balcony railing mount for DBS dish
Bill
I am trying to come up with a "balcony railing mount" for use with a
Ku-band dish plus dish mover. I have searched google and have not
found any online dealers which sell such a mount.
My apartment is on the 11th floor with a railing on the outside patio,
approx circumference is 12 inches (around).
My apartment landlord is being "difficult" with roof access and wants
me to subscribe to the apartment complex's own dish system.
I simply want FTA programming.
If anyone knows where I can find a balcony railing mount (or similar)
please let me know
thanks
Brian
friends with metal fabricators to develop "one-off" mounts. Sketch and
measure the area for mounting and you will be surprised at the innovative
methods fabricators will come up with for attaching your system!
Email a digital photo of the area with your city and the direction the photo
is taken and I could make a few suggestions.
Brian Gohl
bria...@adventistsat.com
http://www.adventistsat.com
"Bill" <372...@spamhole.com> wrote in message
news:6eac4d8d.04101...@posting.google.com...
Timothy Daniels
"Fat Bastard" wrote:
>
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> mounts - legally (assuming you're in the U.S.). The railing is
>> not considered part of the unit or the Exclusive Use area.
>> It is part of the exterior of the building. Even condo CC&Rs
>> that I have seen explicitly state that balcony railings are NOT
>> part of the unit owned or rented. Furthermore, he can prevent
>> it by safety considerations by claiming that it presents a
>> hazard of falling off onto people below. Since approval of a
>> railing mount may pose a liability risk for the building owner,
>> he may bring up the heavy legal artillery against you. If I were
>> in your position, I'd make a cheap tripod and mount the feet
>> in cement blocks (just pour quickset cement into a plastic
>> bucket) on the balcony, and then mount the dish to the tripod.
>
> Actually, if he is on the 11th floor, and the balcony is ONLY
> part of HIS particular unit, and is not also attached to the
> public right of way (walkway, another attached balcony, etc.),
> then it is HIS exclusive area, and he can mount to it all he
> wants, and they can't say squat.
Actually, being on the 11th floor means squat. The window
sill is on the 11th floor, too, but it's part of the outside of the
building and you're not legally free to attach a dish to the
window sill. In reality, the railing is legally an exterior part of
the building like an exterior wall or the roof. What's on the
inside of the railing is balcony, and the railing begins the
outside of the building.
*TimDaniels*
Zoyburg
All you need is a 5 gallon bucket, a bag of cement, and a few feet
of appropriate diameter fence post. Just be sure to molest the bottom
of the post such that it's not round anymore before you stick it in
the cement.
Timothy Daniels
> If the HA allows so much as ONE flower box or hanging pot
> they cannot discriminate.The hangers are attached to the
> exterior and the boxes hang on the balcony rail. If anyone is
> able to hang ANYTHING, X-Mas lights, Flags, etc then a
> dish owner can "hang" a dish on the rail as long as it won't
> harm it, and any safe rail system can handle the weight of a
> dish no problem.
That is an ethical argument, not a legal argument.
HOAs can discriminate about a lot of things, such
as what can be parked in the carports - yes on cars,
no on boats. Descrimination per se is not illegal.
*TimDaniels*
Fat Bastard
airspace" Airspace is unfortunately controlled by the FCC, now, a WALKING
area, or other public/common area space yes, but not "airspace". You can
write it into your CC&R's all you want, but it doesn't make them legal, and
that is what the FCC is covering. If the dish is mounted on the owners
exclusive use area, it can extend up above the height of the fence if that
is what is needed for them to use it (provided it doesn't intrude into
another units exclusive use area, or any common area). Just because people
don't like to SEE it, doesn't mean you can ban being able to see it. Sure,
it's better NOT to see it (dishes are pretty ugly), and it's nicer of the
owner to abide by the requests of others, but they don't necessarily HAVE
TO. If it is necessary to extend above a fence to receive signal, and it
isn't intruding into common space (walkways, lawns, someone elses balcony,
etc..) then you have no say.
"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:6Z6dnS4XVvf...@comcast.com...
> "Dante" wrote:
> >
> > I'm in building operations managment.
>
> I am, too (condo executive board pres).
> Our CC&Rs clearly state that the railing
> of a balcony (and the fence of a patio)
> are NOT part of the "unit". Since the
> *inner* surfaces of fences are Exclusive
> Use Common Area, we allow attachment
> of dishes to the inner surface of fences
> providing that they don't poke up over the
> top of the fence into Common Area airspace.
>
> If you can attach a dish to the *inner* surface
> of the balcony railing without drilling holes in
> it and without wrapping a U clamp around an
> exterior part of it, you may be in the clear.
> But otherwise, the landlord or HOA can raise
> a legal stink. I, for one, would not disallow it,
> but I would, as an HOA president, discourage
> it. (See legal decision below.)
>
>
> > While the mount cannot screw into the railing it
> > can be attached in a non-obtrusive manner,
> > such as a clamp, and there is nothing we can do
> > about it.
>
>
> Have you gotten an attorney's opinion on that?
>
>
> > If it is set up on a brick or concrete block set on the floor
> > of the balcony we really have no room to bitch.
>
>
> True, and that is what I have recommended.
>
>
> > If it hangs out there is room to make a formal complaint
> > and take them to court in an effort to get them to pull it back,
> > but the FCC is very clear that a balcony is fair game for a
> > dish, as is a porch area.
>
>
> But is the balcony *railing* part of the "balcony" or part of
> the exterior of the building?
>
>
> Here is an FCC ruling which appears to bolster your view:
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1997/da972305.txt
> The guy wanted to attach a dish to a balcony railing. But the
> argument against it was not that it was not part of the balcony,
> and it did not address safety concerns. It merely said that a
> "balcony" was part of Exclusive Use area and it did not get
> into whether the railing was part of the "balcony" or part of the
> "building exterrior". I believe that if that differentiation had
> been addressed - as most CC&Rs do - and if the safety issue
> had been raised, the decision would have gone the other way.
