View Full Version : Oregon tower lawsuit trial - W7WZ
KA0TP
11-28-2006, 02:39 AM
Subject: Oregon tower lawsuit trial - W7WZ
Fellow DX Amateurs:
Beginning on November 29, 2006 at the Hillsboro Court House,
room 304 at 9am our trial over my 72 foot Trylon tower and
antennas will begin. It is expected to go for 4-days. This will
be an important case in defending our rights to erect towers
when vague and ambiguous CC&Rs exist.
If HR 3876 had already passed, this case would likely have
been preempted. On 10/7/2005 the bill was referred to House
subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Please
support this bill by continuing to write your representatives in
Congress.
The Oregon Circuit Court judge is Hon. Hernandez. Anyone
can attend the trial and directions to the court are:
http://www.ojd.state.or.us/wsh/directions.htm
Below is an excerpt from the Oregonian article triggered by
the Plaintiffs.
Thanks for your support.
John Fulton, W7WZ
Former ARRL Section Manager, San Diego
(503)590-3726
Oregonian Newspaper Article:
Dispute
Twenty-one people on Bull Mountain want a resident to
remove the structure
Thursday, April 06, 2006
LUCIANA LOPEZ
It's hard to miss the source of friction among neighbors in
the High Tor area of Bull Mountain.
Reaching 72 feet into the air, John Fulton's radio tower, topped
with an antenna that looks a bit like a giant metal fish spine, rises
above the houses that line the streets of the sedate neighborhood.
Residents say the structure, erected around the end of last year,
is unsightly, causes television and radio interference and violates
deed restrictions. Last month, after a letter to Fulton failed to
bring action, 21 neighbors filed suit in Washington County District
Court to force Fulton to remove the amateur-radio tower.
The disagreement has been courteous, said John and Betty
Martin, who live next door to Fulton and have noticed electronic
interference that they blame on the antenna. "It's the first time we've
ever been involved in our lifetime in a lawsuit," John Martin said.
But they and the other neighbors who joined in the suit said the
tower should be removed.
Fulton did not return phone calls seeking comment for this story.
The lawsuit notes that the neighborhood's conditions and covenants
prohibit almost all structures except detached single-family homes.
The conditions note that property owners can't do anything that
"may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood."
Radio and television antennas are to be approved by the community's
architectural committee.
Everett Curry, the Oregon public information coordinator for the
National Association for Amateur Radio, said such disputes crop up
occasionally. Most counties or cities have rules that govern such
towers, he noted, and amateur radio operators must be licensed by
the Federal Communications Commission.
Fulton's permit for the tower came from the city of Tigard, even
though he lives in unincorporated Washington County, because of
an agreement between the county and the city. The FCC confirmed
that Fulton is licensed.
But Curry said his group also urges ham radio operators to think
of others. "We always suggest that people work with their neighbors
and so forth."
The work of amateur-radio operators can be a benefit to
communities, he said, such as in natural disasters and emergencies.
Oregon is home to more than 13,000 amateur radio licensees, he said.
Linda Phillips said she noticed the tower around Christmas. She and
her husband, Ken, had no warning that the tower and antenna were
being put up, she said. Both are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
"I'm a very visual person, so aesthetically it was an insult to me," she
said. "If they just take it down, I'm going to be happy."
Luciana Lopez: 503-294-5976; lucianalopez@news.oregonian.com
(Oregonian Newspaper, Portland Oregon)
k9ing
12-01-2006, 04:37 PM
I'll be interested in hearing how this comes out...I hope we can overcome this problem! #"I'm very visual and it just bothers me. I'll be fine if they just take it down"...I'll be very glad if you quit staring at my antenna! Bob, K9ING
KC9ECI
12-01-2006, 05:41 PM
I bet those neighbors would be getting interference even when he's not transmitting.
n1dvj
12-01-2006, 05:53 PM
In cases like this, it's too bad you can't lower the antenna down to say, 35 feet, and show people the interference down low as opposed to up high.
KC0TPI
12-01-2006, 07:19 PM
Quote[/b] (n1dvj @ Dec. 01 2006,10:53)]In cases like this, it's too bad you can't lower the antenna down to say, 35 feet, and show people the interference down low as opposed to up high.
i know a guy thats got a 2 stage one boy did it make the others rethink what they wanted lol
KI4PEQ
12-01-2006, 09:53 PM
Oh, my God! It's a TOWER. RADIATION! BIRTH DEFECTS! EVIL AMATEUR OPERATORS! Think of what this is doing to my PROPERTY VALUES!
Of course, every time their fired up the microwave, turned on a kitchen mixer, or Dad revved up his hot rod in the garage, "it NEVER interfered with my TV!"
'
The CCRs are vague. The guy got a building permit. Those folks should get a life.
If the ham loses, I hope he paints his house purple in protest.
To W7WZ:
I hate to sound pessimistic, but, if your lot has deed restrictions that say no antennas, all you can put up (unless the ARC gives you permission) is either a broadcast TV antenna or a satellite TV dish less than three feet in diameter.
Best thing you can do is sell your home and either buy a different place without restrictions or some undeveloped land and build your own.
Wishing and hoping for the ARRL to help you out or Congress to pass, in a Lame Duck session, a pocketed Bill, are both lost causes.
You may want to consider affiliating with Hams for Action, www.hamsforaction.com as its dedicated to finding a reasonable accommodation to pre-empt all CC&Rs that prohibit all antennas. But, frankly, it isn't considering a tower with Yagis or log periodics a reasonable accommodation.
73,
KB2KAB
12-02-2006, 12:35 AM
This is just another case of being stupid. There are other things in life to worry about. I HOPE HE WINS! If he loses in court then this will be a pass for other communities to do the same. I hope that he is a member of A.R.E.S. OR R.A.C.E.S. If so, he's got a very good case for himself.
REMEMBER ONE THING WHEN THE PHONES ARE DOWN, THE HAMS ARE UP!
73
DAVID
I'll bet half of the neighbors in this lawsuit don't know the difference between citizens' band and amateur radio anyway......
ka9uce
12-02-2006, 07:46 AM
I surely hope amateur radio prevails!
I just purchased a NEW house in a subdivision that is 'supposed' to have an HOA, but guess what?
I never saw the paperwork or 'contract' for this mystical HOA and never signed anything either, so since the property is fully in my name, I CAN do what I want, and that includes antennas on the roof if I so chose, and I'll CHOOSE to get to that next year!
CC&Rs are destructive in more ways than good, and it's time the government agree with the fact that many of these 'covenants' are laid out to be as restrictive as a dictatorship with no allowances for the property owner's rights to use the property, and as such, violates said user's rights as a condition of 'sale'..
What intelligent individual would allow soem stranger or private company to dictate who, what, where when and how someone can use their own PRIVATE PROPERTY?
When did the term 'private' fall under total jurisdictions of a company or corporatio in the first place?
This is PRECISELY why the government MUST step in, to regulate WHAT a CC&R/HOA may control, and restrict further violations of all the property owners, as these companies have ZERO interest in any properties they preside over within these CC&Rs and HOAs, so they MUST be LIMITED by federal regulations to keep their desires BELOW the desires of the property owners, and force them to concede when faced with choices property owners decide to take when placing a structure on their own property, afterall, it IS private property, right?
What 'right' does another have to force their wishes and desires upon another without their consent in the first place?
They are not the prperty owners and should not have any 'voice' in the matter to begin with.
I see cell towers go up close to and inside, the walled in areas of many HOA controlled residences, so how are these allowed and not a 40 foot tower on Mr. Ham radio's property?
Cellsites are okie dokie but private towers aren't?
Sounds like an easy win for those encumbered by 'restrictions' on their own land to me, especially if these cellsites are within the boundaries controlled by CC&Rs and HOAs...just take a few shots with a camera showing the locations of these sites, and where they are situated, then use that as cannon fodder to fire up your CC&R/HOA.
I wonder how a judge can rule in favor of a tower restriction when another tower is plainly in sight of everybody and yet garners no complaints?
Sounds like preferential treatment to me and an easy WIN for the property owners!
I look forward to hearing someone complain about my roof mounted antennas next year..*laughing*
Too bad they don't have a legal leg to stand on as I am NOT restricted while they might be....
EIther way, I know MY property will NOT be ruled by someone else under ANY circumstance!
MY property, MY rules...don't like the way I use my land, MOVE!
By the way, I think your car is of a disgusting color, you should get it repainted to match the surrounding buildings so it fits in better with the 'neighborhood' as well.
SCREW HOAs!
KC7KVQ
12-02-2006, 01:15 PM
Christmas is around the corner and ferrite clamps are the hottest gift this season.
Yepper
All them antannas just a big interference magnet!
Funny though when you get the spectrum analyzer out and everythin is clean at the site. Then further vestigation shows the the interference is actually coming from the digital timer on the $2500 expresso machine he just bought, or the chicken bander with the "Peaked" Rig.
If there is interference it goes a long way tracking and and helping to resolve these issues, after all isn't this a form of public service? #Then the other side I guess,,well if its causing interference at 75' maybe I just need to go to 195',Ya thats the ticket.
73
Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ Dec. 01 2006,13:41)]I bet those neighbors would be getting interference even when he's not transmitting.
When I lived in PA I had a neighbor complain about TVI just because I had an antenna installed but the coax wasn't even installed. Police came but didn't understand when I said that I could not cause TVI because I could not transmit. Just an antenna....no coax.
Nothing really came from it. Just very funny.
I now live in Delaware. There are no antenna restrictions in my neighborhood, however, I have a low-profile antenna which the neighbors cannot see. I have a High Sierra HS-1800Pro installed as my base antenna. Sure, not a "big gun" but it does what I want. Worked France the other night on 40M and had a couple new countries in the CQWW contest last week.
Best,
Brian
Quote[/b] (ka9uce @ Dec. 01 2006,02:46)]I never saw the paperwork or 'contract' for this mystical HOA and never signed anything either, so since the property is fully in my name, I CAN do what I want, and that includes antennas on the roof if I so chose, and I'll CHOOSE to get to that next year!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but CC&Rs run with the land. You might be able to hire an attorney and go after whoever sold you the house for not disclosing the restrictions to you, but there's really nothing you can do.
