!
>-:
>-:
>-:Mitch
Hey, if it looked like a metorite, that could be kinda cool! Better
than a chunk of blue ice, that's for sure!
--
This space left intentionally blank
John Gilmer
"Q-switch" <n...@a.ngroup> wrote in message
news:DYvf8.22152$n4.41...@newsc.telia.net...
> From today's morning paper [1]:
>
> "There are actually fashionable blocks in liberty's place of irigin on
> Earth, the USA, where house-owners are not allowed to have a satellite
dish.
> He who violates the ban will be sued for lowering the value of his
> neighbors' property by making the neighborhood ugly with technical
> modernities.
> There are actually satellite dishes sold in the USA camoflaged as garden
> furniture..."
It is my understanding that because of some FCC rulings, condo associations
and local governments can't ban the satelite dishes anymore. My wife and I
own two rental properties: a high rise condo and and townhouse condo. In
both cases the rules said NO DISHES. BUT their respective lawyers advised
the respective boards that to enforce those particular would be to invite
trouble with the FCC.
HOWEVER, in a rental development the OWNER of the building can ban the
dishes in most cases.
I ASSume the FCC figured that it controls communication and therefore local
laws that stop communication are wrong.
I live in Virginia (USA). The lawyers may have ruled otherwise in other
states.
Mike Sphar
the following? Read the book:
>In a previous article, "Q-switch" <n...@a.ngroup> said:
>>"There are actually fashionable blocks in liberty's place of irigin on
>>Earth, the USA, where house-owners are not allowed to have a satellite dish.
>
>That's certainly true of Canadian housing developments with facist
>policies such as in Kanata, where you have a list of about 4 colours
>you're allowed to paint you house, etc.
Or where a friend of mine lives in San Jose, where you're not allowed to
park a boat or RV on the street or *anywhere on your property*, even if you
build a nice-looking enclosure for it. (The only exception is if you can
fit it entirely in your garage, without enlarging your garage).
As for dishes, most of these restrictions have been overruled by the
Federal government, though some associations still try to create legal
hassles (such as claiming that the space over your home is a "common
area").
The FCC has a fact site about this:
http://www.fcc.gov/csb/facts/otard.html
--
Mike Sphar AKA Iron Chef Bacon
They say 'the early bird gets the worm'. What they often fail to
consider, however, is the early cat.
Drew Lawson
Ralph Jones <ralp...@attbi.com> writes:
>The technology of clandestine antennas is well-known to Amateur Radio
>operators, who have been suffering under various combinations of
>ordinances, codes and covenants for many years -- especially the last
>couple of decades, in which no-antenna covenants have become
>practically universal in new housing. Comparatively few of them use
>large dishes, but remarkable things can be done with trees, flagpoles
>and even apartment-house drainpipes.
Along a former commute route (San Tomas near Stevens Creek[1], in San
Jose or Santa Clara or whatever that bit is), there is a cellphone
antenna that has branches and "needles" mounted around it. If you
aren't looking, it seems to be an evergreen tree. If you are
looking, it looks a bit like an artificial Christmas tree (40 feet
tall).
I still haven't decided whether I love it or hate it, but I admire
the effort to make it blend.
Drew "never stopped to take a picture" Lawson
[1] or is it near El Camino? All the roads look alike when commuting.
--
|Drew Lawson | Of all the things I've lost |
|dr...@furrfu.com | I miss my mind the most |
|http://www.furrfu.com/ | |
John Francis
Drew Lawson <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote:
>
>Along a former commute route (San Tomas near Stevens Creek[1], in San
>Jose or Santa Clara or whatever that bit is), there is a cellphone
>antenna that has branches and "needles" mounted around it. If you
>aren't looking, it seems to be an evergreen tree. If you are
>looking, it looks a bit like an artificial Christmas tree (40 feet
>tall).
There's another disguised antenna on 101, south of San Jose (a bit
north of the 156 turnoff for the Monterey peninsula).
--
John "I keep meaning to stop and photograph it, too" Francis
John Francis
Mike Sphar <mi...@dogfacedboy.org> wrote:
>Did Ancient Astronauts named ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) once write
>the following? Read the book:
>>In a previous article, "Q-switch" <n...@a.ngroup> said:
>>>"There are actually fashionable blocks in liberty's place of irigin on
>>>Earth, the USA, where house-owners are not allowed to have a satellite dish.
>>
>>That's certainly true of Canadian housing developments with facist
>>policies such as in Kanata, where you have a list of about 4 colours
>>you're allowed to paint you house, etc.
