Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

Let me rephrase this, A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION CAN NOT DISAPPROVE SOMETHING THEY DO NOT HAVE RESTRICTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

If it is getting way too complicated in the details, then think it through, how can a CA disapprove anything they have no rules on? The intent of the Law is to lessen CCRs, not create roadblock at equity. Legislative Intent is the big picture.

 

In theory that is true of PRB-1, too. But look how that turned out in practice.

 

Trust me, if the FCC says they have a say, they will hire attorneys and find a way to disapprove. Bureaucrats will react with glee at the prospect of new powers, especially when their special-interest group shows them pictures of OH8X.

 

You're right, except that the contentious clause in section 3(b) of the ARPA doesn't say anything about disapproval. It talks about approval. It directs the FCC to change its rules so that the ham is required to notify and obtain prior approval from the HOA before the antenna can be put up.

My contention is that it's a stupid requirement, but it's the way the flawed ARPA is worded. Why (other than the fact that the ARPA text requires it) should a ham be required to notify and obtain approval for an antenna that can't be restricted by the HOA? Or, perhaps in other states or other circumstances, why should approval be required to be obtained from an HOA that doesn't care, or doesn't want to have anything to do with antenna approvals or disapprovals, even though it theoretically could restrict them? At best it's a needless paperwork burden, but it could become a real stumbling block. And the requirement for prior notification and approval at the very least means people in communities with HOAs can't put up antennas whenever they want-- even if it's a simple rubber stamp, they must first wait for the next HOA meeting, in order to notify the board and obtain the required approval.

 

Lack of disapproval is enough. Silence is acquiesce in law, after 2 years, no action may be taken "Prescription" (Statute of Limitations) takes place and no more action may be supported (Louisiana). Where Federal Law is silent, State Law fills in (Article X US CONSTITUTION). A simple no objection will suffice. (Letter of no objection).

 

It is my understanding many HOA rules in the past have been found to be unenforceable in this very way.

 

Sure but why should APRA (or any similar rules and/or legislation) have any language included in it pertaining to antennas that don't require any approval?

For example, I am not required to keep my light turned on outside at night.

Should HOA rules have specific language that says, "You are not required to have your outdoor light turned on at night."

No , it will only say that if it's a requirement..., but wouldn't it be entirely irrelevant to state that in the rules if it's not a requirement? I don't think doing that would make any sense.

 

It shouldn't! That's entirely my point. The problem with it is that, as it is currently written, it does. If it is approved, ARPA requires the FCC to change the FCC rules to require any ham that's covered by an HOA to get prior approval from that HOA before setting up an antenna, and there is no exception for those cases where the HOA doesn't require an approval. It's the FCC that requires the ham to get the approval from the HOA, regardless of how the HOA feels on the matter.

 

I'm not sure why it has to be written that if the ham doesn't have any antenna restrictions, then he no longer has to seek approval from the HOA.

If he doesn't have any restrictions... he doesn't have any restrictions. There's nothing to go to the HOA and get approval for.

Why would anyone go to the HOA to get an approval for an antenna, when there's already no antenna restrictions whatsoever.

 

Thinking about this some more, here's my take on why the "notice and consent" provision is the way it is. If you read the bill, and the accompanying committee report (presumably it will be the same as last year's) you'll notice that the new regulation will allow the community association to establish written rules concerning installation. So the point may be to give the community association a "last bite" at the apple if there is a ham in the midst who wants to install an antenna.

That is, assume an association w/o a restriction. In part because nobody ever really thought about it. Now R.F. Burns wants to erect an antenna. Ordinarily, Burns could just do it - there's no restriction. But after ARPA? Maybe Burns needs to give the association notice and request consent. This may cause the light bulb to go off, and the association may then scramble to impose the allowed rules concerning installation (if the association's bylaws permit)? Just like many here are saying.

That may have been part of the trade-off to get CAI buy-in?

I be interested to know CAI's reaction to clarifying that:

1. ARPA's notice and consent requirements apply only where the association has a restriction in effect at the time of the installation
2. the installation requirements can be no more stringent than the local building and electrical codes or documentation per FCC OET Bulletin 65, Supplement B.

If CAI cries foul, that may signal their next step??

Maybe I'm overthinking this and am all wrong. If so, please correct me!

 

It sure ought to be. But if the legislature agrees with you, they should pass an ARPA that doesn't explicitly say that the ham must "notify and obtain prior approval" from the HOA.

Hams are already able to put up antennas when the HOA doesn't disapprove. There's no need for any kind of new language in the FCC regs to make this point. The reason they require the FCC to put new language into the regulations is because they are writing a new requirement into the FCC rules. The new requirement is that the ham must notify and obtain prior approval before putting up an antenna, and that requirement stinks.

 

But that's the way the law is now. That's a reasonable situation.

The ARPA requires a change to the FCC rules. And the change is something new. The change explicitly says the ham is required to notify and obtain prior approval before setting up the antenna. Why would that new text need to be put in the law if the intent is just to keep things the way they already are?

 

The FCC really doesn't want to deal with this! OTARD was a disaster for the FCC and they responded by levying really stiff fines on HOAs to stymie that foolishness after a couple of lawsuits trying to overturn the law. The FCC really doesn't need the extra workload.

 

Because ARPA passes and FCC is required to add rules that require them to. It's that simple.

The language change that is needed is not that. The language that needs to be change is for (3)(b)(1) to clarify that it only applies to CAs that already try to ban/limit antennas. To be fair, (3)(b)(1) needs to vanish altogether, since it's bad policy no matter who it applies to. But if it is going to stay, it needs to limit itself to CAs that already try to restrict antennas. All legislation and rules are assumed to be broad unless they are explicitly narrow. That's just how legal interpretation works.

 

No, and they won't. Regardless of how it falls out, the FCC won't be the arbiter of this. When there is a dispute over the regulation, it will wind through the courts. FCC isn't going to add to their own workload to pass the regulation required by ARPA. If you want to see how this affects FCC, look at PRB-1 as an example. Their involvement in ARPA's final regulation will be very similar.