> Your opinion may vary. But there are national building
> management and property ownership corporations which
> would love to set a precedent in their favor. Would an
> individual dish owner want to take them on in court? The
> best thing from a least hassle standpoint and from a safety
> standpoint, is to put the dish on a tripod mounted in cement-
> filled buckets on the floor of the balcony.
>
> *TimDaniels*
Fat Bastard
"Dante" <Da...@TheInferno.net> wrote in message
news:fv0om0l8ulvhbn30v...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:46:04 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, being on the 11th floor means squat. The window
> > sill is on the 11th floor, too, but it's part of the outside of the
> > building and you're not legally free to attach a dish to the
> > window sill. In reality, the railing is legally an exterior part of
> > the building like an exterior wall or the roof. What's on the
> > inside of the railing is balcony, and the railing begins the
> > outside of the building.
> >
> >*TimDaniels*
>
> I'm in building operations managment. While the mount cannot screw into
the railing it
> can be attached in a non-obtrusive manner, such as a clamp, and there is
nothing we can do
> about it. If it is set up on a brick or concrete block set on the floor of
the balcony we
> really have no room to bitch. If it hangs out there is room to make a
formal complaint and
> take them to court in an effort to get them to pull it back, but the FCC
is very clear
> that a balcony is fair game for a dish, as is a porch area.
>
> Dante
> (disclaimer)
> I don't "test" or pirate signals. I am a student of code and coding
techniques as well as smart card technology.
Timothy Daniels
> I can tell you that you are wrong. The owner of the particular
> unit in the case of a CONDO has exclusive rights to the balcony,
> and it's railings, provided they are not attached to a public right
> of way. If there is no walkway along the balcony railing so that
> the dish would intrude upon that space, they can NOT block
> the installation of a dish on the rail, or anywhere on the balcony
> for that matter, especially if it's not causing any structural damage
> to the railing [.......]
Can you quote a court decision or FCC ruling that declares
a balcony's railing to be Exclusive Use area in regards to
placement of a DBS dish?
*TimDaniels*
Fat Bastard
Property rights, at least here, include all EXCLUSIVE USE areas, which would
include the balcony of an 11th floor apartment. There is NO "common area"
around it, but the WALL behind it IS considered off limits, because it is a
"structural" piece of the property that could be affected by drilling holes
in it. Although I know of a few condos and apt's here that would allow it
anyway, because they aren't uppity assholes when it comes to satellite
systems. lol
I used to manage apt complexes, and condo's, and still have friends that
manage, own and operate, and/or serve as repair staff at several local condo
and apartment complexes, and they are all aware of the rules, and they allow
the mounting of dishes on the balconies, provided they are not bordered by
public area (walkways, yards, play areas, etc.), and typically a multi-level
complex is NOT going to have anything outside of the balcony, unless they
have a balcony that happens to attach to the main walkway leading to
stairs/elevators (I do have a couple of friends that live in apartments that
have this style balcony, and they are not allowed to mount on TOP of the
rail, or on the OUTSIDE of the rail, where the dish would extend more than
2" past the top railing out into the walkway (and they wouldn't WANT to
anyway, because someone would likely mess with it). Their dish is mounted on
the balcony, close to the wall, where nobody can get to it without climbing
onto their balcony to do it.
I'm sure with enough money, an asshole landlord or condo association might
TRY to battle this type of installation, but I can almost guarantee that the
owner would win. If it's already been tried in court, I'm sure we can find
the outcome somewhere. If you find one, let me know. I'm not up to
searching, as I have more important work to do right now. :)
I'll mount my dish anywhere I damn well please, and if they don't like it,
they can take me to court, where I'll fight to the end (IF I were in a
condo, especially one that I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR). Fortunately I'm in a
house, and i can do whatever I want. i could mount a big 50 foot dish in my
front yard if I wanted to (God would that piss off the neighbors, but that's
too bad for them. I hate their purple and pink painted houses, so we'd be
even. LOL).
"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:vsSdnQLb6v1...@comcast.com...
Kain0o0
balcony didnt face south. i got one of my neighbours to let me use their
balcony , since i was on the 1st floor.
I then attached my cable run from his apt. to mine to the existing cable
lines.
They threatened and threatened and when it came push to shove they couldnt
do anything. I took a nice printout of the FCC regulations and dropped it
off ;).
My suggestion is that you give up some balcony space and just mount in on a
concrete block. That way no one can fuck with you. Just cover it woth a
garbage can or garbage bag.
Good Luck
PS: Doesnt matter where you are as long as your in the US
Timothy Daniels
> Can you quote a court decision of FCC ruling that
> declares otherwise?
No. I base our differentiation between "Balcony" and
"Railing" on our CC&Rs. Our CC&Rs clearly define
the "balcony" to stop short of the railing. If the FCC's
rule overrides that definition, please show me in what
document or ruling.
> Property rights, at least here,
Where is "here"?
> include all EXCLUSIVE USE areas, which would
> include the balcony of an 11th floor apartment.
And you continue to side-step the definition of
"balcony" and to include the railing by inference.
Where is "railing" included in the definition of
a "balcony"?
> There is NO "common area" around it, but the WALL
> behind it IS considered off limits, because it is a
> "structural" piece of the property that could be affected
> by drilling holes in it.
That "structural piece of the property" is by definition
"Common Area" - it is NOT part of the Unit but part
of the commonly owned building (in the case of condos).
So are the walls on either side of the balcony common
area, and so are the ceiling and floor of a balcony
common area. If you would read the CC&Rs of those
buildings you "managed", you would know that the
balcony portion of the "Unit" is merely an airspace, as
is the rest of the "Unit". The owner buys an interest in
the structure (i.e. Common Area) and an interest in an
airspace known as the "Unit". Thus, he has control of
the use of that airspace. The question at hand is
whether the railing is part of that airspace or whether it
is part of the structure. Our CC&Rs say it is part of the
structure, and therefore part of the Common Area.