>
>Or where a friend of mine lives in San Jose, where you're not allowed to
>park a boat or RV on the street or *anywhere on your property*, even if you
>build a nice-looking enclosure for it. (The only exception is if you can
>fit it entirely in your garage, without enlarging your garage).
ob.nitpick: In San Jose (CA, I assume) you can have a boat or RV anywhere
on your property that you like, as long as it is behind a line drawn across
the frontmost part of your house/garage. What you can't do is park one on
the street, or in your front driveway. Not that these rules are rigidly
enforced - one of my neighbo(u)rs has an RV trailer parked on the driveway,
and has never received a warning. Another neighbour, who parks his RV on
the street, did receive a warning, but nothing further.
Tom Sevart
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:3c7eeaa3$0$24...@dingus.crosslink.net...
> It is my understanding that because of some FCC rulings, condo
associations
> and local governments can't ban the satelite dishes anymore. My wife and
I
> own two rental properties: a high rise condo and and townhouse condo. In
> both cases the rules said NO DISHES. BUT their respective lawyers advised
> the respective boards that to enforce those particular would be to invite
> trouble with the FCC.
Basically the laws state that homeowner groups and municipalities cannot
enact rules or ordinances that prohibit normal reception of satellite or
regular TV stations. The ruling was enacted because prohibiting normal TV
or satellite antennas gives cable TV providers a virtual monopoly on TV
service for those areas. If people can't put up a regular TV antenna or
satellite dish, their only alternative is cable.
There are similar prohibitions in effect for laws against amateur radio
antennas. Luckily I live in a town that really doesn't care what kind of
antennas you put up, as long as they are within code and nobody complains.
Tom
khi...@umr.edu
: A google on satellite dish garden furniture turns up lots of hits, mostly on
: houses for hire, but no companies selling parabolic garden chairs.
mentioned in other posts, some people have made a homemade solution and
disguised their dish as a plastic trash can. (The signal from the
satellite will pass through most types of plastics.)
Zonky
news:DYvf8.22152$n4.41...@newsc.telia.net:
> From today's morning paper [1]:
>
> "There are actually fashionable blocks in liberty's place of irigin on
> Earth, the USA, where house-owners are not allowed to have a satellite
> dish. He who violates the ban will be sued for lowering the value of
> his neighbors' property by making the neighborhood ugly with technical
> modernities.
> There are actually satellite dishes sold in the USA camoflaged as
> garden furniture..."
>
> A google on satellite dish garden furniture turns up lots of hits,
> mostly on houses for hire, but no companies selling parabolic garden
> chairs.
>
> Q-switch
You can buy outdoor lights in a globe-style shape which are indeed sat
dishes.
Z.
--
Please remove my_pants when replying by email.
Ron Saarna
<khi...@umr.edu> wrote in message news:3c7f...@news.cc.umr.edu...
I am not sure if it is better to have a rock on my roof or a garbage can.
Maybe I'll check with my local council. Better bet would be the sight of
garden furniture up there.
Ron "Pass the potato salad, honey. Oops, nevermind, it's rolling this way
anyway." Saarna
Drew Lawson
jo...@panix.com (John Francis) writes:
>In article <2eqt7u003126ghqig...@news.newsguy.com>,
>Mike Sphar <mi...@dogfacedboy.org> wrote:
>>Or where a friend of mine lives in San Jose, where you're not allowed to
>>park a boat or RV on the street or *anywhere on your property*, even if you
>>build a nice-looking enclosure for it. (The only exception is if you can
>>fit it entirely in your garage, without enlarging your garage).
>
>ob.nitpick: In San Jose (CA, I assume) you can have a boat or RV anywhere
>on your property that you like, as long as it is behind a line drawn across
>the frontmost part of your house/garage. What you can't do is park one on
I was going to post something similar, though I didn't know the
"front of the house" rule. The block I'm on has about 20 houses,
and 4 boats that I frequently notice.
But I reparsed and now assume that Mike meant the particular section
of San Jose. There are lots of neighborhoods with rules that are
tighter than the zoning rules.
>the street, or in your front driveway. Not that these rules are rigidly
>enforced - one of my neighbo(u)rs has an RV trailer parked on the driveway,
>and has never received a warning. Another neighbour, who parks his RV on
>the street, did receive a warning, but nothing further.
I believe that San Jose has the fairly common "72 hour vehicle
storage" rule about street parking. I know there are violators in
my neighborhood, but no one seems to report them.
Drew "no boat, no RV and my house is still the ugliest on the block" Lawson
Drew Lawson
"Ron Saarna" <du...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
><khi...@umr.edu> wrote in message news:3c7f...@news.cc.umr.edu...
>> Q-switch <n...@a.ngroup> wrote:
>> : A google on satellite dish garden furniture turns up lots of hits,
>mostly on
>> : houses for hire, but no companies selling parabolic garden chairs.
>
>> I don't know about garden furnature, but in addition to the rock
>> mentioned in other posts, some people have made a homemade solution and
>> disguised their dish as a plastic trash can. (The signal from the
>> satellite will pass through most types of plastics.)