They'll just go to court if you refuse to be a supplicant and OBEY the HOA Board and its Architectural Control Committee and cost you a lot of money in legal fees.
And, they'll publicize your alleged BAD behavior to everyone in your subdivision.
They ususally hold mock trials before they actually go to a real court. They convict you of serious breaches of their rules in their special tribunals and some even can fine you and take away your rights to access to any common facilities like swimming pools, kiddie playgrounds, etc.
I used to live in one of those hoose-gows in Florida. No, I didn't sign before I bought either. Best solution: Try to get them to agree to a wire or a lightning rod standard. A vertical antenna could be considered a lightning rod. For sure, in Central Florida.......
73,
Quote[/b] (ka9uce @ Dec. 01 2006,02:46)]By the way, I think your car is of a disgusting color, you should get it repainted to match the surrounding buildings so it fits in better with the 'neighborhood' as well.
SCREW HOAs!
Don't laugh too hard. Some actually prohibit trucks of any kind. Pickups or otherwise.
Mine actually had a prohibition against any vehicles with signs on the doors parked in driveways. They were going to fine a guy because they didn't like the color he painted his front door.
I asked the HOA what they were going to do if a police officer or deputy sherriff buys a home and chooses to park his patrol car in the driveway?
Until states (r maybe municipalities) draft some canned guidelines for CC&Rs that seriously limit what they can claim is a deed restriction, you're going to have all kinds of dumb stuff stuck in those CC&R books, hidden in fine print.
We all know how the antenna restrictions got there in the first place: CATV making deals with developers to force people to buy their service in exchange for a 'no cost' to the developer for all the cable infrastructure.
Did the power company prevent you from having a generator? Did the phone company prevent you from having a cell phone?
The FCC, in response to Congress' mandate to allow antennas for satellite and broadcast reception, prepared regulations at 47CFR1.4000 to preempt CC&Rs. Read them. Then you'll understand where the FCC's coming from. They specifically DO NOT include amateur radio antennas in the preemptive language. The reason? We aren't about money in the marketplace (except, of course, for the ARRL).
73,
kb2vxa
12-02-2006, 05:23 PM
Hi guys,
"...afterall, it IS private property, right?
What 'right' does another have to force their wishes and desires upon another without their consent in the first place?"
I sympathize with you living under the thumb but the cold reality of life is we ALL are and always have been. The HOA and CC&R Nazis are the least of your worries, Eminent Domain has claimed the lives and property (read forced eviction) of more than you know. The Federal Railroad Act, TVA, et al up to and including a whole block of homes in northern NJ cleared for a railroad station earlier this year. The fate of an entire neighborhood in southern NJ will be determined by litigation eventually, meanwhile the future of these seniors and long time residents is in doubt.
The bottom line is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRIVATE PROPERTY and never has been. If "they" want it they'll take it and there's nothing you can do about it.
America, home of the brave and land of the... what?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
I work for a water utility. About 20 years ago, we were in the process of erecting a brand new microwave network. We installed the eight foot dishes on top of a water tank, built a shelter, and then went on to do other sites.
About a month later, this neighbor near the tank wrote us a letter with times and dates of interference that our new dishes caused. We invited him to speak with the engineer of the system. He patiently listened as the guy detailed all the times that the new system interfered with his TV set. After about a half an hour of this, our chief engineer finally got a word in edgewise. "Well sir," he said, "I'm quite curious as to how this could be. You see, we don't even have anything connected to these antennas. The equipment is still sitting in crates in the shelter. We don't have electric power yet. Would you like to visit the site?" CLICK!
Hmm, where did that guy go, he wondered...
Face it, radio is magic to most people nowadays. We are part of a dying breed. People are scared of antennas because they've been told by too many MSM articles that they're going to get beamed to death.
I wish you all the best in your fight for HOA rights. Frankly I think it's a losing battle.
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 02 2006,08:38)]Quote[/b] (ka9uce @ Dec. 01 2006,02:46)]I never saw the paperwork or 'contract' for this mystical HOA and never signed anything either, so since the property is fully in my name, I CAN do what I want, and that includes antennas on the roof if I so chose, and I'll CHOOSE to get to that next year!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but CC&Rs run with the land. #You might be able to hire an attorney and go after whoever sold you the house for not disclosing the restrictions to you, but there's really nothing you can do.
W6EM "nailed" it!
The rule is, "You own the property, you are bound by the CC&Rs."
The thought that if you own property, you can do anything you want with it is just plan wrong. It goes way beyond CC&Rs. For starts, there are building codes and zoning laws that restrict what you can do. Then there are many other restrictions such as water rights. If you have a stream that runs across your property you might not be allowed to remove one drop of water from the stream. You might not be allowed to build a dam in a dry gully to capture run-off. In some states you cannot collect the rain that runs off your roof into a cistern. You cannot dig a ditch next to your property line that allows your neighbors property to slide into your ditch.
The things you cannot do with property you own goes on and on.
k9ing
12-02-2006, 06:34 PM
6em is right; your deed probably states that it is subject to the restrictions, etc. in the original platting deed creating the subdivision; in that document are the restrctions to which your property is subject. Sad, but true. Someday hams may be exempt under a Comgressional act, sucessful law suit (probably in Federal court) or an administrative extension of PRB-1....Someday. We can fight or we can surrender; I hope we fight. 73 es gud luck, Bob K9ING
p.s. any news on the lawsuit???
k5mke
12-02-2006, 07:20 PM
It really doesn't matter, WHAT it is. If the nosey neighbors want to gripe
about your not cutting your grass every week, they can complain to
the HOA or Covenent Nazi's and the Board will have it cut and charge
YOU for having it cut PLUS some beer money for their trouble,
LOL!
Some folks would bitch if'n you hung them with a new rope. They
just have little-bitty minds and can't stand to mind their own darn
business.
Respectfully submitted,
73,
Buck/K5-MKE
wb0nre
12-02-2006, 07:39 PM
Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Dec. 02 2006,10:51)]... #The thought that if you own property, you can do anything you want with it is just plan wrong. It goes way beyond CC&Rs. For starts, there are building codes and zoning laws that restrict what you can do. ...
And don't forget that since the adoption of Prop 13 (and similar legislation in other states which freezes property assesment values) cities have a vested interest in MAKING properties turn over because that is the only way they can raise tax revenues. #"Esthetic" ordinances and building code restrictions only help government to drive out the existing residents so a new crop off unsuspecting victims will move in and pay more taxes.
And the practice is not limited to city government. #As increasing population pressure drive residents into the unincorporated county areas, county governments are seeking a bigger piece of the tax pie as well.
Your government won't help you unless you can prove it will raise the tax revenue they collect. #
I wonder if Thomas Jefferson would write "... governments are institued ... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..." about my city. #I certainly would not.
Rich
Quote[/b] ]I asked the HOA what they were going to do if a police officer or deputy sherriff buys a home and chooses to park his patrol car in the driveway?
Exact problem a friend of mine had. Required to drive a bomb squad truck home and to work due to call outs at any hour. Too large for garage, had to park in driveway.
Sorry not allowed! Had to get special permission to park it there which he did get.
Me? I could have bought a house in a restricted deed area and intentionally didn't so have a smaller older house with a 40 ft tower and quad. My choice! The guy across the street has three totem poles in his front yard, next to him a guy has a bus type motorhome and leaves his newspapers in the yard all week then picks them up all at once and puts them in the recycle..ya gotta wonder..he and his wife are inactive hams. My neighbor works on Volksies in his driveway all the time so has a couple extra cars around. We all get along and no one bothers anyone about their "stuff". I have never had any negative comments about the tower and quad. I guess the freedom to "do your own thing" keeps you too busy to worry about what you can find that annoys you. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (k7mh @ Dec. 02 2006,16:25)]... friend of mine had. Required to drive a bomb squad truck home and to work due to call outs at any hour. Too large for garage, had to park in driveway.
Sorry not allowed! Had to get special permission to park it there which he did get.
A HOA should know better than to tick off people who write tickets; parking the wrong way demonstrates wrong-way driving, a moving violation!
Whoop$!
Cortland
KA5S
ke7gal
12-03-2006, 01:10 AM
This problem is a contiuation of people that need to stay in california, coming to oregon, particuarly, the portland metro area. I would like to be the first to welcome cali's to oregon, but remember, you left the state for a reason, stop trying to turn it into the place you HATED.
Anyway, the guy should jsut get out of beavertron (beaverton), maybe move out to methford (medford) or get a place by kelly butte. Lots of places to live out here, no reason to stick around where you aren't wanted. Although, I think the best idea is give the people what they want, bring the antenna to lower altitude and let them see what interferance really is.
FYI for everyone else, the interference ist he rule in this city, every time the couds hang low, which is most of the winter, the RF noise levels go insane. ESPECIALY in the vhf/uhf bands. right now, my noise floor is s3 and spikes to s7 on 2meter. HF is all but unusable till i get down to 160meter where things sudenly go very queit, and i'm betting that has more to do with antenna gain than anything else. With the contest going however i do hear allot of stations.
Their interference is probably the channel 2 transmitting tower, which they are basically level with, at the very least, can step outside and see the lights on top of it!
KD5YOV
12-03-2006, 04:26 AM
They need to see this and maybe they will get quiet quick!!
Measure Makes Amateur Radio Part of Emergency Communications Community
by: arrl.org
NEWINGTON, CT, Oct 4, 2006 -- A section of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 2007 Appropriations Act, HR 5441, formally includes Amateur Radio operators as a part of the emergency communications community. Congress approved the measure before adjourning for its pre-election break. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law today.
Amateur Radio is included within the legislation's Subtitle D, Section 671, known as the "21st Century Emergency Communications Act." Radio amateurs are among the entities with which a Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Group (RECC Working Group) must coordinate its activities. Included within the DHS's Office of Emergency Communications -- which the measure also creates -- RECC Working Groups attached to each regional DHS office will advise federal and state homeland security officials. House Subcommittee on Homeland Security Chairman Rep Harold Rogers (R-KY) sponsored HR 5441. The final version of the legislation incorporates language from both House and Senate bills and was hammered out in a conference committee.
An earlier version of the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act, HR 5852, sponsored by Rep David G. Reichert (R-WA), included Amateur Radio operators among the members of the RECC Working Groups.