Whether it is Exclusive Use common area you have yet
to show because a window sill is common area that is
exclusively used by the adjacent unit, but it can't be used
to mount dishes. So what's the difference between a
window sill and a railing when it comes to classification
as Exclusive Use common area? I say there is none,
because a "railing" might be built like a low wall and an
extension of the building's facade, not a framework of
metal bars as you probably imagine. In such a case,
even you would say that the outer surface that low wall
was part of the exterior of the building and not part of the
Exclusive Use area - even on the 11th floor.
*TimDaniels*
Timothy Daniels
> My cable was attached to pre-existing cable tv cable.
> I used black twisties to just attach it to it ,
> couldve been him being lazy , but i see your point
> about the exterior cable run
Knowing now what I do about HOAs and landlords,
he probably figured that since the cable was so
unobtrusive (blending in with the other cables)
he could always pretend he didn't see it. :-)
*TimDaniels*
Fat Bastard
"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
>
> Yes, they are not law. But the CC&Rs are legal contracts
> between the owners and the Home Owners Association,
> and they are legally binding for those parties. Unless the
> CC&Rs conflict with state or federal law, they prevail. In the
> absence of federal law or ruling stating that railings are part
> of the Exclusive Use area, one has only the CC&Rs for a
> definition of what is "balcony".
Technically, yes, but you are probably also aware that any contract that
isn't a LEGAL action is NOT lawful, or binding. You can't enforce a contract
that is not legal to begin with. Now, I'm not saying that a contract of this
nature is or isn't legal, but it is questionable in my opinion, and I'm sure
in many lawyers opinions as well (the opposite is certainly true as well
though). I personally think that doors and windows to your privately owned
"unit" are YOURS, they do NOT belong to the association.
>
> Nonsense. By that logic there can't exist a walkway
> without a railing, or a patio without a fence.
Walkways have never needed a railing, unless they are above ground level
(2nd through xxx stories high) and are required for "safety" to prevent
someone from falling. A walkway is simply a passage for walking.
Main Entry: walk·way
Pronunciation: 'wok-"wA
Function: noun
: a passage for walking : WALK
Note, there is NO REFERENCE to a railing. I've never known of a walkway to
include a railing as part of the definition. Nor have I known the definition
of Patio to have a fence.
Main Entry: pa·tio
Pronunciation: 'pa-tE-"O also 'pä-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pa·ti·os
Etymology: Spanish
1 : COURTYARD; especially : an inner court open to the sky
2 : a recreation area that adjoins a dwelling, is often paved, and is
adapted especially to outdoor dining
no reference to a fence here either. (courtyard however does reference being
an "enclosure")
My patio has never had a fence around it, and I don't know anyone else with
a fence around their patio (unless their patio borders a pool, and they were
required by law to have a separate fence around it). Most PATIO's are open
areas, possible COVERED, but not "fenced". My patio is OPEN (not covered
yet), so i can walk out into the yard anytime I want. My YARD is bordered by
a wall though.
Now, note the definition of BALCONY:
Main Entry: bal·co·ny
Pronunciation: 'bal-k&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Italian balcone, from Old Italian, large window, of
Germanic origin; akin to Old High German balko beam -- more at BALK
1 : a platform that projects from the wall of a building and is
enclosed by a parapet or railing
2 : an interior projecting gallery in a public building (as a theater)
- bal·co·nied /-nEd/ adjective
See how it specifically states "and is enclosed by a parapet or
RAILING". So, without a railing, it is not really a "balcony", but rather a
"patio". :)
> > The railing is part of the balcony (a protective barrier
> > to keep you from falling off said balcony),
>
>
> If your reiterative definition were right, "said balcony"
> would already have a railing - by your definition of
> "balcony" - and it wouldn't need another railing.
I said a balcony already INCLUDES a railing.
>
> By your reasoning, doors aren't structural, either.
> But doors ARE part of the common area - owned
> and maintained by the HOA - and they are certainly
> NOT part of the Unit. Similarly, balcony railings
> are part of the structure - like walls - and not part
> of the Unit.
Doors aren't structural, and I personally would argue whether my DOOR to MY
PROPERTY belongs to anyone other than myself. I have exclusive use of my
door (if you come and remove my door, or you enter my door without
permission, you are TRESPASSING on private property, and are subject to
arrest). In your CC&R's you may have a rule that states the door is part of
the HOA, and not owned by the property owner, but it would be WRONG, and I
would challenge it in court any day of the week. Now, it would be
understandable if the door is covered under the HOA agreement as far as
PAINT, or DESIGN goes, but i personally think it's BULLSHIT to dictate what
people can do with what belongs to them, and I'd challenge it if i felt the
need (if I painted my door and someone complained, I'd tell them to bugger
off, and sue me if they feel they have a case). I personally wouldn't go
against a particular communities rules on paint colors, or at least not get
approval for any color not already on the building, because it's not nice to
put some awful color on the building that is shared with others, but on the
other hand it's really none of their business, and they don't have to look
at it if they don't like it. I'm sick of all these HOA's dictating what
people can and can't do, just because a couple of schmucks don't like
something.
> > Our CC&R's specifically state that the balcony is
> > EXCLUSIVE USE area. It described COMMON areas
> > as those that can be used by ANYONE, not just the
> > OWNER of the unit. The balcony is PRIVATE PROPERTY,
> > and cannot be regulated by the "public" (commoners). lol
>
>
> Yes, yes. But do your CC&Rs include the railing
> in its definition of "balcony"?
By definition of Balcony, YES. A balcony INCLUDES the rail, by every known
definition. it's not a balcony without the rail. It's a porch/patio without
the rail. A dangerous one at that, if it's several floors up. :)
> "Structural" does not mean "supportive of the building".
> A railing is as structural as a door or a fence or a window.
> It is part of the physical building that defines the airspaces
> which are units within a condo building. If your house
> (which you said you live in) is part of a community having
> commonly-owned property, the definition of "Unit" may
> be different, but for a condo building containing multiple
> units, the "Units" are airspaces (plus, perhaps, some
> interior walls), but NOT the exterior doors, NOT the windows,
> NOT the patio fences, and NOT the balcony railings.
WRONG. Structural clearly defines "Structure", as in structural stability.
See below.