>
>I am not sure if it is better to have a rock on my roof or a garbage can.
This is the second comment on this that I've seen. Assuming that
I'm not being trolled, I thought I'd point out that the small
roof-mounted dishes are a recent trend. In single family developments
with large lots, which is where these home owners' association
rules got rolling, dishes were often installed on the ground.
The small dishes (what are they, 14 inch?) have changed the situation
*and* brought it into the condo developments.
Drew "I want my own radio telescope" Lawson
Q-switch
"Drew Lawson" <dr...@furrfu.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:a5muk9$1uak$1...@home.eCynic.com...
> In article <q2ht7ucd4tag1obq7...@4ax.com>
> Ralph Jones <ralp...@attbi.com> writes:
>
>
> Along a former commute route (San Tomas near Stevens Creek[1], in San
> Jose or Santa Clara or whatever that bit is), there is a cellphone
> antenna that has branches and "needles" mounted around it. If you
> aren't looking, it seems to be an evergreen tree. If you are
> looking, it looks a bit like an artificial Christmas tree (40 feet
> tall).
>
as trees. You could choose pattern and so on. I wasn't sure if it was for
real, but apparently it was.
Q-switch
Tom Sevart
"Drew Lawson" <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote in message
news:a5obvn$2okf$1...@home.eCynic.com...
> >
> >I am not sure if it is better to have a rock on my roof or a garbage can.
>
> This is the second comment on this that I've seen. Assuming that
> I'm not being trolled, I thought I'd point out that the small
> roof-mounted dishes are a recent trend.
I have no idea why people think they need to mount satellite antennas up on
their roof. I think it's a throwback to the old directional VHF/UHF TV
antennas that had to be mounted high for good reception. But a satellite
dish sitting on the ground will work just as well as one mounted on the peak
of a roof, provided it's pointing the right direction. I worked with a guy
who wanted me to climb up on his roof to mount a satellite dish. I told him
to do what I did and mount it on a post stuck into the ground. Much easier
and less danger in falling off the roof.
Tom
Paul Tomblin
>I have no idea why people think they need to mount satellite antennas up on
>their roof. I think it's a throwback to the old directional VHF/UHF TV
Obviously so that it's closer to the satellite. Duh!
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice.
Jim Everman
> their roof. I think it's a throwback to the old directional VHF/UHF TV
> antennas that had to be mounted high for good reception. But a satellite
> dish sitting on the ground will work just as well as one mounted on the peak
> of a roof, provided it's pointing the right direction. I worked with a guy
> who wanted me to climb up on his roof to mount a satellite dish. I told him
> to do what I did and mount it on a post stuck into the ground. Much easier
> and less danger in falling off the roof.
>
> Tom
Easier to steal too.. and some vandals don't give a damn if it works
or not.
--
Jim Everman mailto:eve...@Anet-STL.com
http://www.Anet-STL.com/~everman/
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
stupidity.
Drew Lawson
"Tom Sevart" <n2uhc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>"Drew Lawson" <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote in message
>news:a5obvn$2okf$1...@home.eCynic.com...
>> >
>> >I am not sure if it is better to have a rock on my roof or a garbage can.
>>
>> This is the second comment on this that I've seen. Assuming that
>> I'm not being trolled, I thought I'd point out that the small
>> roof-mounted dishes are a recent trend.
>
>I have no idea why people think they need to mount satellite antennas up on
>their roof. I think it's a throwback to the old directional VHF/UHF TV
>antennas that had to be mounted high for good reception. But a satellite
The reasons that I've heard are
1) no space on the ground
2) no good like-of-sight from the ground
For the satellites that are above the southern horizon, sometimes
the neighbor's house is in the way.
Drew "no actual satellite dish experience" Lawson
Drew Lawson
dr...@furrfu.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>The reasons that I've heard are
> 1) no space on the ground
> 2) no good like-of-sight from the ground
sigh.
*line*-of-sight.
Drew "I HATE typos that are in the dictionary" Lawson
Rick Tyler
wrote:
>
>This is the second comment on this that I've seen. Assuming that
>I'm not being trolled, I thought I'd point out that the small
>roof-mounted dishes are a recent trend. In single family developments
>with large lots, which is where these home owners' association
>rules got rolling, dishes were often installed on the ground.
>
>The small dishes (what are they, 14 inch?) have changed the situation
>*and* brought it into the condo developments.
I live in Redmond, Washington, just a few miles from the headquarters
of the evil empire. There are several new apartment buildings and
condo complexes in Redmond that are covered in small, festive
satellite TV dishes (presumably installed at the behest of resident
Microserfs). Given the latitude here, they are aimed pretty low and
are mostly clamped onto the railings of balconies.
