ARLB011 Amateur Radio Parity Act Language Inserted in National Defense Authorization Act

HUH???? what are you talking about?

An attached rider bill doesn't have any endorsement or support from the bill it is attached to.

It's only attached because it can not be passed based on its own merit. The correct term should be legal extortion.

Lets do have some common sense.

 

In this case, it's "pork barrel" legislation minus any benefit to anyone.

 

PRB-1's accommodation requirement language was almost identical to that in ARPA, but I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to find a single case of FCC enforcement(*) of that rule, either. And that's over more than 30 years of that rule's existence.

So no, don't expect FCC to enforce ARPA, even if they do write it.

(*) ...when I say "enforcement," I mean forcing a municipality to comply with the rule, under the threat or actual levy of monetary forfeitures, on behalf of a specific amateur licensee.

 

Thank you for posting the text of the Bill...

As I said in a previous post, many Hams are underestimating the egos of those that head up HOAs and CAs.

Everyone seems to be missing Sect. 3B3 where it says:

"establish reasonable written rules concerning height, location, size, and aesthetic impact of, and installation requirements for, outdoor antennas and support structures for the purpose of conducting communications in the amateur radio services."

This means the HOA or CA can regulate every aspect of your antenna. What is 'reasonable' to you may not be 'reasonable' to others. This gives the HOA/CA the right to tell you where, how tall, how wide, method of installation, and most importantly 'aesthetic impact' of outdoor antennas and support structures..." What kind of antenna do you think will be 'aesthetically pleasing' to your neighbors? I can assure you it won't be large and it won't be on a tower...

Here is an example of something your Neighbors MIGHT find acceptable:

http://www.wolfrivercoils.com/products.html

Here at KI4AX I currently do not have to contend with restrictive antenna regulations. But, what I really want to know is if a County or City (Government) can be considered a form of HOA or CA?

Dan KI4AX

 

Wrong. Every single HOA must comply with State and Federal law. If they have do not have that process in place, the must put it in place or be in violation of the law. Quite a few HOAs have a clause that requires them to respond in a certain time frame to requests. My son's is 30 days. If they do not reply, or fail to follow guidelines, then you are free to do as you please. His barn required a variance, HOA failed to respond timely, barn was built just as he wanted.

 

Untill they give a Ham the right to put up an antenna of a specified size an height the HOA's are still in control .

 

I cut this off right there because the rest of this post is all about Congresscritters breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for selling out to the HOA's and trying to make us believe they did us a favor in doing so. This line tells the whole story, "...
aids in the survival and growth of Amateur Radio by giving radio amateurs the right to install and outdoor antenna at their residences with the approval of their homeowners associations." Yeah, like that is going to happen, if it hasn't already.
Oh yeah, and ham radio "leadership" praising and profusely thanking them for doing it! Gee, thank guys, I am sure we all wanted to brush our teeth with your boots.

 

"Control" is about specifying limits on antenna size and height.

Exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't do.

 

Weill there goes our chance to help the amateur locked into a home owners association. Do these guys ad gals in Washington know what they read, NO. It is common sense if you dom't have the letter of approval no antenna allowed. If you had the letter you wouldn't need such Bill to start with ... DUH

 

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I don’t have a dog in this fight. Where I live there are no restrictions at all.

But I do feel for my fellow hams who live in HOA restricted suburban / urban areas. When I hear heartless comments like “its the hams fault they moved there”, that is very disappointing. You don’t always know the situation they were in when they contracted the house. Also this means, their children might not have an opportunity to have an effective outdoor antenna if they took an interest in radio. Where would I be if my dad was not able to string up that outdoor antenna for that crystal set radio?

Cold, off hand and dismissive comments also show a lack of knowledge about the history of amateur radio. Just the idea that an ordinary citizen could obtain a radio license was a radical idea in its time. Strong commercial interests tried to shut it down and take the frequencies. Did you know that amateur radio is a uniquely American idea? During both World Wars, amateur radio was shut down. Thanks to the tireless efforts of our predecessors, it was able to be started up again.

Say all you want about the sanctity of contracts, that doesn’t make them right or just. In the mid 1980’s HOAs gained over-reaching power over individual rights. Why is it that OTARD was given a pass to prelude private land agreements but not amateur radio operators? It was all about lobby money – it had NOTHING to do with not honoring a signed contract. So please, that grind does not pass the muster.