In addition to Amateur Radio operators, RECC Working Groups also will coordinate with communications equipment manufacturers and vendors -- including broadband data service providers, local exchange carriers, local broadcast media, wireless carriers, satellite communications services, cable operators, hospitals, public utility services, emergency evacuation transit services, ambulance services, and representatives from other private sector entities and nongovernmental organizations.
According to the bill, the RECC Working Groups will assess the survivability, sustainability and interoperability of local emergency communication systems to meet the goals of the National Emergency Communications Report. That report would recommend how the US could "accelerate the deployment of interoperable emergency communications nationwide."
RECC Working Groups also will be tasked with ensuring a process to coordinate the establishment of "effective multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency emergency communications networks" that could be brought into play following acts of terrorism, natural disasters and other emergencies.
At the state and local level, RECC Working Groups will include state officials; local government officials; law enforcement; local fire departments; 911 centers; state emergency managers, homeland security directors or representatives of state administrative agencies; local emergency managers or homeland security directors, and other emergency response providers.
At the federal level, RECC Working Group members will include representatives of the DHS, the FCC and other federal departments and agencies responsible for coordinating interoperable emergency communication with or providing emergency support services to state, local and tribal governments.
http://www.kd5yov.net/news.htm
N5FOG
12-03-2006, 06:27 AM
I'm going to be the odd man out here. I think this type of stuff gives ham radio a serious black eye. I see all these hams that buy these nice homes in deed restricted communities for the same reason their neighbors did, to protect the image and integrity of the subdivision/neighborhood.
If a ham wants an antenna tower then they need to bite the bullet and buy an unrestricted piece of property. Buying a house knowing there are restrictions prohibiting a tower and then getting a lawyer to get around them is no different than if I move in next to you and then park a junk car on blocks in my drive way and get a lawyer to say I have a right to have my "classic" car in my driveway.
I hear allot of old timers telling new hams that they knew Morse code was a requirement when they got into ham radio and either should learn the code or never get on HF. Well a tower and deed restrictions are no different. You knew when you bought that nice house in that nice community that towers were not allowed.
It’s sad we have all these old timers yelling about this “gimmie-gimmie” attitude with new hams because they don’t want to learn code. But the old timers see no problem with the “I want a tower but don’t want to live outside of town” attitude. If this isn’t hypocrisy I don’t know what is.
ERIC KC5FOG
KC0SEY
12-03-2006, 06:37 AM
To W7WZ,
I'm not sure if this will be of any help, but go to the following link. There may be case-law out there to help you fight this issue.
http://www.qsl.net/k3qk/pentel.html
Hope this helps
KC0SEY
Sioux Falls, SD
KC0SEY
12-03-2006, 06:38 AM
To W7WZ,
I'm not sure if this will be of any help, but go to the following link. There may be case-law out there to help you fight this issue.
http://www.qsl.net/k3qk/pentel.html
Hope this helps, remember PRB-1 is your friend
KC0SEY
Sioux Falls, SD
KD5YOV
12-03-2006, 07:35 AM
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Modification and Clarification of Policies and)
Procedures Governing Siting and Maintenance) RM-8763
of Amateur Radio Antennas and Support)
Structures, and Amendment of Section 97.15)
of the Commission's Rules Governing the )
Amateur Radio Service. )
ORDER
Adopted: November 18, 1999 Released: November 19,
1999
By the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. Introduction and Executive Summary
1. In this Order, we address a Petition for Rule Making
(Petition), filed on February 7, 1996, by The American Radio Relay
League, Inc. (ARRL or Petitioner), asking that the Commission
review and modify its policies and procedures pertaining to the
Commission's limited preemption of state and local regulations
affecting amateur radio facilities. The Petitioner also requests
that the Commission amend Section 97.15 of the Commission's Rules
to clarify the Commission's preemptive intent with respect to such
state and local regulations. We have carefully reviewed the
requests, and the supporting arguments, and conclude that the
modifications and clarifications suggested by Petitioner would not
serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. Therefore,
the Petition is denied.
II. Background
2. In 1984, ARRL petitioned the Commission for a declaratory
ruling that would limit local regulatory control of amateur
stations. It was believed that local building codes and zoning
regulations had limited the communications ability of licensees in
the amateur service. An outdoor antenna is a necessary component
for most types of amateur service communications. Municipalities
and local land use regulatory authorities regulated the heights,
placement and dimensions of antennas. In PRB-1, resolving the
ARRL's declaratory ruling petition, the Commission noted that these
regulations often result in conflict because the effectiveness of
the communications that emanate from an amateur radio station is
directly dependent upon the location and the height of the
antenna. Consequently in PRB-1, the Commission enunciated the
Federal policy toward state and local regulatory restrictions on
amateur station facilities.
3. In the MO&O, the Commission declared a limited preemption
of state and local regulations governing amateur station
facilities, including antennas and support structures. The
Commission determined that there was a strong Federal interest in
promoting amateur service communications, and that state and local
regulations that preclude amateur service communications are in
direct conflict with Federal objectives and must be preempted.
Furthermore, the Commission stated that a local ordinance or zoning
regulation must make reasonable accommodation for amateur
communications and must constitute the minimum practicable
regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose.
However, the Commission did not extend the limited preemption to
covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) in deeds and in
condominium by-laws because they are contractual agreements between
private parties. Petitioner, inter alia, requests the extension
of the limited preemption to such CC&Rs.
4. Petitioner also requests other clarifications to PRB-1, as
follows: (a) that local governments must make a reasonable
accommodation for amateur radio antennas, rather than balancing
their own local interests against the Federal interest in amateur
radio; (b) that local governments could not specify a lower height
maximum than sixty to seventy feet for an amateur radio antennna
structure; © that overly burdensome conditions in land use
authorizations or imposition of excessive costs is preempted; (d)
that denial of a particular use permit or special exception does
not relieve a local government from having to make a reasonable
accommodation for amateur communications; (e) that conditional use
permit procedures can be used to regulate amateur radio antennas,
but only as an adjunct to a reasonable height restriction; and, (f)
that land use restrictions pertaining to safety that limit the
overall height of an amateur radio antenna structure, or restrict
installation of an antenna altogether, are invalid unless there is
no other alternative available that is less burdensome and still
accomplishes the same purpose. The Commission sought comment on
the Petition on February 21, 1996.
5. Since the adoption of the Commission's limited premption
policy in PRB-1, Congress enacted Section 704 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, concerning the siting of personal
wireless service facilities. We note that Section 704 of the
Telecom Act encompasses commercial mobile radio services,
unlicensed wireless services and common carrier wireless exchange
access services. Thus, Section 704 of the Telecom Act, which,
among other things, bars state or local regulations that prohibit
or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services, does not apply to stations or facilities in the
amateur radio service.
III. Discussion
6. The Commission's policy with respect to restrictive
covenants is clearly stated in the MO&O establishing a limited
preemption of state and local regulations. In the MO&O, the
Commission stated that PRB-1 does not reach restrictive covenants
in private contractual agreements. The Petitioner argues that
enforcement of a covenant by the court constitutes "state action",
thus converting what otherwise would be a private matter into a
matter of state regulation and, thus, subject to the Commission's
limited preemption policy. Notwithstanding the clear policy
statement that was set forth in PRB-1 excluding restrictive
covenants in private contractual agreements as being outside the
reach of our limited preemption, we nevertheless strongly
encourage associations of homeowners and private contracting
parties to follow the principle of reasonable accommodation and to
apply it to any and all instances of amateur service communications
where they may be involved. Although we do not hesitate to offer
such encouragement, we are not persuaded by the Petition or the
comments in support thereof that specific rule provisions bringing
the private restrictive covenants within the ambit of PRB-1 are
necessary or appropriate at this time. Having reached this
conclusion, we need not resolve the issue of whether, or under what
circumstances, judicial enforcement of private covenants would
constitute "state action."
7. Petitioner further requests a clarification of PRB-1 that
local authorities must not engage in balancing their enactments
against the interest that the Federal Government has in amateur
radio, but rather must reasonably accommodate amateur
communications. We do not believe a clarification is necessary
because the PRB-1 decision precisely stated the principle of
"reasonable accommodation". In PRB-1, the Commission stated:
"Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement,
screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or
aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably
amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable
regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate
purpose." Given this express Commission language, it is clear
that a "balancing of interests" approach is not appropriate in this
context.
8. Petitioner also requests establishment of sixty or seventy
feet as the minimum height in a metropolitan area for an amateur
antenna structure so that local authorities could not specify a
lower height maximum for an amateur antenna. Petitioner argues
that such a minimum height would minimize interaction between
amateur stations and home electronic equipment and provide
reasonable antenna efficiency at different amateur frequencies, MF
through UHF and beyond. Petitioner also contends that structures
of that height and above can be so located as to minimize the
visual impact, and that retractable antennas could be used to
address unusual aesthetic situations, such as in historic or scenic
zones. We do not believe that it would be prudent or that it is
appropriate to set such a standard for amateur antennas and their
supporting structures because of varying circumstances that may
occur when a particular antenna configuration is under
consideration, such as terrain or man-made obstructions. We believe
that the policy enunciated in PRB-1 is sound. PRB-1 did not
specify a particular height limitation below which a local
government may not regulate. The Commission did not want to
mandate specific provisions that a local authority must include in
a zoning ordinance. We continue to believe that the standards the
Commission set, that is, "reasonable accommodation" and "minimum
practicable regulation", have worked relatively well. Therefore, we
are not persuaded that changes to the Commission's policy of
leaving the specifics of zoning regulations to the local authority,
including provisions concerning the height of an amateur antenna,
are necessary at this time.