-- Rick "If I owned the buildings, the units with southern exposures
would cost more" Tyler
__________________________________________________________________
"Ignorant voracity -- a wingless vulture -- can soar only into the
depths of ignominy." Patrick O'Brian
Lee Ayrton
On or about Thu, 28 Feb 2002, John Gilmer of gil...@crosslink.net wrote:
> I ASSume the FCC figured that it controls communication and therefore local
> laws that stop communication are wrong.
I have been lead to believe (not a motto contest entry) that the basic
philosophy of the FCC is that all Merkins have a right to recieve radio
transmissions (other laws govern what they can do with what they get).
In this case, however, it seems to have more to do with making sure that
there are competitive alternatives to cable TV, also a FCC responsibility.
Lee "Wot's on the telly?" Ayrton
Some sites refered to this right under Merkin law as being part of the
Federal Communications Act of 1934. I browsed it but the language was too
stiff for me to work with right now.
11. Communications Act of 1934
http://www.kobres.com/documents/61StatL101/ComAct34.html
Lee Ayrton
On or about Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Mike Sphar of mi...@dogfacedboy.org wrote:
> Or where a friend of mine lives in San Jose, where you're not allowed to
> park a boat or RV on the street or *anywhere on your property*, even if you
> build a nice-looking enclosure for it. (The only exception is if you can
> fit it entirely in your garage, without enlarging your garage).
In balmy Connecticut that sort of deed restriction in a development is
used as a selling point and is aimed at a certain set of buyers who would
find it attractive. That it wouldn't appeal to someone like me is pretty
much the reason they put them in.
> As for dishes, most of these restrictions have been overruled by the
> Federal government, though some associations still try to create legal
> hassles (such as claiming that the space over your home is a "common
> area").
>
> The FCC has a fact site about this:
> http://www.fcc.gov/csb/facts/otard.html
Ummmm. The FCC site specifically sez that the roof is a common element in
a condo and is not subject to the "they have a right to a dish" rule.
Lee "Dish, bird, this is going to turn into a cooking thread, isn't
it?" Ayrton
HWM
> Sure, one of the sites i found was of a company selling antennaes disguised
> as trees. You could choose pattern and so on. I wasn't sure if it was for
> real, but apparently it was.
They cost something like 10.000 Skr per meter, so that is why they don't
put them up in our part of the globe.
--
Cheers, HWM
hen...@sanet.fi
HWM
> I have no idea why people think they need to mount satellite antennas up on
> their roof.
Well, unless you live in the little house on the prarie where the only
problem is if the cornstalks grow 25 feet tall, I could think of a
number of problems. All our satellites are so damned low in the horizon
you need to have a tower to have the dish "see" over the trees.
--
Cheers, HWM
hen...@sanet.fi
Drew Lawson
Rick Tyler <rht...@attbi.com> writes:
>I live in Redmond, Washington, just a few miles from the headquarters
>of the evil empire. There are several new apartment buildings and
>condo complexes in Redmond that are covered in small, festive
>satellite TV dishes (presumably installed at the behest of resident
>Microserfs). Given the latitude here, they are aimed pretty low and
>are mostly clamped onto the railings of balconies.
>
>-- Rick "If I owned the buildings, the units with southern exposures
>would cost more" Tyler
When I had my condo, the deed included the under-building parking
space. If I were *developing* a building such as you describe,
I'd include southern roof edge sections in the deeded property.
And then I'd advertize the hell out of that "valuable" detail.
Drew "buy here and get perpetual dish space" Lawson
Hugh Young
<n2uhc...@yahoo.com> said:
>I have no idea why people think they need to mount satellite antennas up on
>their roof. I think it's a throwback to the old directional VHF/UHF TV
>antennas that had to be mounted high for good reception. But a satellite
>dish sitting on the ground will work just as well as one mounted on the peak
>of a roof, provided it's pointing the right direction.
Except when people walk in front of it, or the kids play with it. Our
(NZ) satellite dishes seem to be mounted rationally, on the sides of
houses, high enough to be out of reach. People with a balcony often
mount them on the outside of the balustrade.
Ron Saarna
"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
news:3c7ffff5...@news.buzz.net.nz...
Right. I think Tom forgot TWIAVBP, much bigger than your own backyard. It
would be great if I could put my dish on the ground, but urban life in
Toronto makes that the most inconvenient place. Not only do I have the
neighbour's house and trees to contend with, but there are other line of
sight obstructions as well like the townhouse/condo's that seem to pop up
like crabgrass. I could have it pointed spot-on to the satellite while
ground mounted but my signal will drop to about 50%. Totally unacceptable
for a digital dish. It really is a matter of good reception.
Roof mounting is generally the last option when it comes to installation,
but sometimes it is neccessary. An informal obsevation of my neighbours
seems to suggest that the wall mount is the preferred option. I suspect
throughout most of urban Europe you will find this as well, but I will let
the EU AFU's correct me if I am wrong.