Main Entry: struc·tur·al
Pronunciation: 'str&k-ch&-r&l, 'str&k-shr&l
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to the physical makeup of a plant or animal body
2 a : of, relating to, or affecting structure <structural stability> b :
used in building structures <structural clay> c : involved in or caused by
structure especially of the economy <structural unemployment>
3 : of, relating to, or resulting from the effects of folding or faulting of
the earth's crust : TECTONIC
4 : concerned with or relating to structure rather than history or
comparison <structural linguistics>
- struc·tur·al·ly adverb
A railing is not "structural" in most cases. It is decorative, and
protective.
Main Entry: 2rail
Function: transitive verb
: to provide with a railing : FENCE
Main Entry: 1fence
Pronunciation: 'fen(t)s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English fens, short for defens defense
1 archaic : a means of protection : DEFENSE
2 : a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a
boundary; especially : such a barrier made of posts and wire or boards
3 : FENCING 1
4 a : a receiver of stolen goods b : a place where stolen goods are
bought
- fence·less /-l&s/ adjective
- fence·less·ness noun
- on the fence : in a position of neutrality or indecision
Hmm, english definitions of everything seem to support my argument so far.
As I said, I would challenge any HOA's on these any day of the week.
>
> CC&Rs are legal and binding contracts - like any other
> civil contracts - and they are legally enforceable unless
> they contradict state or federal laws - like any other
> civil contracts. They are NOT merely "suggestions".
To me, they are merely suggestions. Unless SPECIFIC (if your CC&R
specifically states not allowing the use of the railing to mount anything
to, then it's BS, and you cannot restrict it. If your CC&R states nothing
can be bolted to the STRUCTURE or outside walls, then that is the WALLS or
STRUCTURE of the building, NOT the railing of my personal balcony), it isn't
covered, nor is it "legally binding". To be legally binding, it must be
legally based, but you cannot impose your "LAW" on someone elses private
property.
>
> And we are discussing "outer", as in outer surface
> of a balcony railing. The inside of a railing is like
> the inside of a door - it's common area, but it's
> Exclusive Use common area. But the *outside* is
> like the outside of a door - it's just simply
> Common Area without exclusivity. And like a door,
> you can't attach things to the outside surface of a
> balcony railing
Balcony is owned by me, it's mine, i'll attach to the railing (part of the
balcony) if i want to, inside or out. That's my opinion, and the definition
of balcony supports my opinion. The outside of the railing is not common
area, because nobody else has access to it (it's hanging out in the air, 20
or more feet above the ground, and is my private, exclusive area, that you
cannot enter, or interfere with, without proper authority from me). Again,
my opinion, and supported by definition. Some judges may agree, some may
not, but I certainly would be willing to challenge it if it came to that.
>
> Our CC&Rs are quite similar to those of others
> in the area which I've seen when it comes to
> defining what is "Unit" and what is "Common Area".
> Your CC&Rs are probably different due to your
> property being a detached house on land that
> solely belongs to you.
I personally don't have ANY CC&R's here. the property I'm on right now is
MINE, exclusively, and has no HOA governing it. Some idiots tried to start
one up, but nobody would around here would agree to it, so it seems to have
drifted away like so many other stupid things people try to do just to force
their own beliefs or opinions on others. I was speaking of the rules and
regs of the properties we've managed, or worked for, NOT for my own personal
and private property that I am located on right now.
>
> Most of the resistance that most building owners
> and HOAs have to DBS dishes is due to the
> precedent that they set regarding attachment of
> objects - any kind of objects - to the exterior of the
> building without regard to sightliness or safety or
> susceptibility to water damage from holes being
> drilled. Once an Association allows something
> that it isn't forced to allow by law, it can be used
> as a precedent for attaching all kinds of other
> crap that most people may find offensive or which
> may cause eventual (or even immediate) damage
> to the building. By painful experience, HOAs have
> found that the way to keep the peace is to leave
> the buildings the way they were built - unfestooned.
> Once attachments are allowed, the genie is out
> of the bottle, and decades of bickering ensue.
I agree with you there, entirely. It does open decades of bickering. Just
look at us here. LOL
> In our HOA's case, we kept everyone happy by
> providing a community dish that anyone can
> use by just shifting their coaxial cable to feed off
> its amplifier (and stacker and splitter tree). So
> far, everyone is satisfied with DirecTV without
> HD. The 2 residents who need DishNet's foreign
> language programming fortunately have a view of
> Dish's satellites from their patios and they've
> attached their dishes to the inside of their patio
> fences. We put the community dish in because
> a very good case was made that the cost of the
> system was less than the improvement in our
> property values by its addition, and it keeps the
> peace. I strongly suggest that such cases be
> presented to the governing boards of HOAs that
> have been resistant to dishes rather than try to
> fight them or just bitch and moan about how
> assinine they are.
That's great that you put in a community dish, especially if it's provided
FREE OF CHARGE, but not all buildings offer that, nor do they all have plans
to. Also, by only allowing your own dish/provider you are creating a
monopoly, and are infringing on others rights. It is not legal to force
anyone to utilize your system if they prefer another. I certainly don't want
DTV, so I'd want to install my own dish, provided I have an area where I can
do so, which faces the right direction. Now, if you offer every system,
cable, dtv, dish, etc., then that would cover all bases. I know that there
have been cases where the apt/condo/etc. has tried to force the people to
use their provided cable access, and they were challenged, and the owners
were allowed to put up dishes. It's not right to limit someone to YOUR
preference of providers.
Fat Bastard
"Gary" <satma...@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%VBbd.101922$a41.96803@pd7tw2no...
> Can you drill for a door eye viewer or mount a knocker or even a hook for
a
> Christmas decoration on the outside of your door?
>
>
superskinnyguy
"Fat Bastard" <a_fat_bast...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ckk48...@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
If you sign a piece of paper when you move saying you'll abide by
regulations of the building as is most often the case, then they aren't
suggestions anymore. It's a legally binding contract.
ka...@sonic.net
Some terms of the contract can be invalidated by other laws.