9. Petitioner further requests that the Commission
specifically preempt overly burdensome conditions and excessive
costs levied by a local authority in connection with engineering
certifications or issuance of antenna permits. Specifically,
Petitioner argues that assessment of unusual costs for processing
an antenna permit application cannot be used by the local authority
as a means of indirectly prohibiting the antenna. Petitioner
states that the same argument is true of conditional use permits
that require an amateur antenna to be screened from view by the
installation of mature vegetation. According to the ARRL, if full
vegetative screening cannot be accomplished in a cost-effective
manner, a condition requiring such screening is a de facto
prohibition. Although Petitioner concedes that a municipality may
require amateur operators to pay reasonable expenses to obtain
amateur permits, the Petitioner objects to the imposition of
unreasonable expenses because such expenses would discourage or
prohibit the installation of amateur antennas. Petitioner also
requests that the Commission declare as invalid certain land use
restrictions based on safety considerations, such as setbacks on
the property where the antenna is to be erected, unless there are
no other alternatives that would accomplish the same purpose.
Finally, Petitioner requests that the Commission specify that, if
a local authority denies a conditional use permit or a special
exception request, it still has the obligation to make a reasonable
accommodation for amateur communications. We return once again
to the position that we have stated earlier in this Order, that is,
that the standards of "reasonable accommodation" and "minimum
practicable regulation" are sufficiently efficacious as guideposts
for state, local and municipal authorities. We believe that the
effectiveness of these guidelines or standards can be gauged by the
fact that a local zoning authority would recognize at the outset,
when crafting zoning regulations, the potential impact that high
antenna towers in heavily-populated urban or suburban locales could
have and, thus, would draft their regulations accordingly. In
addition, we believe that PRB-1's guidelines brings to a local
zoning board's awareness that the very least regulation necessary
for the welfare of the community must be the aim of its regulations
so that such regulations will not impinge on the needs of amateur
operators to engage in amateur communications.
IV. Conclusion
10. In our view, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the
clarifications requested are necessary. Accordingly, we conclude
that the public interest would best be served by denying the ARRL
request for modification and clarification of Commission policies
and procedures concerning the limited preemption of state and local
regulations that affect amateur service radio facilities.
V. Ordering Clause
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i)
and 303® of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i) and 303®, the petition for rule making, RM-8763, filed
by The American Radio Relay League, Inc. on February 7, 1996, IS
HEREBY DENIED. This action is taken under the delegated authority
contained in Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47
C.F.R. 0.131 and 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathleen O'Brien Ham
KD5YOV
12-03-2006, 08:29 AM
INFORMATION SHEET
November 2006
Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule
Preemption of Restrictions on Placement of Direct Broadcast Satellite, Broadband Radio Service, and Television Broadcast Antennas
Quick Links to Document Sections Below
Questions and Answers
Links to Relevant Orders and the Rule
Guidance on Filing a Petition Where to Call for More Information
As directed by Congress in Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the Over-the-Air Reception Devices (“OTARD”) rule concerning governmental and nongovernmental restrictions on viewers' ability to receive video programming signals from direct broadcast satellites ("DBS"), broadband radio service providers (formerly multichannel multipoint distribution service or MMDS), and television broadcast stations ("TVBS").
The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.
Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio.
On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001.
The rule applies to individuals who place antennas that meet size limitations on property that they own or rent and that is within their exclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners, and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio, in which to install the antenna. The rule applies to townhomes and manufactured homes, as well as to single family homes.
The rule allows local governments, community associations and landlords to enforce restrictions that do not impair the installation, maintenance or use of the types of antennas described above, as well as restrictions needed for safety or historic preservation. Under some circumstances where a central or common antenna is available, a community association or landlord may restrict the installation of individual antennas. The rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners where the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area. Such common areas may include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit. Therefore, restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable.
This Information Sheet provides general answers to questions concerning implementation of the rule, but is not a substitute for the actual rule. For further information or a copy of the rule, contact the Federal Communications Commission at 888-CALLFCC (toll free) or (202) 418-7096. The rule is also available via the Internet by going to links to relevant Orders and the rule.
Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?
A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:
(1) A "dish" antenna that is one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.
(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.
(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.
In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.
Q: What are "fixed wireless signals"?
A: "Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location. This definition does not include, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio (but see 47 C.F.R. §97.15), Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS") signals.
Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas?
A: The rule applies to "customer-end antennas" which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations.
Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?
A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.
Q: What types of restrictions unreasonably delay or prevent viewers from using an antenna? Can an antenna user be required to obtain prior approval before installing his antenna?
A: A local restriction that prohibits all antennas would prevent viewers from receiving signals, and is prohibited by the Commission's rule. Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by this rule. For example, local regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited. Permits or prior approval necessary to serve a legitimate safety or historic preservation purpose may be permissible. Although a simple notification process might be permissible, such a process cannot be used as a prior approval requirement and may not delay or increase the cost of installation. The burden is on the association to show that a notification process does not violate our rule.
Q: What is an unreasonable expense?
A: Any requirement to pay a fee to the local authority for a permit to be allowed to install an antenna would be unreasonable because such permits are generally prohibited. It may also be unreasonable for a local government, community association or landlord to require a viewer to incur additional costs associated with installation. Things to consider in determining the reasonableness of any costs imposed include: (1) the cost of the equipment and services, and (2) whether there are similar requirements for comparable objects, such as air conditioning units or trash receptacles. For example, restrictions cannot require that expensive landscaping screen relatively unobtrusive DBS antennas. A requirement to paint an antenna so that it blends into the background against which it is mounted would likely be acceptable, provided it will not interfere with reception or impose unreasonable costs.
Q: What restrictions prevent a viewer from receiving an acceptable quality signal? Can a homeowners association or other restricting entity establish enforceable preferences for antenna locations?
A: For antennas designed to receive analog signals, such as TVBS, a requirement that an antenna be located where reception would be impossible or substantially degraded is prohibited by the rule. However, a regulation requiring that antennas be placed where they are not visible from the street would be permissible if this placement does not prevent reception of an acceptable quality signal or impose unreasonable expense or delay. For example, if installing an antenna in the rear of the house costs significantly more than installation on the side of the house, then such a requirement would be prohibited. If, however, installation in the rear of the house does not impose unreasonable expense or delay or preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal, then the restriction is permissible and the viewer must comply.
The acceptable quality signal standard is different for devices designed to receive digital signals, such as DBS antennas, digital broadband radio service antennas, digital television ("DTV") antennas, and digital fixed wireless antennas. For a digital antenna to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal, the antenna must be installed where it has an unobstructed, direct view of the satellite or other device from which signals are received or to which signals are to be transmitted. Unlike analog antennas, digital antennas, even in the presence of sufficient over-the-air signal strength, will at times provide no picture or sound unless they are placed and oriented properly.
Q: Can a restriction limit the number of antennas that may be installed at a particular location?
The Commission’s rule covers the antennas necessary to receive service. Therefore, a local rule may not, for example, allow only one antenna if more than one antenna is necessary to receive the desired service.
Q: Are all restrictions prohibited?
A: No. Clearly-defined, legitimate safety restrictions are permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use provided they are necessary to protect public safety and are no more burdensome than necessary to ensure safety. Examples of valid safety restrictions include fire codes preventing people from installing antennas on fire escapes; restrictions requiring that a person not place an antenna within a certain distance from a power line; and installation requirements that describe the proper method to secure an antenna. The safety reason for the restriction must be written in the text, preamble or legislative history of the restriction, or in a document that is readily available to antenna users, so that a person who wishes to install an antenna knows what restrictions apply. Safety restrictions cannot discriminate between objects that are comparable in size and weight and pose the same or a similar safety risk as the antenna that is being restricted.
Restrictions necessary for historic preservation also may be permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use of the antenna. To qualify for this exemption, the property may be any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, restrictions necessary for historic preservation must be no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the historic preservation goal. They also must be imposed and enforced in a non-discriminatory manner, as compared to other modern structures that are comparable in size and weight and to which local regulation would normally apply.
Q: How does the rule apply to restrictions on radiofrequency (RF) exposure from antennas that have the capability to transmit signals? Can a local restriction require professional installation of receive-only antennas?
A: All transmitters regulated by the Commission, including the customer-end fixed wireless antennas (either satellite or terrestrial) covered under the amended rule, are required to meet the applicable Commission guidelines regarding RF exposure limits. The limits established in the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with a large margin of safety. These limits have been endorsed by federal health and safety agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. The Commission requires that providers of fixed wireless service exercise reasonable care to protect users and the public from RF exposure in excess of the Commission's limits. In addition, as a condition of invoking protection under the rule from government, landlord, and association restrictions, a provider of fixed wireless service must ensure that customer-end antennas are labeled to give notice of potential RF safety hazards posed by these antennas.
It is recommended that antennas that both receive and transmit signals be installed by professional installers to maximize effectiveness and minimize the possibility that the antenna will be placed in a location that is likely to expose subscribers, their families, or others in the area to radiation from the transmit signal at close proximity and for an extended period of time. In general, associations, landlords, local governments and other restricting entities may not require professional installation for receive-only antennas, such as one-way DBS satellite dishes. However, local governments, associations, and property owners may require professional installation for transmitting antennas based on the safety exception to the rule. Such safety requirements must be: (1) clearly defined; (2) based on a legitimate safety objective (such as bona fide concerns about RF radiation) which is articulated in the restriction or readily available to antenna users; (3) applied in a non-discriminatory manner; and (4) no more burdensome than necessary to achieve the articulated objectives.
For additional information about the Commission's RF exposure limits, please visit http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety or call the RF Safety Information Line at 202-418-2464.
Q: Whose antenna restrictions are prohibited?
A: The rule applies to restrictions imposed by local governments, including zoning, land-use or building regulations; by homeowner, townhome, condominium or cooperative association rules, including deed restrictions, covenants, by-laws and similar restrictions; and by manufactured housing (mobile home) park owners and landlords, including lease restrictions. The rule only applies to restrictions on property where the viewer has an ownership or leasehold interest and exclusive use or control.
Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?
A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling.
Q: Does the rule apply to condominiums or apartment buildings if the antenna is installed so that it hangs over or protrudes beyond the balcony railing or patio wall?
A: No. The rule does not prohibit restrictions on antennas installed beyond the balcony or patio of a condominium or apartment unit if such installation is in, on, or over a common area. An antenna that extends out beyond the balcony or patio is usually considered to be in a common area that is not within the scope of the rule. Therefore, the rule does not apply to a condominium or rental apartment unit unless the antenna is installed wholly within the exclusive use area, such as the balcony or patio.
Q: Does the fact that management or the association has the right to enter these areas mean that the resident does not have exclusive use?