Still it would be interesting to see fake rocks or garbage cans mounted on
the sides of houses or hanging outside windows.
Ron "I used to have a C-Band dish and I don't want to contemplate the size
of rock required." Saarna
TeaLady (mari)
news:a5of2f$8vbst$1...@ID-52518.news.dfncis.de:
>
> "Drew Lawson" <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote in message
> news:a5obvn$2okf$1...@home.eCynic.com...
>> >
>> >I am not sure if it is better to have a rock on my roof or a
>> >garbage can.
>>
>> This is the second comment on this that I've seen. Assuming
>> that I'm not being trolled, I thought I'd point out that the
>> small roof-mounted dishes are a recent trend.
>
> I have no idea why people think they need to mount satellite
> antennas up on their roof. I think it's a throwback to the old
> directional VHF/UHF TV antennas that had to be mounted high for
> good reception. But a satellite dish sitting on the ground
> will work just as well as one mounted on the peak of a roof,
> provided it's pointing the right direction.
>
> Tom
>
>
Also provided you don't have shrubbery, trees and fences to contend
with. Leaves block the signals quite nicely, and waving branches
create interesting effects. Oh, and large dogs who like to deposit
toys and treats in odd places wouldn't help much.
Tea"she put her rubber duckie in the bird bath again, how cute"
Lady
--
I have a tendancy to wear my mind on my sleeve
I have a history of losing my shirt
Mike Sphar
write the following? Read the book:
>their roof. I think it's a throwback to the old directional VHF/UHF TV
>antennas that had to be mounted high for good reception. But a satellite
>dish sitting on the ground will work just as well as one mounted on the peak
>of a roof, provided it's pointing the right direction. I worked with a guy
>who wanted me to climb up on his roof to mount a satellite dish. I told him
>to do what I did and mount it on a post stuck into the ground. Much easier
>and less danger in falling off the roof.
Sometimes people need to get the dish elevated to get the line of sight
above the tree line. One acquaintance also expressed he didn't want the
dish anywhere near where his children could touch it, climb on it, bounce
balls off it, etc.
ObInterestingDishMounts: When in San Diego recently, I was walking along
the bay near downtown and noticed one of the boats anchored near the wall
had a satellite dish mounted on a wooden board that was attached to the
wall, walking back later I saw the board removed from the wall and sitting
on the deck of the boat. A quick and clever way of being able to take the
dish with you when you go but hopefully not have to realign it each time.
Mike Sphar
following? Read the book:
>>>Or where a friend of mine lives in San Jose, where you're not allowed to
>>>park a boat or RV on the street or *anywhere on your property*, even if you
>>>build a nice-looking enclosure for it. (The only exception is if you can
>>>fit it entirely in your garage, without enlarging your garage).
>>
>>ob.nitpick: In San Jose (CA, I assume) you can have a boat or RV anywhere
>>on your property that you like, as long as it is behind a line drawn across
>>the frontmost part of your house/garage. What you can't do is park one on
>
>I was going to post something similar, though I didn't know the
>"front of the house" rule. The block I'm on has about 20 houses,
>and 4 boats that I frequently notice.
>
>But I reparsed and now assume that Mike meant the particular section
>of San Jose. There are lots of neighborhoods with rules that are
>tighter than the zoning rules.
Yeah, the friend in question implied that his neighborhood had a specific
CCR about this, though I have no cite for this and would concede that the
violators in question might have had the boats stored forward of their
house.
What is certain is that at least one neighbor suddenly became a crusader
for CCR compliance, as several people along the block were all cited for
various violations (many of which had been in place for a long time) in a
relatively short period of time. Perhaps it's the same neighbor that
allegedly has tried to get a ban on Motorcycles in the neighborhood.
Steven Dufour
van with a sign on it, like a contractor, florist, etc., in your driveway, I
think this is true.
Lizz Holmans
Dufour) wrote:
>I've also heard of an upper-class neighborhood where you can't park a truck or
>van with a sign on it, like a contractor, florist, etc., in your driveway, I
>think this is true.
In Nichols Hills, which is a part of the Oklahoma City metroplex, it
is a citable offense to park a pickup truck of any variety either in
front of your house or in your driveway. It must be in the garage,
should you be crass enough to own one. This is a true fact, because it
would 'lower the tone' of the richest neighborhood in OKC (which is
not actually part of OKC, but never mind).
There was a huge hoo-hah about it. It may not be Oklahoma City, but
it's still in Oklahoma, where the pick-em-up truck is the state bird.
Lizz 'And Steve, top posting makes Baby Jesus cry' Holmans
Nick Spalding
> Roof mounting is generally the last option when it comes to installation,
> but sometimes it is neccessary. An informal obsevation of my neighbours
> seems to suggest that the wall mount is the preferred option. I suspect
> throughout most of urban Europe you will find this as well, but I will let
> the EU AFU's correct me if I am wrong.