For instance the CC&Rs in the Wsstlake area of Daly City, CA, which
stated that an owner could not sell his house to a person of color.
There is a good chance that FCC rulings supersede most CC&Rs.
ka...@sonic.net
<TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
>Your opinion may vary. But there are national building
>management and property ownership corporations which
>would love to set a precedent in their favor. Would an
>individual dish owner want to take them on in court?
Correct translation -- might makes right.
I know people in this situation who have gotten legal opinions
that they have the right to mount such devices. However they know that
there is little defense against the retaliation that was likely to
follow. Again, the money is on the side of the property owner.
ka...@sonic.net
<a_fat_bast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
>news:9padnYLFiaH01PPcRVn->
>>
>> Yes, they are not law. But the CC&Rs are legal contracts
>> between the owners and the Home Owners Association,
>> and they are legally binding for those parties. Unless the
>> CC&Rs conflict with state or federal law, they prevail. In the
>> absence of federal law or ruling stating that railings are part
>> of the Exclusive Use area, one has only the CC&Rs for a
>> definition of what is "balcony".
>
>Technically, yes, but you are probably also aware that any contract that
>isn't a LEGAL action is NOT lawful, or binding. You can't enforce a contract
>that is not legal to begin with.
As when using in terrorem clauses, designed to frighten
someone from taking legal action to recover loss. The classic example
is the signs some cleaners post saying that clothes left over X days
can be sold for charges and need not be sold for actual cash value.
The signs normally specify X days as far shorter than that specified
by law. If the cleaner actually sells the clothes before the legally
required time, he is liable for damages for the entire market value of
the clothes less the agreed-upon cleaning charge.
> Now, I'm not saying that a contract of this
>nature is or isn't legal, but it is questionable in my opinion, and I'm sure
>in many lawyers opinions as well (the opposite is certainly true as well
>though). I personally think that doors and windows to your privately owned
>"unit" are YOURS, they do NOT belong to the association.
>
>>
>> Nonsense. By that logic there can't exist a walkway
>> without a railing, or a patio without a fence.
>
>Walkways have never needed a railing, unless they are above ground level
>(2nd through xxx stories high) and are required for "safety" to prevent
>someone from falling.
Or to prevent people from falling into something like a pond
traversed by the walkway.
Timothy Daniels
>
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>
>> Yes, they are not law. But the CC&Rs are legal contracts
>> between the owners and the Home Owners Association,
>> and they are legally binding for those parties. Unless the
>> CC&Rs conflict with state or federal law, they prevail. In the
>> absence of federal law or ruling stating that railings are part
>> of the Exclusive Use area, one has only the CC&Rs for a
>> definition of what is "balcony".
>
> Technically, yes, but you are probably also aware that any
> contract that isn't a LEGAL action is NOT lawful, or binding.
> You can't enforce a contract that is not legal to begin with.
Read more slowly, and you may see what I have been
writing repeatedly (there is an example above) - that
UNLESS the CC&Rs contradict STATE or FEDERAL
laws, they prevail. That means CC&Rs are invalid if
they contradict those laws, such as prohibitions against
children. When our CC&Rs were written, they could
and did prohibit children residing for more than 30
days. Now such prohibitions are illegal due to a state
Supreme Court decision, and those sections of our
CC&Rs prohibiting children are no longer enforceable.
> [.......] I personally think that doors and windows to your
> privately owned "unit" are YOURS, they do NOT belong
> to the association.
By buying a unit in our Association, one commits
oneself to abide by the CC&Rs, and the description
of each "Unit" is clearly delineated in detail in a
condominium plan. It does not include anything
outside the inner surface of the walls or anything
outside the extension into the patio, by a specified
distance, imaginary planes formed by the walls
and ceiling of the adjacent living rooms. Everything
else is Common Area. And that is standard for
most CC&Rs, the major difference being whether
the patio is Common Area or part of the Unit.
Thus, when doors need patching or painting or
replacing, the Association does it because the
Association owns it - not the owner of the adjacent
Unit. Similarly for exterior window hardware.
That is how the Association maintains control over
the uniformity of appearance and how it avoids
having crazy owners painting or carving crazy
designs on their doors and windows that offend
the other owners and which eventually lead to
wars of festooning exterior surfaces that eventually
lead to destruction of each others' property. The
motto is this: "If you liked enough to buy it like it was,
you must like it enough to keep it that way." And
that's the only way to keep the peace.
> Walkways have never needed a railing, unless they are
> above ground level (2nd through xxx stories high) and
> are required for "safety" to prevent someone from falling.
> A walkway is simply a passage for walking.
Nonsense. Have you ever seen walkways at a
condo complex for the elderly? Ground level
walkways frequently have railings because of need.
> Main Entry: walk·way
> Pronunciation: 'wok-"wA
> Function: noun
> : a passage for walking : WALK
>
> Note, there is NO REFERENCE to a railing.
> I've never known of a walkway to include a
> railing as part of the definition.
If you are arguing that a walkway needn't have a railing
to be defined as a walkway, OK, but neither I nor
anyone else claimed that a railing was a defining part
of a "walkway".
> Nor have I known the definition of Patio to have a fence.
>
> Main Entry: pa·tio
> Pronunciation: 'pa-tE-"O also 'pä-
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural pa·ti·os
> Etymology: Spanish
> 1 : COURTYARD; especially : an inner court open to the sky
> 2 : a recreation area that adjoins a dwelling, is often paved, and is
> adapted especially to outdoor dining
>
> no reference to a fence here either. (courtyard however does
> reference being an "enclosure")
Right. The fence around a patio is part of the Common Area,
not part of the Unit or a part of the patio.
> My patio has never had a fence around it, and I don't know
> anyone else with a fence around their patio (unless their
> patio borders a pool, and they were required by law to have
> a separate fence around it). Most PATIO's are open areas,
> possible COVERED, but not "fenced". My patio is OPEN
> (not covered yet), so i can walk out into the yard anytime I
> want. My YARD is bordered by a wall though.