A: No. The fact that the building management or the association may enter an area for the purpose of inspection and/or repair does not mean that the resident does not have exclusive use of that area. Likewise, if the landlord or association regulates other uses of the exclusive use area (e.g., banning grills on balconies), that does not affect the viewer's rights under the Commission's rule. This rule permits persons to install antennas on property over which the person has either exclusive use or exclusive control. Note, too, that nothing in this rule changes the landlord's or association's right to regulate use of exclusive use areas for other purposes. For example, if the lease prohibits antennas and flags on balconies, only the prohibition of antennas is eliminated by this rule; flags would still be prohibited.
Q: Does the rule apply to residents of rental property?
A: Yes. Effective January 22, 1999, renters may install antennas within their leasehold, which means inside the dwelling or on outdoor areas that are part of the tenant's leased space and which are under the exclusive use or control of the tenant. Typically, for apartments, these areas include balconies, balcony railings, and terraces. For rented single family homes or manufactured homes which sit on rented property, these areas include the home itself and patios, yards, gardens or other similar areas. If renters do not have access to these outside areas, the tenant may install the antenna inside the rental unit. Renters are not required to obtain the consent of the landlord prior to installing an antenna in these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof or the exterior walls of an apartment building. Generally, balconies or patios that are shared with other people or are accessible from other units are not considered to be exclusive use areas.
Q: Are there restrictions that may be placed on residents of rental property?
A: Yes. A restriction necessary to prevent damage to leased property may be reasonable. For example, tenants could be prohibited from drilling holes through exterior walls or through the roof. However, a restriction designed to prevent ordinary wear and tear (e.g., marks, scratches, and minor damage to carpets, walls and draperies) would likely not be reasonable provided the antenna is installed wholly within the antenna user's own exclusive use area. In addition, rental property is subject to the same protection and exceptions to the rule as owned property. Thus, a landlord may impose other types of restrictions that do not impair installation, maintenance or use under the rule. The landlord may also impose restrictions necessary for safety or historic preservation.
Q: If I live in a condominium, cooperative, or other type of residence where certain areas have been designated as "common," do these rules apply to me?
A: The rules apply to residents of these types of buildings, but the rules do not permit you to install an antenna on a common area, such as a walkway, hallway, community garden, exterior wall or the roof. However, you may install the antenna wholly within a balcony, deck, patio, or other area where you have exclusive use.
Drilling through an exterior wall, e.g. to run the cable from the patio into the unit, is generally not within the protection of the rule because the exterior wall is generally a common element. You may wish to check with your retailer or installer for advice on how to install the antenna without drilling a hole. Alternatively, your landlord or association may grant permission for you to drill such a hole. The Commission's rules generally do not cover installations if you drill through a common element.
Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna?
A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and from the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, the quality the person could receive or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; (3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed wireless services.
Q: May the association, landlord, building management or property owner restrict the installation of an individual antenna because a central antenna will be available in the future?
A: It is not the intent of the Commission to deter or unreasonably delay the installation of individual antennas because a central antenna may become available. However, persons could be required to remove individual antennas once a central antenna is available if the cost of removal is paid by the landlord or association and the user is reimbursed for the value of the antenna. Further, an individual who wants video programming or fixed wireless services other than what is available through the central antenna should not be unreasonably delayed in obtaining the desired programming or services either through modifications to the central antenna, installation of an additional central antenna, or by using an individual antenna.
Q: I live in a townhome community. Am I covered by the FCC rule?
A: Yes. If you own the whole townhouse, including the walls and the roof and the land under the building, then the rule applies just as it does for a single family home, and you may be able to put the antenna on the roof, the exterior wall, the backyard or any other place that is part of what you own. If the townhouse is a condominium, then the rule applies as it does for any other type of condominium, which means it applies only where you have an exclusive use area. If it is a condominium townhouse, you probably cannot use the roof, the chimney, or the exterior walls unless the condominium association gives you permission. You may want to check your ownership documents to determine what areas are owned by you or are reserved for your exclusive use.
Q: I live in a condominium with a balcony, but I cannot receive a signal from the satellite because my balcony faces north. Can I use the roof?
A: No. The roof of a condominium is generally a common area, not an area reserved for an individual's exclusive use. If the roof is a common area, you may not use it unless the condominium association gives you permission. The condominium is not obligated to provide a place for you to install an antenna if you do not have an exclusive use area.
Q: I live in a mobile home that I own but it is located in a park where I rent the lot. Am I covered by the FCC rule?
A: Yes. The rule applies if you install the antenna anywhere on the mobile or manufactured home that is owned by you. The rule also applies to antennas installed on the lot or pad that you rent, as well as to other areas that are under your exclusive use and control. However, the rule does not apply if you want to install the antenna in a common area or other area outside of what you rent.
Q: I want a conventional "stick" antenna to receive a distant over-the air television signal. Does the rule apply to me?
A: No. The rule does not apply to television antennas used to receive a distant signal.
Q: I want to install an antenna for broadcast radio or amateur radio. Does the rule apply to me?
A: No. The rule does not apply to antennas used for AM/FM radio, amateur ("ham") radio (see 47 C.F.R. §97.15), Citizen's Band ("CB") radio or Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS").
Q: I want to install an antenna to access the Internet. Does the rule apply to me?
A: Yes. Antennas designed to receive and/or transmit data services, including Internet access, are included in the rule.
Q: Does this mean that I can install an antenna that will be used for voice and data services even though it does not provide video transmissions?
A: Yes. The most recent amendment expands the rule and permits you to install an antenna that will be used to transmit and/or receive voice and data services, except as noted above. The rule will also continue to cover antennas used to receive video programming.
Q: I'm a board member of a homeowners' association, and we want to revise our restrictions so that they will comply with the FCC rule. Do you have guidelines you can send me?
A: The Commission does not have sample guidelines because every community is different. We can provide you the rule and the relevant orders, which will give you general guidance. (See list of documents at the end of this Information Sheet. Some communities have written restrictions that provide a prioritized list of placement preferences so that residents can see where the association wants them to install the antenna. The residents should comply with the placement preferences provided the preferred placement does not impose unreasonable delay or expense or preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.
Q: What restrictions are permitted if the antenna must be on a very tall mast to get a signal?
A: If you have an exclusive use area that is covered by the rule and need to put your antenna on a mast, the local government, community association or landlord may require you to apply for a permit for safety reasons if the mast extends more than 12 feet above the roofline. If you meet the safety requirements, the permit should be granted. Note that the Commission's rule only applies to antennas and masts installed wholly within the antenna user's exclusive use area. Masts that extend beyond the exclusive use area are outside the scope of the rule. For installations on single family homes, the "exclusive use area" generally would be anywhere on the home or lot and the mast height provision is usually most relevant in these situations. For example, if a homeowner needs to install an antenna on a mast that is more than 12 feet taller than the roof of the home, the homeowners' association or local zoning authority may require a permit to ensure the safety of such an installation, but may not prohibit the installation unless there is no way to install it safely. On the other hand, if the owner of a condominium in a building with multiple dwelling units needs to put the antenna on a mast that extends beyond the balcony boundaries, such installation would generally be outside the scope and protection of the rule, and the condominium association may impose any restrictions it wishes (including an outright prohibition) because the Commission rule does not apply in this situation.
Q: Does the rule apply to commercial property or only residential property?
A: Nothing in the rule excludes antennas installed on commercial property. The rule applies to property used for commercial purposes in the same way it applies to residential property.
Q: What can a local government, association, or consumer do if there is a dispute over whether a particular restriction is valid?
A: Restrictions that impair installation, maintenance or use of the antennas covered by the rule are preempted (unenforceable) unless they are needed for safety or historic preservation and are no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the articulated legitimate safety purpose or for preservation of a designated or eligible historic site or district. If a person believes a restriction is preempted, but the local government, community association, or landlord disagrees, either the person or the restricting entity may file a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC or a court of competent jurisdiction. We encourage parties to attempt to resolve disputes prior to filing a petition. Often contacting the FCC for information about how the rule works and applies in a particular situation can help to resolve the dispute. If a local government, community association, or landlord acknowledges that its restriction impairs installation, maintenance, or use and is preempted under the rule but believes it can demonstrate "highly specialized or unusual" concerns, the restricting entity may apply to the Commission for a waiver of the rule.
Q: How do I file a petition or request a waiver at the Commission?
A: See Guidance on Filing a Petition at the end of this document.
Q: Can I continue to use my antenna while the petition or waiver request is pending?
A: Yes, unless the restriction being challenged or for which a waiver is sought is necessary for reasons of safety or historic preservation. Otherwise, the restriction cannot be enforced while the petition is pending.
Q: Who is responsible for showing that a restriction is enforceable?
A: When a conflict arises about whether a restriction is valid, the local government, community association, property owner, or management entity that is trying to enforce the restriction has the burden of proving that the restriction is valid. This means that no matter who questions the validity of the restriction, the burden will always be on the entity seeking to enforce the restriction to prove that the restriction is permitted under the rule or that it qualifies for a waiver.
Q: Can I be fined and required to remove my antenna immediately if the Commission determines that a restriction is valid?
A: If the Commission determines that the restriction is valid, you will have a minimum of 21 days to comply with this ruling. If you remove your antenna during this period, in most cases you cannot be fined. However, this 21-day grace period does not apply if the FCC rule does not apply to your installation (for example, if the antenna is installed on a condominium general common element or hanging outside beyond an apartment balcony. If the FCC rule does not apply at all in your case, the 21-day grace period does not apply.
Q: Who do I call if my town, community association or landlord is enforcing an invalid restriction?
A: Call the Federal Communications Commission at (888) CALLFCC (888-225-5322), which is a toll-free number, or 202-418-7096, which is not toll-free. Some assistance may also be available from the direct broadcast satellite company, broadband radio service provider, television broadcast station, or fixed wireless company whose service is desired.
GUIDANCE ON FILING A PETITION
Q: How do I file a petition or request a waiver at the Commission?
