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

Turning the radios on now. HAVE A NICE DAY!

 

You need to go re-read that case again... here's a summary, which includes exactly what I described:

http://www.arrl.org/news/california-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-antenna-zoning-case​

And I quote:

...the Court held that Palmdale properly ordered Zubarau to remove his permitted 55-foot crankup tower. The Court opined that the small, VHF/UHF vertical on the roof constituted “reasonable accommodation” under PRB-1 and California PRB-1 statute (California Government Code Section 65850.3). The Court said that leaving Zubarau with a VHF/UHF antenna constituted a reasonable accommodation because it allowed him to be active in some part of Amateur Radio.​

Did you get all that? Both the federal (Part 97 rule) and state (California Code) PRB-1 "reasonable accommodation" provisions were found to be met by allowing Mr. Zubarau a single, roof-mounted, VHF/UHF antenna.

It doesn't matter what they allow you to have -- as long as it is more than nothing, it's enough. That's the state of the case law on PRB-1, 30y+ after it was enacted by FCC.

 

You keep saying that, but you keep coming back.

 

Bands are pretty dead.

I come back because it appears you need the company But try to reduce the "troll factor" gain a bit, its quite tedious.

OK so back in 2011 the ARRL posted the appeals court making bizarre statements, probably so they could rally members for another round on the original ARPA, pump a membership drive, whatever ...

However, governments don't like to go to court either. Its costly and risky for them too. So meanwhile there was a lot of work being done with and by Palmdale to craft their codes in a way that avoids all this kind of BS.

Check out Palmdale CA ordinance 17.95.030 Amateur Radio Antennae (Zoning Ordinance Amendment 11-2, adopted by City Council September 7, 2011) in,

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Palmdale/html/Palmdale17/Palmdale1795.html

In particular,

D. Antennas Not Subject to Regulations

The following types of antennas may be installed without Planning Department approval:

1. Antennas that are mounted directly on a transmitter or receiver, held or aimed by hand or mounted on a portable tripod or support, or a vehicle mounted antenna, are not subject to the regulations contained in this Section.

2. A building-mounted fixed-height vertical whip antenna or compact horizontal antenna having a maximum height of not more than 10’ above the highest point of the primary structure roof.

3. A ground-mounted fixed-height vertical or compact horizontal antenna having a maximum height of forty-five (45) feet above grade provided that the antenna is located in the rear yard and does not encroach into any required setback.

4. Single-element wire antennas and their support lines attached to any combination of trees, existing permitted structures, or a single support pole that does not exceed 2-1/2 inches in diameter, provided that the antenna is located in the rear yard, does not encroach into any required setback, and the highest point of any support pole does not exceed a height of forty-five (45) feet above grade.

I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Then proceed with,

E. Antennas Permitted Through Administrative Zoning Clearance
F. Antennas Requiring an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit (lots less then 1 acre)

Both the above enable crank up towers from 35 to 75 ft high with beam antennas. Then,

G. Antennas Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.

f. The permit and any conditions of approval attached thereto would accommodate reasonably the amateur radio operator’s desire for communication, while at the same time requiring the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the City’s legitimate purpose of protecting the public health, safety, welfare, aesthetics and compatibility with the neighborhood.

That's all standard stuff these days and is the effect of PRB-1. The references to and language of Federal law in general are seen throughout that document.

There is nothing in the current Palmdale ordinances that limits Hams to "VHF/UHF" antennas. A reasonable HF antenna can be erected, even on a SMALL LOT, and even WITHOUT A PERMIT.

Furthermore, they make very nice accommodations to go bigger, but as with any significant structure modification, it has to go through quite clear and accommodating administrative procedures.

BUT IT APPEARS POSSIBLE - and obviously thanks in part to the pressure of PRB-1.

73, John, WØPV

 

That seemed to agree with the court documents.

Nor is that the point. The point is that any municipality can limit hams to tiny antennas. That's the current state of the case law. It's the point you keep missing. Palmdale argued it successfully in court.

No matter how "good" any municipality behaves today, they have no requirement to do so. Nor will any CAs under ARPA be required to allow any amateur anything more than a tiny antenna, based in part on the court-tested interpretation of PRB-1's "reasonable accommodation" language. It's just too vague to be of any practical use against a CA attorney who has done his homework.

You could just concede to the facts, and then we'd be done.

 

The point you keep missing is that case law decisions do not always have to affirm a desired specific action, such as granting WB6X a tower outside of code, in order to influence municipalities or private parties to take measures in the future to avoid similar litigated situations. Its mitigating an otherwise lose-lose (a-little-less) situation.

As Palmdale and many others have done since. And that's a fact.

 

If they don't, then PRB-1 didn't help. Relief has to be specific.

If Palmdale cleaned up their act, great. There is no requirement for them to do so, or to cooperate with amateurs in any way other than not permitting them nothing (pardon the poor grammar).

 

I support the Parity, with enthusiasm and emotion!

Added exclamation mark because you do not like it!

 

...and w/o currently-valid reason.

Q: When did I say I don't like it?
A: Never.

 

All you require is an expressed interest and an Amateur Radio license. That's the only valid reason you need.

 

Except, ARRL has been stating other reasons (and none are currently-valid).

 

The truth is absolute, your opinion is subjective.

 

Your opinion is no more objective than mine.

You stated that just having an expressed interest and an Amateur Radio license is enough to invalidate tens of millions of contracts/agreements/promises... for the only purpose of [blank].

And, according to you, ARRL's suggestion that only outdoor antennas at hams homes will supply trained public service communicators... is not a valid reason. Maybe you and ARRL should get together and decide what the reason is.

 

This is a joke right?

 

I wish it was.