Spot on.
> Still it would be interesting to see fake rocks or garbage cans mounted on
> the sides of houses or hanging outside windows.
--
Nick Spalding
HWM
> In Nichols Hills, which is a part of the Oklahoma City metroplex, it
> is a citable offense to park a pickup truck of any variety either in
> front of your house or in your driveway.
Honey! Has the plumber been yet?
Yes he was, darling, but we still have to use the bucket.
Why is that?
He came here this morning, but the neighbours said he couldn't park on
the street nor in our driveway so he left...
--
Cheers, HWM
hen...@sanet.fi
Mike Sphar
following? Read the book:
>> As for dishes, most of these restrictions have been overruled by the
>> Federal government, though some associations still try to create legal
>> hassles (such as claiming that the space over your home is a "common
>> area").
>>
>> The FCC has a fact site about this:
>> http://www.fcc.gov/csb/facts/otard.html
>
>Ummmm. The FCC site specifically sez that the roof is a common element in
>a condo and is not subject to the "they have a right to a dish" rule.
Yes, but that doesn't prevent anyone from filing hassle suits anyway. I'm
just waiting for the day when a homeowners association hires Johnny
Cochran.
TMOliver
.....but everyone knows that Geo. Washington, the national dad,
mounted his in a nice custom cupola atop his modest frame
riverside bungalow.
TM "Phased array satellite cupola manufacturer" Oliver
Ralph Jones
wrote:
Well, if there were _citations_, that would seem to imply an ordinance
and not a covenant issue. However, ordinance enforcement is often
complaint-driven to a certain extent. It certainly is in my
neighborhood, which has historically taken a laid-back posture. There
are minor ordnance violations all over the neighborhood, and the city
ignores them until someone complains.
Interesting example: I had a next-door neighbor for a while who was
pushing things well over the line. He ran an ethnic restaurant, was
storing various junky business equipment in his driveway, and often
hung strips of some kind of strange-looking meat to dry on a
clothesline. When he started burning trash in his backyard -- next to
some greenspace where grass fires are common -- someone finally
complained and there was a series of enforcement moves that ended in
his moving out. I was in my driveway working on my sailplane trailer
one day when a code inspector came by to check compliance with their
latest order; the neighbor wasn't home and she asked to come onto my
property to peek over the fence. Now I technically wasn't supposed to
have that trailer in my driveway, and its drawbar was sticking clear
across the sidewalk to boot, but she didn't bat an eye at it: nobody
had complained about that.
Other neighborhoods nearby have such crusaders as you mention, and the
code inspectors do sweeps there. Guess we bought in the right place.
rj
Mitch Barrie
<ralp...@attbi.com> wrote:
# There
# are minor ordnance violations all over the neighborhood, and the city
# ignores them until someone complains.
Or, presumably, until someone blows himself up.
Mitch
Ralph Jones
A recent subdivision south of Denver called Highlands Ranch is
infamous for that sort of crap. HOA approval for _interior_ colors,
and so forth...they got mocked pretty well in the local news over a
Christmas-lights issue. Seems a guy put his lights up with little
plastic clips screwed to the walls; when he took the lights down, the
clips stayed up. The HOA quickly admonished him to take the clips
down, asserting that these 5/8 inch square plastic tabs constituted an
unauthorized permanent attachment to his structure. He offered to
paint them the same color as the walls, but they refused because the
clips would still _cast shadows_.
So the chap just told the HOA to get stuffed, and they prepared a
full-boat legal case against him. That's when he tipped the
newspapers, and they gave it lots of column inches for a few days.
Then the story abruptly disappeared from the media and the upshot was
never reported, though some of the rumors were amusing.
rj
Ralph Jones
wrote:
Actually most such parking restrictions don't take effect until the
vehicle has been there for 24 to 72 hours.
rj
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:05:32 GMT, HWM <henry.w_EGGS@SPAM_sanet.fi>
You've never been to Nichols Hills.
They do allow service vehicles making calls, but if you park your
truck in your driveway, you're dead meat.
Lizz 'If they didn't have a good art museum, I'd *never* go there'
Holmans
Ralph Jones
Well, the smell of a meth lab might stretch the definition of "minor"
just a bit...
rj
Ralph Jones
Wow...you suppose it's a case of denial about being stereotyped as
Oklahoma rubes? Like Arabs who get testy if you mention camels?
r "Upperclass twit is a nicer stereotype" j
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>
>Wow...you suppose it's a case of denial about being stereotyped as
>Oklahoma rubes? Like Arabs who get testy if you mention camels?
>
>r "Upperclass twit is a nicer stereotype" j
I don't know what the motivation of the city council was, as I wasn't
there, but it's definitely a class thing, not an Okie thing. Nobody
could be ashamed of being from Oklahoma.