A: There is no special form for a petition. You may simply describe the facts, including the specific restriction(s) that you wish to challenge. If possible, include contact information such as telephone numbers for all parties involved, if available, and attach a copy of the restriction(s) and any relevant correspondence. If this is not possible, be sure to include the exact language of the restriction in question with the petition. General or hypothetical questions about the application or interpretation of the rule cannot be accepted as petitions. To file a Petition for Waiver, follow the requirements in Section 1.4000© of the rule. The local government, community association or landlord requesting the waiver must demonstrate "local concerns of a highly specialized or unusual nature."
Petitions for declaratory rulings and waivers must be served on all interested parties. For example, if a homeowners' association files a petition seeking a declaratory ruling that its restriction is not preempted and is seeking to enforce the restriction against a specific resident, service must be made on that specific resident. The homeowners' association will not be required to serve all other members of the association, but must provide reasonable, constructive notice of the proceeding to other residents whose interests foreseeably may be affected. This may be accomplished, for example, by placing notices in residents' mailboxes, by placing a notice on a community bulletin board, or by placing the notice in an association newsletter. If a local government seeks a declaratory ruling or a waiver from the Commission, the local government must take steps to afford reasonable, constructive notice to residents in its jurisdiction (e.g., by placing a notice in a local newspaper of general circulation). Proof of constructive notice must be provided with a petition. In this regard, the petitioner should provide a copy of the notice and an explanation of where the notice was placed and how many people the notice reasonably might have reached.
Finally, if a person files a petition or lawsuit challenging a local government's ordinance, an association's restriction, or a landlord's lease, the person must serve the local government, association or landlord, as appropriate. You must include a "proof of service" with your petition. Generally, the "proof of service" is a statement indicating that on the same day that your petition was sent to the Commission, you provided a copy of your petition (and any attachments) to the person or entity that is seeking to enforce the antenna restriction. The proof of service should give the name and address of the parties served, the date served, and the method of service used (e.g., regular mail, personal service, certified mail).
All allegations of fact contained in petitions and related pleadings before the Commission must be supported by an affidavit signed by one or more persons who have actual knowledge of such facts. You must send an original and two copies of the petition and all attachments to:
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Attention: Media Bureau
_
Here's part of Section 704 of the Telecomm Act of 1996 that's relevant:
SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS. (a) National Wireless Telecommunications Siting Policy.--Section 332© (47 U.S.C. 332©) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Preservation of local zoning authority.--
``(A) General authority.--Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
``(B) Limitations.-- ``(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof–
``(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and
``(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services
......................
`© Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph-- ``(i) the term `personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;
``(ii) the term `personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services;
I tried to pick up and highlight where the meat of the Act lies. #I'm no attorney, but, it seems clear that Congress did NOT mean amateur radio, CB, or GMRS within its definition of personal wireless services.
The most interesting part to me is, how the FCC could claim that they cannot involve themselves with CC&Rs as they're "private matter contracts" yet Congress, in Section 207, told them to do just that:
SEC. 207. RESTRICTIONS ON OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES.
# #Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, pursuant to section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, promulgate regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive video programming services through devices
designed for over-the-air reception of television broadcast signals, multichannel multipoint distribution service, or direct broadcast satellite services.
I would be willing to bet that the phrase (that I underlined) "instrumentality thereof" is what the FCC considered HOAs to be in order to have developed 47CFR1.4000 without the contracts issue. #So, if HOA's are to be considered an instumentality of local government (since they do perform some services of local governments, yes) then PRB-1 should be applicable to HOAs, just as it is to other local governments.
Perhaps some of our astute attorney compatriots would care to express their thoughts.
Other than "instrument thereof", I could find no other language in Section 704 that would have included HOAs, CC&Rs, or private land use contracts.
Of course, Congress did tell them to prepare regulations. #Would Congress do that for the Amateur Radio Service?
73,
Quote[/b] (ka9uce @ Dec. 01 2006,02:46)]........
By the way, I think your car is of a disgusting color, you should get it repainted to match the surrounding buildings so it fits in better with the 'neighborhood' as well.
SCREW HOAs!
FYI, for what it's worth, I just received the minutes from the Annual Meeting of the Laurel Oak Park Homeowner's Assocation (Bradenton, FL) where we used to live:
.......
6. General Discussion:
Sam xxxxx suggested producing an approximate 5-page report of Rules and Regulations to simplify them for homeowners When done, it will be delivered to each household.
Bob xxxxxxxx had a request by a neighbor to include in the minutes that there is a county fine for dogs “pooping” on lawns other than their own lawns. Sam xxxxx mentioned that there were other dogs from other communities who walk them in Laurel Oak Park. It was suggested that we call Animal Control. Give the description of the dog and the direction from which it was walking.
Bob xxxxxxxx congratulated the board on a job well done. He especially noted Sam xxxxx and John xxxxx for their many hours working on site.
Scott xxxxxx suggested the mail boxes should be maintained by the homeowners for minor “cosmetic” repairs like rust and missing screws. Vandalism is definitely the responsibility of the Association. Sam xxxxx mentioned that our CCR’s state the Association is responsible completely for the replacement and repair of mailboxes. There will be a “walk through” soon to evaluate conditions of all mailboxes.
Geneva xxxxxxxx suggested that the sides of the homes should also be maintained along with the fronts and backs Sam xxxxx suggested that if you can see the sides of the homes from the street, if comes under the CCR’s to be maintained. The Architectural Revue Committee (ARC) can deal with this. The best thing is to talk to your neighbor first.
The common ground weeds on 18th Avenue are out of control. Sam xxxxx said that money is set aside to re-sod this and other problem areas of common ground in the spring.
A sign will be installed in the next couple of weeks on our 11th Avenue entrance to read “Welcome to Laurel Park”. It will have our logo on it also.
.......
K7ZZY
12-03-2006, 08:50 PM
<span style='color:navy'>I think it's interesting that the story mentions
several times that the tower owner is
licensed by the FCC.
It seems somewhat irrelevant to me.
If he were only a SWL or perhaps his
hobby was just DXing distant TV stations,
would he not have just as much right to erect a tower?
I'm once again so happy I kissed the city life goodbye
(you can have it) and now live in a very rural area.
The sky's the limit here, more or less.
Much luck to the station in Tigard, OR
Michael KC7UPW
Columbia River Gorge, OR</span>
KD5YOV
12-03-2006, 08:55 PM
Well has anyone ever done this on QRZ? Embed a video to a forum? Well here it is to watch!
If your on a slow conection, you can pause the video and the red line will load the video, when it reaches the end. Then press the play button again to finish watching the video, this will work on a dial-up connection also...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aC_EeWSKJII"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aC_EeWSKJII" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_EeWSKJII
This is a video, maybe this can be useful?!?!?[B]
Quote[/b] (KD5YOV @ Dec. 02 2006,15:55)]Well has anyone ever done this on QRZ? Embed a video to a forum? Well here it is to watch!
If your on a slow conection, you can pause the video and the red line will load the video, when it reaches the end. Then press the play button again to finish watching the video, this will work on a dial-up connection also...
This is a video, maybe this can be useful?!?!?[B]
OK, this clip is about 2 years old and down somewhere in Texas.....
What was the outcome? #Did the Homeowner's Association prevail? #Is he being sued?
Maybe he went the way of John Karesh.....
How about an update. #His call?
73,
Quote[/b] ]I never saw the paperwork or 'contract' for this mystical HOA and never signed anything either, so since the property is fully in my name, I CAN do what I want, and that includes antennas on the roof if I so chose, and I'll CHOOSE to get to that next year!
As soon as you closed on the property you were a defacto "member" of the HOA whether you were presented with paperwork or not. The best you can hope to do is sue the realtor for non disclosure.
KD5YOV
12-03-2006, 09:50 PM
2 years - 3 years so what it is an informative video. If you want the HAM's name and info listen to the video, it says it is in Lubuck, TX and and hams name is said at the end of the clip - I think it says "Robert BOYD"...
KD5YOV
12-03-2006, 10:09 PM
Call Sign WA5VSK
Radio Service HA - Amateur
Status Active
Dates
Grant 06/29/1998
Expiration 06/29/2008
Effective 01/19/2005
Licensee Information
FRN 0011495660
Type Individual
Licensee Name
Boyd, Robert C
9810 Savannah Ave
Lubbock, TX 79424
Amateur Data
Operator Class Amateur Extra
Prev. Op. Class General
Instead of posting "stuff", why don't you provide something relevant?
Like I said, did HE prevail......as in, the tower's still up and on the air, 2 years AFTER this was news and they haven't seized his land and put him in jail?
Or, did he go the way of John Karesh? #Or at least move to suburban Waco? #(Pronounced with a long "a" or a short "aaah"?)
73,
Based upon the original post, this appears to be an issue based upon CC&Rs and not the local government failing to grant reasonible accomodation. If this is the case, arguments based on PRB-1 are not relevant. And if the CC&Rs clearly prohibit antennas without approval of the HOA, it is close to a slam-dunk win for the HOA.
I also agree with Eric, KC5FOG concerning a Ham buying property with antenna deed restrictions and then trying to erect an antenna without approval. It's not that I like CC&Rs restricting antennas but whether I like them or not, they are a fact of life. If a Ham wants to erect a tower, then the Ham should acquire property without deed restrictions prohibiting or restricting towers. Even without deed restrictions, Hams should try to be a good neighbor. Every time a Ham ignores the feelings of the Ham's neighbors and puts up a tower that causes neighborhood anger, it gives all of us a black-eye.
Just my $.02
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 02 2006,08:51)]Quote[/b] (ka9uce @ Dec. 01 2006,02:46)]By the way, I think your car is of a disgusting color, you should get it repainted to match the surrounding buildings so it fits in better with the 'neighborhood' as well.
SCREW HOAs!
Don't laugh too hard. #Some actually prohibit trucks of any kind. #Pickups or otherwise.
Mine actually had a prohibition against any vehicles with signs on the doors parked in driveways. #They were going to fine a guy because they didn't like the color he painted his front door.
I asked the HOA what they were going to do if a police officer or deputy sherriff buys a home and chooses to park his patrol car in the driveway?
Until states (r maybe municipalities) draft some canned guidelines for CC&Rs that seriously limit what they can claim is a deed restriction, you're going to have all kinds of dumb stuff stuck in those CC&R books, hidden in fine print.