All contracts are subject to negotiation and revision. I have lived in apartments, high rise condominiums and two homes in HOA managed “no outside antennas” CC&Rs. But I have always been able to erect effective outdoor antennas. One time I lived on the fourteenth floor of a high rise condominium that I was only renting but I was able to talk the condominium Association President into allowing me to place a wire outside my window down to a wooden fence by the tennis courts as well as a VHF antenna on a ledge. Imagine a 14 story vertical long wire.

When I bought a new home in a HOA managed “no outside antennas” CC&Rs neighborhood, this place was so restrictive, even garage sales were prohibited. But when I bought, the HOA had not been formed yet. So as soon as the HOA was formed, I gained friendship with the HOA President and did volunteer work to the help the community. He gave me a verbal pass to allow the antennas to stay up. After he moved out of the subdivision, I ran for a seat on the board of the HOA and then became President. So we made up a list of things were going to allow and not enforce. A variance was granted for my antenna system and I abstained from the vote to get it n writing.

Now I don’t know about you, but that is the kind of person I am.
But I am not so heartless and steadfast to not want to lend a hand to my fellow amateurs in less fortunate situations. Imagine a service member coming home from a tour of duty and being told he/she has to give up their amateur privileges to live somewhere. That is not the America I grew up in.

When you were called to support amateur radio in its hour of need, what legacy are you going to leave?

 

There is a lot of hyperbole on both sides of this argument, but I think that it just reached a new high (low?) with the "do it for the troops" argument.

What's next, "let's pass the Parity Act to save the polar bears"?

 

Hams asked for this Bill and now scroff at it. I live in an HOA ristricted home and I uese stealth antennas that are very effective. This will give an oppertunity for those that can not use an antenna the right to do so, and I think it is sad that Hams have turned their back on what they asked for in the first place. If you want to put up 100 foot tower, then move somewhere it wont bother your neighbors. What I see are some spoiled technacratic operators that want to complain about the law after the fact. You dont have a right tomuse the airwaves, you have been licensed by the federal governmnet and have to live by their rictions. That is all part of this hobby.

 

New game out today called, "Where's the ARRL?"

 

Not an expert on the topic - but just read the act, and a lawyer, who also a ham, who fortunately does not live in an HOA. I understand that many HOA's had total restrictions on ANY ham radio service antennas. This bill is, a kind of watered down, "reasonable accommodation" type language. It does say that HOA's cannot have total restrictions, and can write "reasonable" rules, but it does require hams to submit their proposal to the HOA, and get approval from the HOA, which is problematic. On the other hand it says HOA's cannot impose unreasonable restrictions. The problem here is you have to a) submit a plan, b) obtain approval. The problem is, at the point of conflict, if one arises, which they inevitably will, you will have to sue on the basis of the bill as to what is "reasonable", which means a judge will have to decide what "reasonable" means based on their particular knowledge, or biases, which side of the bed they got up on, or which lawyer they like better. Then your antenna you thought would cost you maybe up to $500, will cost you $5,000 in legal fees. Maybe you can get them back if you win. I agree that the language could have been stronger for the benefit of radio amateurs. It is not zero, but it's not a lot. Its about a half S unit, not a full S unit.

The main problems is the pre-approval process. That is the language that benefits the HOA's. It is what lawyers might call "burden-shifting". You all know that adage "It is better beg for forgiveness than ask for permission". It would be better if you were permitted to put up an antenna, while following to the best of your ability the HOA rules, and then make them take action if there is strong disapproval. This language in the bill gives the HOA the advantage with the pre-approval process. Once they say "no" - the burden is on the amateur to fight them. So to summarize: the bill says HOA's must accommodate hams, but hams need pre-approval, so it is still looks like a David v. Goliath situation.

Anyone with more knowledge on the topic can please enlighten me.

 

Fortunately, there is precedent for that. This poor guy got "reasonable accommodation" decided in the courts, and what did he get? A small VHF antenna. His HF antenna, which had been previously permitted? Down it came.

That case has everything in it a hostile HOA could ever want for defeating an antenna project of just about any size. The last time I checked, Mr. Zubarau's legal fees were quickly closing in on six figures -- for a single HF antenna.

And the ARPA language requiring "reasonable accommodation" is almost identical to that in PRB-1 -- if anything, it gives more control to the HOA than PRB-1 gave to the municipalities.

On the bright side, maybe VHF+ FM will make a comeback after ARPA passes. I'm looking forward to working on mesh networks with all the HOA guys.