By the way, their police cars a Volvos.
Lizz 'surprised they aren't Mercs' Holmans
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> I was in my driveway working on my sailplane trailer
> one day when a code inspector came by to check compliance with their
> latest order; the neighbor wasn't home and she asked to come onto my
> property to peek over the fence. Now I technically wasn't supposed to
> have that trailer in my driveway, and its drawbar was sticking clear
> across the sidewalk to boot, but she didn't bat an eye at it: nobody
> had complained about that.
When I lived the other end of town, in a rather rural area, the
zoning-enforcement officer came by one day, explaining that they
had received a complaint about my chickens. However, after examining
my property she said that she didn't see any chickens, so it must
be a spurious complaint. She didn't see my neighbor's chickens
either, even standing next to my chicken coop, which gave one a
good view of his coop. We were, by the way, the only two houses
within a quarter-mile. Must have been the restaurant across the
street complaining.
Charles Wm. "ex-chicken farmer" Dimmick
--
"And some rin up hill and down dale, knapping the
chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like sae mony
road-makers run daft -- they say it is to see how
the warld was made!"
Ralph Jones
<cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
>Ralph Jones wrote:
>
>> I was in my driveway working on my sailplane trailer
>> one day when a code inspector came by to check compliance with their
>> latest order; the neighbor wasn't home and she asked to come onto my
>> property to peek over the fence. Now I technically wasn't supposed to
>> have that trailer in my driveway, and its drawbar was sticking clear
>> across the sidewalk to boot, but she didn't bat an eye at it: nobody
>> had complained about that.
>
>When I lived the other end of town, in a rather rural area, the
>zoning-enforcement officer came by one day, explaining that they
>had received a complaint about my chickens. However, after examining
>my property she said that she didn't see any chickens, so it must
>be a spurious complaint. She didn't see my neighbor's chickens
>either, even standing next to my chicken coop, which gave one a
>good view of his coop. We were, by the way, the only two houses
>within a quarter-mile. Must have been the restaurant across the
>street complaining.
>
>Charles Wm. "ex-chicken farmer" Dimmick
And the restaurant didn't have chickens either because it was a
KFC...it all becomes clear now.
rj
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Did Ancient Astronauts named dr...@furrfu.com (Drew Lawson) once write the
> following? Read the book:
> >of San Jose. There are lots of neighborhoods with rules that are
> >tighter than the zoning rules.
>
> Yeah, the friend in question implied that his neighborhood had a specific
> CCR about this, though I have no cite for this and would concede that the
> violators in question might have had the boats stored forward of their
> house.
>
> What is certain is that at least one neighbor suddenly became a crusader
> for CCR compliance, as several people along the block were all cited for
> various violations (many of which had been in place for a long time) in a
> relatively short period of time. Perhaps it's the same neighbor that
> allegedly has tried to get a ban on Motorcycles in the neighborhood.
Prithee, translate CCR; I only know of Creedence Clearwater
Revival, and this doesn't sound like their style....
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
prefers Zappa, when he can get it
Drew Lawson
Ralph Jones <ralp...@attbi.com> writes:
>On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:57:55 -0600, Mike Sphar <mi...@dogfacedboy.org>
>wrote:
>
>>for CCR compliance, as several people along the block were all cited for
>>various violations (many of which had been in place for a long time) in a
>>relatively short period of time. Perhaps it's the same neighbor that
>>allegedly has tried to get a ban on Motorcycles in the neighborhood.
>
>Well, if there were _citations_, that would seem to imply an ordinance
>and not a covenant issue. However, ordinance enforcement is often
That depends on who is doing the citing. You don't have to be a
law enforcement official to issue citations that someone is in
violation of the CC&Rs and owes the HOA two-fifty.
ObBoA:
CCR -- Covenants C[mumble] and Restrictions. Extra rules
and regulations attached to the housing.
HOA -- Home Owners' Association. Usually the group that maintains
and enforces the CC&Rs.
>complaint-driven to a certain extent. It certainly is in my
>neighborhood, which has historically taken a laid-back posture. There
>are minor ordnance violations all over the neighborhood, and the city
>ignores them until someone complains.
I take comfort in the CC&R violations that I know of on my neighbors'
lots[1], as they seem to make it unlikely that anyone will look closely
at my yard. Since we don't have an Association, there is no defined
enforcement process anyway.
Drew "not explicitly violating the CC&Rs, yet" Lawson
[1] For example, my neighbor has a shed that is a clear violation
of placement rules. The think has to have been built 20-40
years ago, and I kind of like it.
--
Drew Lawson | It's not enough to be alive
dr...@furrfu.com | when your future's been deferred
Anthony McCafferty
writes:
>ObBoA:
> CCR -- Covenants C[mumble] and Restrictions. Extra rules
> and regulations attached to the housing.