We all know how the antenna restrictions got there in the first place: #CATV making deals with developers to force people to buy their service in exchange for a 'no cost' to the developer for all the cable infrastructure.
Did the power company prevent you from having a generator? #Did the phone company prevent you from having a cell phone?
The FCC, in response to Congress' mandate to allow antennas for satellite and broadcast reception, prepared regulations at 47CFR1.4000 to preempt CC&Rs. #Read them. #Then you'll understand where the FCC's coming from. #They specifically DO NOT include amateur radio antennas in the preemptive language. #The reason? #We aren't about money in the marketplace (except, of course, for the ARRL).
73,
Quote[/b] ]Don't laugh too hard. #Some actually prohibit trucks of any kind. #Pickups or otherwise.
Mine actually had a prohibition against any vehicles with signs on the doors parked in driveways.
I encountered this also, before I was a ham I lived in a duplex in Coral Springs. The neighbor had a brand new Ford pickup, he was a landscaper but had nothing painted on it. He couldn't park it in the driveway (his trailer was in the garage) but I could park my old beater Dodge Dart with a banged in quater panel and different color front fender.
Was into SWL then and the local town threatened to take me to court over my "illegal and unsightly" antenna. The unsightly antenna was a piece of copperweld laying on the roof. Found out it was the water meter guy that turned us in.
Made sure that when we moved up here to Orlando that there weren't any restrictions. I'm not a big gun but I do have the freedom to put up anything I want (have two small towers and two verticals on the QTH).
Quote[/b] (Kc5fog @ Dec. 02 2006,00:27)]I'm going to be the odd man out here. I think this type of stuff gives ham radio a serious black eye. I see all these hams that buy these nice homes in deed restricted communities for the same reason their neighbors did, to protect the image and integrity of the subdivision/neighborhood.
If a ham wants an antenna tower then they need to bite the bullet and buy an unrestricted piece of property. Buying a house knowing there are restrictions prohibiting a tower and then getting a lawyer to get around them is no different than if I move in next to you and then #park a junk car on blocks in my drive way and get a lawyer to say I have a right to have my "classic" car in my driveway.
I hear allot of old timers telling new hams that they knew Morse code was a requirement when they got into ham radio and either should learn the code or never get on HF. Well a tower and deed restrictions are no different. You knew when you bought that nice house in that nice community that towers were not allowed.
It’s sad we have all these old timers yelling about this “gimmie-gimmie” attitude with new hams because they don’t want to learn code. #But the old timers see no problem with the “I want a tower but don’t want to live outside of town” attitude. If this isn’t hypocrisy I don’t know what is.
ERIC KC5FOG
I wonder how long it would take to get back to the no code
crap from a no coder. Second page!!!!!
W4CBJ
12-05-2006, 01:04 AM
OH Boy, I thought up a good solution to this problem but Lee W6EM beat me to it ! The part about the color of your neighbor's car. It OFFENDS you. Maybe his wife's looks OFFEND you. Attend the home owner's association and tell them you are going ti SUE everyone in the neighborhood that OFFENDS you. Nice going, Lee..
73 Joe W4CBJ
KD6NIG
12-05-2006, 01:39 AM
Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Dec. 03 2006,22:25)]Based upon the original post, this appears to be an issue based upon CC&Rs and not the local government failing to grant reasonible accomodation. If this is the case, arguments based on PRB-1 are not relevant. And if the CC&Rs clearly prohibit antennas without approval of the HOA, it is close to a slam-dunk win for the HOA.
I also agree with Eric, KC5FOG concerning a Ham buying property with antenna deed restrictions and then trying to erect an antenna without approval. It's not that I like CC&Rs restricting antennas but whether I like them or not, they are a fact of life. If a Ham wants to erect a tower, then the Ham should acquire property without deed restrictions prohibiting or restricting towers. Even without deed restrictions, Hams should try to be a good neighbor. Every time a Ham ignores the feelings of the Ham's neighbors and puts up a tower that causes neighborhood anger, it gives all of us a black-eye.
Just my $.02
Plus the bottom line is, the average person doesn't know who a Ham Radio Operator is. Either that or they think we're some kind of CB'r, so we get roped into that bunch.
Sure, me, you and everyone else on this board thinks a good antenna is a good thing. But we're a small sliver of the population.
Most people will just see "Ham Radio" and "trying to break CC&R's" and thats it.
Negative connotations, period.
I have antennas, but if my neighbors started making noise, I'd camoflauge them more, or take them down if the crowing got loud enough. I'd rather be on good terms with my neighbors than bad. Sure, there are times when you have to stand up for your rights, but be careful what kind of fights you pick, for the sake of yourself and everyone else in the hobby.
N5FOG
12-05-2006, 02:37 AM
Quote[/b] (w0vu @ Dec. 03 2006,12:20)]Quote[/b] (Kc5fog @ Dec. 02 2006,00:27)]I'm going to be the odd man out here. I think this type of stuff gives ham radio a serious black eye. I see all these hams that buy these nice homes in deed restricted communities for the same reason their neighbors did, to protect the image and integrity of the subdivision/neighborhood.
If a ham wants an antenna tower then they need to bite the bullet and buy an unrestricted piece of property. Buying a house knowing there are restrictions prohibiting a tower and then getting a lawyer to get around them is no different than if I move in next to you and then park a junk car on blocks in my drive way and get a lawyer to say I have a right to have my "classic" car in my driveway.
I hear allot of old timers telling new hams that they knew Morse code was a requirement when they got into ham radio and either should learn the code or never get on HF. Well a tower and deed restrictions are no different. You knew when you bought that nice house in that nice community that towers were not allowed.
It’s sad we have all these old timers yelling about this “gimmie-gimmie” attitude with new hams because they don’t want to learn code. But the old timers see no problem with the “I want a tower but don’t want to live outside of town” attitude. If this isn’t hypocrisy I don’t know what is.
ERIC KC5FOG
I wonder how long it would take to get back to the no code
crap from a no coder. Second page!!!!!
Just another double standard and it’s no different. I’m not trying to get a code/no code argument started. But it is no different.
You want to side stepped the rules for you to put up a tower because you feel you have some right to have a tower on your property even though you signed a legal document when you purchased your property that such a structure is prohibited.
Your neighbors bought their property known that the deed restrictions would protect them from such a structure erected next to them just as you bought your property knowing the restrictions keep your neighbor from having a chicken coup in his yard.
I can just see the courtroom now
Judge : “sir did you sign this agreement that towers are not allowed”
Ham: “But your honor I’m a licensed radio operator and I can copy 20 wpm code and I need a 100ft tower”
Judge: “That’s supposed to mean something to this court”
Ham: “But your honor I want my tower I want my tower” (ham jumps up and down stomping his feet)
“waaaaaaaaaaaa I want my tower I want my tower this isn’t fare”
I would expect I better insult than just calling me a "no-coder" but I guess that just proves you don’t have any real argument so you just call names.
Eric KC5FOG
KG4GUF
12-05-2006, 02:52 AM
Uh, this is just a backward blindfolded upside down shot in the dark at a wild moving loophole that probably doesn't exist, but if one of these places allowed trailers, couldn't you mount the antennas on the trailer which would not be a permanent fixture?
ka0sog
12-05-2006, 03:09 AM
>>>>>Beginning on November 29, 2006
So what's happening with the case. Did it go through trial.
W6YDK
12-05-2006, 03:36 AM
It doesn’t matter whether you signed an agreement or not. #If you bought the property with restrictions on the title, you bought the title with the restrictions. #It’s the law. #If you think you can compare your ‘right’ to play radio to the constitutional issues that have overcome title restrictions in the past, you are living on another planet. You’ll live with it whether you like it or not. #If you’re a below sea level New Orleans help me government help me whiner and demand the government save you from your prior decisions about where to live, you’re going to lose. #You might pull it off in the EU or Canada but, hopefully, we’ll never have that sort of nanny government here. #
But assuming you were to overcome the legal obstacles, do you really want the community seeing hams as visual polluters? #The comments about false claims of RF interference are most likely correct, but what about interference in the visual spectrum? #Many folks value their view of the scenery more than the purity of their TV reception. #What if it were in the audio spectrum? #What if the guy next door was playing rap loud enough for you to hear all day and he told you it was his right, and besides, it was beautiful music and you should love it like he does.
Our service only exists at the pleasure of politicians and those clowns only exist at the pleasure of voters, unless you live in Florida. #The second the majority of voters (and don’t even joke that we are the majority) turn the politicians against us, we are gone.
Concentrate your energy on designing and building antennas they can’t see. #NVIS is better for emergency communications anyway, and anybody should be able to hide an NVIS antenna. #This ‘in your face’ mentality will destroy our hobby and our service.
Quote[/b] (w4cbj @ Dec. 03 2006,20:04)]OH Boy, I thought up a good solution to this problem but Lee W6EM beat me to it ! #The part about the color of your neighbor's car. It OFFENDS you. Maybe his wife's looks OFFEND you. Attend the home owner's association and tell them you are going ti SUE everyone in the neighborhood that OFFENDS you. #Nice going, Lee..
73 #Joe #W4CBJ
Hello, Joe. #TNX for the kudos. #How was the hamfest?
We've been gone from our old subdivision for exactly one year, and for at least the last two, they've been complaining about transient dog doo. #And, they still are. #Heck, St. Augustine grass planted in sand needs all the fertilizer it can get. #A little extra doesn't hurt.
Miss some things about Bradenton, but not the HOAs. #Remember the one over on Cortez Road with the white duplexes that prohibited American flags? #Guess they can't object to those any more. #At least not reasonably sized ones. #I forget the name of it. #Just west of Coral Shores subdivision. #(My old landscaper told me when he was a kid, he and some friends removed the "C" and the "S" from the Coral Shores sign. #I'll bet their HOA had a cat until they could replace the missing letters.) #:-)
Before I left, I managed to get the total prohibition of antennas removed and replaced by guidelines for wire and rod antennas on the back side of lots behind the homes. #Now, those are a reasonable accommodation. #A 70 foot tower with two monbanders is not.......
The "in your face" attitude doesn't help our cause. #Negotiation, not confrontation. #Much better.
73,
N5FOG
12-05-2006, 08:08 AM
I think WD6YDK hit the nail on the head. PRB-1 can and does sometimes help us get reasonable accommodations for antennas in event of some of the most draconian CC&R's.