So what? Our patios are all fenced. The fence is 8 feet
high and built of tongue 'n groove boards so that no one
can see in. People like the privacy.
> Now, note the definition of BALCONY:
>
>
> Main Entry: bal·co·ny
> Pronunciation: 'bal-k&-nE
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
> Etymology: Italian balcone, from Old Italian, large window, of
> Germanic origin; akin to Old High German balko beam -- more at BALK
> 1 : a platform that projects from the wall of a building and is
> enclosed by a parapet or railing
> 2 : an interior projecting gallery in a public building (as a theater)
> - bal·co·nied /-nEd/ adjective
>
> See how it specifically states "and is enclosed by a parapet or
> RAILING". So, without a railing, it is not really a "balcony", but rather a
> "patio". :)
Fat Bastard, you've become tedious.
*TimDaniels*
Timothy Daniels
> Can you drill for a door eye viewer or mount a knocker
> or even a hook for a Christmas decoration on the outside
> of your door?
"Can" and "permitted" are two different things.
A strict interpretation of the CC&Rs permit neither,
but the addition of knobs are overlooked as the doors
originally had only pull handles, and many owners
have installed knobs that match the pull handle.
Likewise, the type of lock is overlooked as the
original lock is no longer made and newer locks
are more secure. No owner is permitted or allowed
to remove the large custom pull handle as that would
cause a major change in architectural appearance
and a loss of uniformity. Christmas decorations,
Thanks Giving decorations, Halloween decorations,
etc, are classed as "temporary decorations of a
seasonal nature", and they are allowed to remain for
a maximum of 45 days - long enough to encompass
all religious and seasonal needs. The goal has been
to avoid permanent changes which some owners could
bitch about but yet to allow individual expressions of festivity
and/or religious observance. So far, things have worked
out well. As with all rules governing a democratic organization,
there needs to be both wiggle room and restraint, and
balancing the two is the mark of a good governing body.
One of the major difficulties with HOAs is that most
condo owners are previous apartment renters, and they
don't know the problems of maintaining real property and
the politics of common ownership. All they know is that
they pay dues, and they assume that is like paying rent -
someone *owes* them management services in return,
and since they are now "owners", they should be allowed
to do whatever they please with everything in sight.
Never does it occur to them that *they* are responsible
for the upkeep of the property, and *they* are responsible
for behaving in a manner that doesn't offend other owners.
And in the governing board, all they see is a bunch of peers
acting like self-important ass holes rather than volunteers
who are burdened with the job of maintaining the property
and the living conditions for thankless people while keeping
everyone off each others' backs. As with parents, you don't
appreciate what members of governing boards have done
for you until you become one yourself.
*TimDaniels*
Fat Bastard
just as you noted below. We cannot discriminate against people of color, and
we cannot enter into contract when said contract is illegal in nature. You
cannot enter into contract with MINORS either, for this same reason. It
would be like a drug dealer requiring a contract with his buyer, it just
won't cut the mustard. :)
<ka...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:6q3um0p4rt57i6g9i...@4ax.com...
Fat Bastard
"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
> > Walkways have never needed a railing, unless they are
> > above ground level (2nd through xxx stories high) and
> > are required for "safety" to prevent someone from falling.
> > A walkway is simply a passage for walking.
>
>
> Nonsense. Have you ever seen walkways at a
> condo complex for the elderly? Ground level
> walkways frequently have railings because of need.
LOL, You are trying to twist the facts. The fact is, a WALKWAY, by
definition does NOT include a railing, PERIOD. railings added for other
purposes, such as the elderly so they can hold on while moving around, do
NOT magically make them a requirement for a "walkway". Plain and simple!
> > Main Entry: walk·way
> > Pronunciation: 'wok-"wA
> > Function: noun
> > : a passage for walking : WALK
> >
> > Note, there is NO REFERENCE to a railing.
> > I've never known of a walkway to include a
> > railing as part of the definition.
>
>
> If you are arguing that a walkway needn't have a railing
> to be defined as a walkway, OK, but neither I nor
> anyone else claimed that a railing was a defining part
> of a "walkway".
>
>
> > Nor have I known the definition of Patio to have a fence.
> >
> > Main Entry: pa·tio
> > Pronunciation: 'pa-tE-"O also 'pä-
> > Function: noun
> > Inflected Form(s): plural pa·ti·os
> > Etymology: Spanish
> > 1 : COURTYARD; especially : an inner court open to the sky
> > 2 : a recreation area that adjoins a dwelling, is often paved, and is
> > adapted especially to outdoor dining
> >
> > no reference to a fence here either. (courtyard however does
> > reference being an "enclosure")
>
>
> Right. The fence around a patio is part of the Common Area,
> not part of the Unit or a part of the patio.
Yes, you could argue that the fence around a patio in this case is part of
the common area, because the patio doesn't reference a fence. I'd probably
still challenge it, but this one might be a little tougher. It however would
depend on the location with regards to the property owned by the tenant,
etc..
>
> So what? Our patios are all fenced. The fence is 8 feet
> high and built of tongue 'n groove boards so that no one
> can see in. People like the privacy.
Are you sure you have "patio's" and not "yards"? ;)
>
>
> > Now, note the definition of BALCONY:
> >
> >
> > Main Entry: bal·co·ny
> > Pronunciation: 'bal-k&-nE
> > Function: noun
> > Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
> > Etymology: Italian balcone, from Old Italian, large window, of
> > Germanic origin; akin to Old High German balko beam -- more at BALK
> > 1 : a platform that projects from the wall of a building and is
> > enclosed by a parapet or railing
> > 2 : an interior projecting gallery in a public building (as a
theater)
> > - bal·co·nied /-nEd/ adjective
> >
> > See how it specifically states "and is enclosed by a parapet or
> > RAILING". So, without a railing, it is not really a "balcony", but
rather a
> > "patio". :)
>
>
> Fat Bastard, you've become tedious.