The {mumble} is usually "conditions", but occasionally it is used for
"codes".
Anthony "Who has the bigger PUD[1]?" McCafferty
[1] "Planned Unit Development", a housing tract in which some exterior items
(including, sometimes, the outside walls of the houses) are owned in
condominium, or restricted in useage. Also, to the regret of real estate
types, can mean Public Utility District.
Rick Tyler
wrote:
>ObBoA:
> CCR -- Covenants C[mumble] and Restrictions. Extra rules
"Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions"
-- Rick "No HOA here, TG" Tyler
__________________________________________________________________
"Ignorant voracity -- a wingless vulture -- can soar only into the
depths of ignominy." Patrick O'Brian
Ray Depew
: Along a former commute route (San Tomas near Stevens Creek[1], in San
: Jose or Santa Clara or whatever that bit is), there is a cellphone
: antenna that has branches and "needles" mounted around it. If you
: aren't looking, it seems to be an evergreen tree. If you are
: looking, it looks a bit like an artificial Christmas tree (40 feet
: tall).
Ditto the summit of Monument Pass, between Castle Rock and Colorado Springs,
Colorado.
R
R
Estron
disguising of cellular antenna masts:
> Around here, they hide them in church steeples.
And in these reaches, you can't really call it "hiding" in church
steeples. There just happen to be "steeples," detached from the church
building, which look like masts topped with triangular cellular
antennas, except that each of the three faces has a cross on it.
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
"the art of the triple-cross"
Leo G Simonetta
> Previously in alt.folklore.urban, Alice Faber wrote, regarding the
> disguising of cellular antenna masts:
>
> > Around here, they hide them in church steeples.
>
> And in these reaches, you can't really call it "hiding" in church
> steeples. There just happen to be "steeples," detached from the church
> building, which look like masts topped with triangular cellular
> antennas, except that each of the three faces has a cross on it.
Here in Baltimore, not far from my house, they just finished
building a government office building and I noticed that the flag
pole was awfully thick for a flag of that size. Finally it
dawned on me that they were using it to hide an antenna or three,
a fact later confirmed by the local news.
--
Leo G. Simonetta
lsimo...@newsguy.com
TdN
And ditto along Route 2 in Massachusetts, between Fitchburg and Westminster.
T "that's where I make all my calls" dN
D.F.
>[1] "Planned Unit Development", a housing tract in which
> some exterior items >(including, sometimes, the outside
>walls of the houses) are owned in >condominium, or
>restricted in useage
P.U.D. (Planned Unit Developments ) exist for the purpose of achieving
*approval* of higher residential densities than normally allowed by zoning or
planning agencies. Condominium (group) ownership has nothing to do with the PUD
status although part of the project could be a condominium. The entire project
could be fee simple.
Doogle "Townhouse does not equal condominium" Fish
I'm not sure how to answer this. "TWIAVBP" seems too mild
and "Get your head out of your ass." seems too strong.
Either way, the answer is 'a couple of months ago' at best:
- Simon Slavins deconstructs a rhetorical observation
Anthony McCafferty
doogl...@aol.communicate (D.F.) writes:
>Anthony "Who has the bigger PUD[1]?" McCafferty promulgated:
>
>
>>[1] "Planned Unit Development", a housing tract in which
>> some exterior items >(including, sometimes, the outside
>>walls of the houses) are owned in >condominium, or
>>restricted in useage
>
>P.U.D. (Planned Unit Developments ) exist for the purpose of achieving
>*approval* of higher residential densities than normally allowed by zoning or
>planning agencies.
Well, no, although that is a very common reason for going the P.U.D. route.
You need an "often" or a "normally" or three sprinkled through your
message...as I should have myself, come to think about it. I have seen PUDs
set up to address runoff, architectural preservation, density, pavement width,
and zoning (mixed use) issues; in some cases the residential density was lower
than in a conforming tract.
> Condominium (group) ownership has nothing to do with the
>PUD status although part of the project could be a condominium.
First, please note the word "or" following the clause you are replying to.
Next, note that "held in condominium" does not equal, in most useage, "a
condominium". Greenbelts, bioswales, detention ponds, landscaping or
architectural detailing owned collectively by the development are "held in
condominium".
>The entire project could be fee simple.
Hence the word "or". Yes, the same ends can sometimes be met by
restrictions on homeowner's property; planning agencies have learned the hard
way that this isn't in their best interests. The same ends can also sometimes
be met by capital spending early on; developers have learned the hard way that
this isn't in their best interests. I am sure this is an area where
TRealestateWIAnexcruciatinglyBP, though.
>Doogle "Townhouse does not equal condominium" Fish
Anthony "But does a scarecrow equal a strawman?" McCafferty