But if we continue to with putting up 100' towers with stacked 40meter mono banders and call it a "reasonable accommodation" we are going to find ourselves total screwed.
All its going to take is some ham putting up a “loophole” tower next door to a senator or congressmen or some big wig with allot of clout and we will find PRB-1 and other loopholes totally closed and we won't even be able to put up a compromise antenna system.
As the old saying goes when your holding on by your fingernails you don’t got waving your hands. And as the way things are today with all the services that would LOVE to get a chunk of the ham spectrum the last thing we need to do is bring more negative attention to ourselves and that’s all a “loophole” tower does.
ERIC KC5FOG
Quote[/b] (Kc5fog @ Dec. 04 2006,03:08)]I think WD6YDK hit the nail on the head. PRB-1 can and does sometimes help us get reasonable accommodations for antennas in event of some of the most draconian CC&R's.
But if we continue to with putting up 100' towers with stacked 40meter mono banders and call it a "reasonable accommodation" we are going to find ourselves total screwed.
All its going to take is some ham putting up a “loophole” tower next door to a senator or congressmen or some big wig with allot of clout and we will find PRB-1 and other loopholes totally closed and we won't even be able to put up a compromise antenna system.
As the old saying goes when your holding on by your fingernails you don’t got waving your hands. And as the way things are today with all the services that would LOVE to get a chunk of the ham spectrum the last thing we need to do is bring more negative attention to ourselves and that’s all a “loophole” tower does.
ERIC KC5FOG
PRB-1 doesn't help with CC&Rs. Participating in HOA committees, such as becoming a member of an Architectural Review Committee (and not putting up a tower or something objectionable first) can help.
It is relatively easy to demonstrate the validity of emergency operation. Almost impossible, though, to show how DXing would help the community.
You are exactly right with respect to irritating those with political clout.
Especially when it would be so, so easy for them to find out that towers, stacked monobanders, etc., really aren't the tools used during emergencies or necessary to be effective in same. First, they'd likely be disabled in a moderate storm, hit by lightning, or shook down in an earthquake. I don't want to dwell on the guy in Lubbock, TX, but, from the looks of his situation on the video, a good part of it could come crashing down on his neighbors, on either side of his lot even if retracted.
Plus, even if towers survive, will the owners have emergency power adequate to rotate the antennas? If not, wires are better, if help is off the sides of where the Yagis, Quads or Log Periodics are pointed.
Even a moderately smart staffer of a member of Congress would quickly learn that such structures have the primary purpose of DXing, contesting and the like, not effective emergency communications. Unless, of course, you're talking about helping with an emergency in Darfur or Cashmere. Or, back in the old days when MARS had a mission of handling overseas phone patches.
Its high time the ARRL gets on the bandwagon and supports unobtrusive wire or small vertical antennas as reasonable accommodations and stop holding out for towers and large arrays. We'll never get anywhere with Congress if "must have towers and arrays" continues as their platform.
73,
KD7YVV
12-05-2006, 08:50 PM
As much as I would like a 100 ft tower with the largest
antenna possible, it isn't going to happen.
First off, I live in an apartment complex, and do not own
the property.
Second, there is a swath of protected wetlands behind and
on one side of the property.
Before I moved in, I told the manager I was a ham radio
operator. When thoughts turned to an antenna, I found I
needed two. One for HF, and one for 2 meter / 70 cm.
Part of my patio is hidden by a lush evergreen tree.
I built a jpole, painted it black, showed the manager where
I wanted to put it on my patio, showed that the tree would
hide most of it. No problem.
One problem I had was, between my building and the
wetlands on the side, there is a walkway.
There's a thin wire that runs from my patio, up, over a tree
limb, and out into the wetlands.
The first run was a little low, so she said, "higher and
more out of the way." I did, we're both happy.
She has no wires running across the walkway where
people could see it and possibly run into it, and I have
something I can use on HF.
My manager said she appreciated the fact that I was up
front with what I wanted to do instead of being sneaky
and trying to go behind her back.
What I want to know is, do some hams see PRB 1 as,
I have a right to this tower and am federally licensed so
your state and local laws don't apply to me, or do they
see it as, hey, I can't have a huge tower, but perhaps
I can work with my HOA to reasonably accommodate me?
Do some hams move into HOA/deed restricted areas
knowing full well that a huge tower isn't allowed, yet
wait until they're all moved in and settled before putting
up a tower to contact Pluto, thus causing conflict?
I don't think that hams and HOA's will ever see eye to
eye 100% of the time, but I think if hams want to live in
a CC&R/HOA/deed restricted area, then they have to
compromise too.
I think once I explained my hobby to the manager here,
and the fact that I was honest with her from the get-go,
it went a long way towards me being able to have an
antenna of any kind instead of nothing at all.
--KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA
N5FOG
12-05-2006, 09:39 PM
Quote[/b] (KD7YVV @ Dec. 04 2006,15:50)]Do some hams move into HOA/deed restricted areas
knowing full well that a huge tower isn't allowed, yet
wait until they're all moved in and settled before putting
up a tower to contact Pluto, thus causing conflict?
I don't think that hams and HOA's will ever see eye to
eye 100% of the time, but I think if hams want to live in
a CC&R/HOA/deed restricted area, then they have to
compromise too.
--KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA
That’s exactly the issue of the conflict.
You have hams buying houses in a nice deed restricted communities knowing full well that a tower is a prohibited structure. But these hams think that because they have a radio license they are total exempt to the deed restrictions even though they agreed to them when they bought their property.
The main reason for this is these hams are trying to get the best of both worlds. They want the protection of the CC&R’s and HOA to keep their neighborhood visually appealing and protect their property values. But on the flip side also want a tower and feel they have a right to a tower.
Eric KC5FOG
Quote[/b] (Kc5fog @ Dec. 04 2006,16:39)]The main reason for this is these hams are trying to get the best of both worlds. They want the protection of the CC&R’s and HOA to keep their neighborhood visually appealing and protect their property values. But on the flip side also want a tower and feel they have a right to a tower. #
Eric KC5FOG
Why shouldn't a ham want a bit of both? If you read your CC&Rs (I did on the piece of land and home we now own) and the only thing prohibited are TV antennas. I laugh when I think about it. Specifically, only TV antennas.
In any case, satellite dishes are everywhere as there's no CATV available.
When I get my HF arrangements up, the forest behind me will have several wire arrays in two orientations strung between and amongst the trees. And, will be fed via coax from a small birdhouse on a post in the forest. The neighbors won't see them, unless they come looking for them. But, I read our CC&Rs first and can live with them.
One very nice area in central Florida that we purchased a lot on (and now are selling) is totally silent on antennas. It has setback requirements, fence requirements, no semi trucks, and not more than two horses allowed. 2.5 acres in some really beautiful woods with all utilities except water. So, there ARE subdivisions that have the benefit of "nuisance reduction" CC&Rs yet don't tell you what your car has to look like, or that you can't have any antenna of anykind. Or, can't paint your front door without permission......
73,
If the trial was expected to last 4 days and it began on Novemeber 29, times up. Anyone know the outcome?
N5FOG
12-05-2006, 11:36 PM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 04 2006,17:34)]Why shouldn't a ham want a bit of both? If you read your CC&Rs (I did on the piece of land and home we now own) and the only thing prohibited are TV antennas. I laugh when I think about it. Specifically, only TV antennas.
In any case, satellite dishes are everywhere as there's no CATV available.
When I get my HF arrangements up, the forest behind me will have several wire arrays in two orientations strung between and amongst the trees. And, will be fed via coax from a small birdhouse on a post in the forest. The neighbors won't see them, unless they come looking for them. But, I read our CC&Rs first and can live with them.
One very nice area in central Florida that we purchased a lot on (and now are selling) is totally silent on antennas. It has setback requirements, fence requirements, no semi trucks, and not more than two horses allowed. 2.5 acres in some really beautiful woods with all utilities except water. So, there ARE subdivisions that have the benefit of "nuisance reduction" CC&Rs yet don't tell you what your car has to look like, or that you can't have any antenna of anykind. Or, can't paint your front door without permission......
73,
There is nothing wrong with wanting "a bit of both" but your neighbors didn't buy their property agreeing to "a bit of both" They bought their property with the reassurance that the community will be kept visually pleasant and uniform in accordance with the CC&R's.
If a ham wants "a bit of both" then he should find a community that will allow it and have it in writing from the start, not sign a deed stating that towers are prohibited and then saying the hell with everyone else and put up a "loophole" tower.
This practice does nothing but get ham radio ALLOT of bad media coverage that makes ham radio operators look like a group of selfish people who don't care about anyone but themselves.
Eric KC5FOG
n8zzf
12-06-2006, 02:34 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #i think that the antenna is ok by way it sounds it just picky neighbors are always trying to find something out of ordinary (antennas) to pick on....if it's not breaking the rules set by local ordinance ,it should stay for the ham who owns it to enjoy the reception #of it at all costs ...it breaking our civil duty to have a station who's licensed by fcc to do good for the community with # communications that need in times of national security #and of course our weather that oregon has been experiencing lately with floods -etc... 73 to all
I lived about 5 miles North of Bull Mountain for 10 years and worked for Verizon all over Bull Mountain and know of at least 3 other towers near by that have been standing for over 10 years now ,Sure hope they let this guy keep his Tower "Bull Mountain is a very pretty place!!!! 73 Glen NN6T
N5FOG
12-06-2006, 10:40 AM
Quote[/b] (n8zzf @ Dec. 04 2006,21:34)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif i think that the antenna is ok by way it sounds it just picky neighbors are always trying to find something out of ordinary (antennas) to pick on....if it's not breaking the rules set by local ordinance ,it should stay for the ham who owns it to enjoy the reception of it at all costs ...it breaking our civil duty to have a station who's licensed by fcc to do good for the community with communications that need in times of national security and of course our weather that oregon has been experiencing lately with floods -etc... 73 to all
Its not just picky neighbors, he broke the rules. He agreed to a CC&R that states property owners can't do anything that "may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood." and all Radio and television antennas are to be approved by the community's architectural committee.
As far as a "civil duty", what