>
> *TimDaniels*
You are just angry that I have proper definitions, that defy your own
personal beliefs. the facts are, definitions hold true in most court cases,
because these are the common reference points, and commonly accepted
definitions for such items, that MOST people would KNOW if they did a little
research. Therefore, if the majority believe that the definition is as
described in common reference material, it is FACT, and will usually support
the argument. I would challenge your CC&R's any day of the week based on
these simple facts. Tedium is what makes a WINNER. ;)
>
Seth
>
> Like some stores where on the door it says they reserve the right to
> inspect
> packages, backpacks, purses etc brought into the store. Back in my legal
> relations class I learned that is against the law. They can say it all
> they
> want - they do not have that right. - In Canada anyway.
It's all a matter of interpretation. They do reserve that right. And if
you choose not to grant consent they can bar your entrance from said
establishment. The consumer then has the choice. Allow inspection or don't
enter.
No, they can't force your backpack open at the store threshold, but they can
make it a condition of being there.
Fat Bastard
<ka...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fs3vm0p69ij18vta3...@4ax.com...
> As when using in terrorem clauses, designed to frighten
> someone from taking legal action to recover loss. The classic example
> is the signs some cleaners post saying that clothes left over X days
> can be sold for charges and need not be sold for actual cash value.
> The signs normally specify X days as far shorter than that specified
> by law. If the cleaner actually sells the clothes before the legally
> required time, he is liable for damages for the entire market value of
> the clothes less the agreed-upon cleaning charge.
Exactly. As a small business owner, I too deal with that every day. We have
what is commonly referred to as a 'mechanics lien" on any items we work on,
and if the item is not claimed within a certain period of time, as
determined by law, the item is by default OURS, and we can sell it for
whatever we want, to recoup some expenses. I rarely ever do that, because
there is not much reason to since i have space to store things and the
customer typically comes back eventually. lol
> >Walkways have never needed a railing, unless they are above ground level
> >(2nd through xxx stories high) and are required for "safety" to prevent
> >someone from falling.
>
> Or to prevent people from falling into something like a pond
> traversed by the walkway.
true. if there is a pond, or something else in an area that they don't want
people trampling on, or falling into, they may put up a railing, or a fence,
but a walkway in and of itself doesn't necessitate a railing.
Fat Bastard
this subject, aren't you?
"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:3-udnRuwoIv...@comcast.com...
Timothy Daniels
> On another note, you are aware i'm just having a little fun with you, and
> this subject, aren't you?
I am aware that you are misinforming the public.
*TimDaniels*
Fat Bastard
"Gary" <satma...@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QpTbd.109835$a41.92699@pd7tw2no...
>
> Like some stores where on the door it says they reserve the right to
inspect
> packages, backpacks, purses etc brought into the store. Back in my legal
> relations class I learned that is against the law. They can say it all
they
> want - they do not have that right. - In Canada anyway.
That was my understanding here in the states as well. Same goes for them
inspecting your bags/packages/etc. as you LEAVE a business. However, they
have gotten around that by claiming they are doing it for YOUR benefit, to
be sure they didn't forget to give you one of your items you paid for.
In todays world, i can understand them searching your bags if you are
entering into a large public arena (sporting events, etc.), but it's still a
little intrusive, and some people take it way too far. you'll notice that
they don't physically touch your bag or anything when they inspect, they
actually have YOU pull stuff out of the way,e tc., and they just glance in
real quick, to be sure you aren't carrying anything you aren't supposed to.
(this doesn't include airports, etc., where they do physically handle things
regularly, but the average store, etc. that wants to check your bags won't
touch them physically, at least not usually, and not here in the states).
Magus
My first post here in years and it's not about DSS systems. Argggggg...
From the U.S. Government Training Manual, No. 2000-25 WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, November 30, 1928 and prepared under direction of the Chief of
Staff, under the title of "Citizenship":
"Democracy: A government of the masses, authority derived through mass
meetings or any other form of direct expression; results in mobocracy;
attitude toward property is communistic negating property rights; attitude
toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it is
based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse,
without restraint or regard to consequences; its result is dem-o-gogism,
license, agitation, discontent and anarchy."
Democracy = communistic attitude toward property negating property rights.
Timothy Daniels
> Are you sure you have "patio's" and not "yards"? ;)
As a matter of fact, all open air portions of our
Units are called "balconies" in our CC&Rs,
whether they are on the ground or protruding
from elevated floors. But legal definitions would
just confuse you.
> You are just angry that I have proper definitions...
You have dictionary definitions of words in
everyday use - NOT legal definitions. As long
as our CC&Rs defined a "rumpus room", they
could call patios and balconies "rumpus rooms"
and be just as valid. In short, you are stuck on
everyday definitions and mistakingly apply them
to legal documents.
*TimDaniels*
ka...@sonic.net
<satma...@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
><ka...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:fs3vm0p69ij18vta3...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:42:28 -0700, "Fat Bastard"
>> <a_fat_bast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9padnYLFiaH01PPcRVn->
>> >>
>> As when using in terrorem clauses, designed to frighten
>> someone from taking legal action to recover loss. The classic example
>> is the signs some cleaners post saying that clothes left over X days
>> can be sold for charges and need not be sold for actual cash value.
>> The signs normally specify X days as far shorter than that specified
>> by law. If the cleaner actually sells the clothes before the legally
>> required time, he is liable for damages for the entire market value of
>> the clothes less the agreed-upon cleaning charge.
>>
>
>Like some stores where on the door it says they reserve the right to inspect
>packages, backpacks, purses etc brought into the store. Back in my legal
>relations class I learned that is against the law. They can say it all they
>want - they do not have that right. - In Canada anyway.
That can be a bit more difficult, at least in the US. The sign
would have to be very well placed, and even then it might not fly. An
exception would apply to membership stores where you agree in writing
that, as a condition of mambership, you agree to inspection (of cart
contents, anyway) upon exit. They've recently started posting large
signs saying it's for your *cough* protection *cough*, like to make
sure any applicable rebate information was printed on your receipt.
It's become pretty much of a game at an electronics chain
called Fry's, which everyone likes to mock. Some of their door guards
get pretty testy at times, though most know that they're not to push
it when a customer blows off their attempts to "inspect"
For some low grade entertainment, google frys + electronics.
The horror stories can be quite amusing.
adddress@spamfree.com CW
<ka...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:btn1n0ph536u2keoq...@4ax.com...
Mike
with concrete is a time proven method if the dish is adequately shielded
from the wind. I have attached to similar railing using large stainless
steel hose clamps. You can open the hose clamp, slide on a length of
heatshrink tubing or even plastic hose and that will usually protect the
railing surface. The hose clamps can hold a chunk of wood or fabricated
metal to attach to the dish mount.
Good luck and happy TV.
Mike
Bill wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am trying to come up with a "balcony railing mount" for use with a
> Ku-band dish plus dish mover. I have searched google and have not
> found any online dealers which sell such a mount.
>
> My apartment is on the 11th floor with a railing on the outside patio,
> approx circumference is 12 inches (around).
>
> My apartment landlord is being "difficult" with roof access and wants
> me to subscribe to the apartment complex's own dish system.
>
> I simply want FTA programming.
>
> If anyone knows where I can find a balcony railing mount (or similar)
> please let me know
>
> thanks
Timothy Daniels
>
> <ka...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> "Gary" wrote:
>> It's become pretty much of a game at an electronics chain
>> called Fry's, which everyone likes to mock. Some of their
>> door guards get pretty testy at times, though most know
>> that they're not to push it when a customer blows off their
>> attempts to "inspect"
>>
>> For some low grade entertainment, google frys + electronics.
>> The horror stories can be quite amusing.
>>
> Good to know that our Fry's is not unique.
I'm glad to know there's a real reason for my paranoia
about being suspect everytime I exit Fry's. Whenever
I go to a bits-'n-pieces electronics store, I wear a T-shirt
that is tucked into non-baggy pants so the store personnel
know I'm not shoplifting. I just *hate* that squinty-eyed
look that I get otherwise.... :-)
*TimDaniels*
Gary
"Fat Bastard" <a_fat_bast...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ckpr9...@news3.newsguy.com...
Gary
the ones with the plate on the bottom with 4 holes in it and the two bolts
on the side for tightening the 4x4 up, the then placed it in a 15" tire rim
and poured concrete into it. It gives it weight and the two bolts allowed
him to put some shims in 1st to straighten up the post a bit and then
tighten. the post goes almost right up to the rail and the dish hangs over
to get him a line of sight as he faces eastward and slightly south. #rd
floor of about 15 floors. (Its the tree that causes him problems and 3 times
now he has had to do a 4:00 in the morning trimming while a buddy hangs out
below with at 2 way radio watching for the security guard and piling the
branches in his pickup. Is there a condo law against that LOL.
"Mike" <km...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:7Wbcd.6639$6q2...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Fat Bastard
too.
"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:gZKdnYptxs-...@comcast.com...
Fat Bastard
mistakes, and your CC&R's FLAWS, and how to correct them, and giving
everyone something to think about, and something to base their own RESEARCH
ON before diving into anything. If I make one person THINK about something,
then it's a good thing.
I also specifically said that "I" would challenge your supposed CC&R's
(based on your explanation of their wording, since i haven't specifically
seen them to determine the reality of such statements), because i think your
definitions and your assumptions are not up to par.
Trust me, one slight mistake in wording can mean the demise of your precious
rules.
Still like to mess with you too. ;)
"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:5KOdnQY3idK...@comcast.com...
Fat Bastard
and what is truly legal. Unless your "balcony", etc., are specifically
defined as what they are, and what is included, then they are not
technically covered, because the LEGAL definition would be one based on the
most COMMON and UNDERSTOOD definition, which is covered by the definition in
the dictionary. You can't just randomly call something whatever you want,
without providing definition and guidelines and examples, and expect others
to know what it is, and expect it to be considered LEGAL.
It doesn't work that way my friend.
"Timothy Daniels" <TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:6Y-dnXRztv9...@comcast.com...
Timothy Daniels
> because the LEGAL definition would be one based on the
> most COMMON and UNDERSTOOD definition, which is
> covered by the definition in the dictionary.
If you started your legal argument with "It says in
Webster's dictionary...", you'd be laughed out of
court. The legal field frequently uses terms in a
way that is more precise than the definitions in
your "dictionary", and that is why our CC&Rs begin
by defining "Unit" and "Association" and "Owner" -
terms for which your "dictionary" wouldn't have a
precise-enough definition, and why they must be
defined within the document itself. That is the
situation in most fields, in fact - everyday terms
don't have the same meaning that they do in
specialty fields, and *most* people understand
that.
*TimDaniels*
moronsbegone
news:6eac4d8d.04101...@posting.google.com:
> Hello
>
> I am trying to come up with a "balcony railing mount" for
> use with a Ku-band dish plus dish mover. I have searched
> google and have not found any online dealers which sell
> such a mount.
>
SOLUTION= Hire me to Whack your landlord; Access to roof now
permitted due to offer he couldn't refuse; Problem solved :-)
moronsbegone
Not only that, If he uses NO nails or drills NO holes for screws
he is not adding to the structure perminantly witch is a no no
[common sense]. I would use a series of clamps, and not leave it
up in bad weather or when I am away , seems as though temporary
would be a better aproach. I'm having alot of luck using mine
indoors LoL.
>>
>>
>> If your landlord wants to be difficult, he can
>> prohibit the railing mounts - legally (assuming you're
>> in the U.S.). The railing is not considered part of
>> the unit or the Exclusive Use area. It is part of the
>> exterior of the building. Even condo CC&Rs that I
>> have seen explicitly state that balcony railings are
>> NOT part of the unit owned or rented. Furthermore, he
>> can prevent it by safety considerations by claiming
>> that it presents a hazard of falling off onto people
>> below. Since approval of a railing mount may pose a
>> liability risk for the building owner, he may bring up
>> the heavy legal artillery against you. If I were
>> in your position, I'd make a cheap tripod and mount
>> the feet in cement blocks (just pour quickset cement
>> into a plastic bucket) on the balcony, and then mount
>> the dish to the tripod.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>
>
>