Donations needed for Amateur Radio Antenna Defense Foundation

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by N6VI, Apr 19, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-rl
ad: l-gcopper
ad: l-Waters
ad: L-rfparts
ad: Subscribe
ad: l-innov
  1. N6VI

    N6VI Ham Member QRZ Page

    Radio Amateurs involved in the ongoing struggle to secure reasonable accommodation for Ham antennas have formed a new California public-benefit corporation to receive tax-deductible donations from those wishing help support litigation against local jurisdictions that ignore federal and state preemption statutes.

    Chief Financial Officer Marty Woll N6VI announced at last weekend’s International DX Convention in Visalia, CA that the Amateur Radio Antenna Defense Foundation, or ARADF, has just been approved by the Internal Revenue Service as a public charity under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. “Amateurs seeking to install antennas and support structures may jump through local regulatory hoops, sometimes paying significant fees in the process, only to be turned down or to be burdened with severe restrictions that preclude effective communication”, said Woll. “Turning to the courts can be prohibitively costly for the Ham, while cities have taxpayer-funded attorneys on staff, giving them the upper hand. The goal of ARADF is to help level the playing field with financial assistance that will allow deserving antenna lawsuits to go forward.”

    ARRL also has a committee that has helped fund antenna litigation around the country, but it focuses primarily on cases that have reached the appellate level. ARADF will concentrate on lower-court cases and is supportive of but not affiliated with the American Radio Relay League.

    ARADF’s Board of Directors includes Woll, Volunteer Counsel Leonard Shaffer WA6QHD, former ARRL Southwestern Division Director Art Goddard W6XD, and U.C. San Diego adjunct professor Gayle Olson K6GO. All directors of the Foundation serve without compensation.

    Tax-deductible contributions can be made payable to Amateur Radio Antenna Defense Foundation and mailed to ARADF, P.O. Box 5434, Chatsworth, CA 91313-5434. Questions may be directed to
    ARADF@SOCAL.RR.COM. A Web site is under construction.
  2. AC8EO

    AC8EO Ham Member QRZ Page

    Move or buy a shack out in the country...
  3. K6FI

    K6FI Ham Member QRZ Page

    That was helpful. Not everyone buy a home based on antenna restrictions or not. So comeback to reality Mark.
  4. K6FAF

    K6FAF Guest

    This certainly is a good thing for all the hams in more populated areas than where we are. However, we still had our problems, limitations to the hight, placement, blueprints etc.; and we are outside city limits, in the County!!

    This is a good thing to be there to help, no doubt.

    Yeah, you can buy 5 acres in the country, no doubt, if you want to drive 50 +50 miles a day from home to work..... those are the distances from Riverside to here...
  5. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    So does Congress......
  6. N5TGL

    N5TGL XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    If it was that simple, we'd all be doing that.
  7. AA1MN

    AA1MN Ham Member QRZ Page

    This was also helpful. But not everyone enjoys viewing unsightly amateur radio antennas, towers, or both in their neighborhood - in fact, some of us, myself included, consider them aesthetically unappealling (that's means 'eyesore'). So come back to reality yourself, Dwayne.

  8. W5HTW

    W5HTW Ham Member QRZ Page

    The only way a tower and beam would be aesthetically pleasing would be to the ham who owns one. The neighbors, though, who bought into that HOA hoping it would continue to be aesthetically pleasing, would likely be very disconcerted.

    I just can't believe hams are so selfish that they want exemptions for their hobby, but they would sure gripe is the guy next door was raising goats as his hobby. Or building and testing hot rod engines. HOA's have restrictions to try to please the residents -- the majority of the residents, not one single resident. They are created by a group, agreed upon by a group, and followed by the group. That is democracy at work. You do have a choice; follow the rules or move.

    While I live in the country now, with no restrictions, that has not always been true. During the times I lived under restrictions, I operated mobile, even took the antenna off the car when I wasn't using it, so it would not be obtrusive.

    I agree, if amateur radio is the important thing in your life, you need to avoid living in places it is restricted. If you can't, then you need to find other ways to enjoy the hobby, such as mobile, portable in the mountains, at a club station, or using indoor antennas for VHF. I do not believe that by nature of our hobby we are exempted from the rules that apply to the general citizenship.

  9. K6FI

    K6FI Ham Member QRZ Page

    Nice to have a Ham Radio Operator who does not like aesthetically unappealing antennas in our mist.
  10. N8YX

    N8YX Ham Member QRZ Page

    One man's meat is another man's poison.

    The HOA-bound ham also has as a possible option the use of 'stealth' antennas...6BTVs hidden in flagpoles, VHF/UHF verticals disguised as soil-stack pipes, rooftop VHF/UHF log periodics which resemble TV antennas. There are workable alternatives to a large tower.
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2010
  11. G4ILO

    G4ILO Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wow, an opinion about antennas that considers the neighbours' point of view. I never expected to find that on!

    I totally agree with you, Ed. Your last paragraph is spot on.
  12. WA4OTD

    WA4OTD XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I'm with you Ed. As much as I would like to put up a tower and beam I would not want my neighbors to put one up!

  13. W5IQJ

    W5IQJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    While I am in agreement with keeping the neighborhood in which one lives neat and in a manner which is generally pleasing to most of the neighbors, I do not think anyone has the right to judge what's acceptable based solely on their point of view. Most neighbors complain about something just "because it gives them something to do". I can show you countless examples in the area where I live where people don't keep their houses and yards in a condition which is acceptable to me. Because I would choose to install a tower and beam, that does not give the neighbors any more credence to their belief that it's not acceptable to them just because"they don't like it" (HOA covenants and safety issues not withstanding).

    I agree that if a HAM moves into a neighborhood which has antenna restrictions already in place, then that HAM should abide by the rules or move to an area where those restrictions aren't an issue. If however, they move to a neighborhood where the neighbors just don't like antennas, that's too bad. If my installation is neat (I realize 'neat' is subjective) and isn't a danger to life or property, then the neighbors will just have to get used to it, and I will fight to the finish to use my property as I see fit within the bounds of safety.

    I'm all for an antenna defense foundation to fight the absurd objections of neighbors who just don't like antennas and feel they have to impose their sense of aesthetics on others.
  14. K4EEZ

    K4EEZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wheres the justice ???
    this line says it all and quote "wishing help support litigation against Ignore federal and state preemption statutes." :confused:
  15. NN3W

    NN3W Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't think the issue of HOA's is really the focus here. Its the exaples of San Diego and Palmdale which are the focii. Both cities have attempted to enact legislation which would effectively ban amateur radio antennas. This is not part of an HOA, but part of a city-wide effort.

    The example in San Diego is particularly egregious which would limit you to about 10 feet of antenna and if you wanted anything more than that (especially if you lived west of Interstate 5), you'd have to have a public hearing, put up close to $10,000 in study fees (which is open ended and may go up from there), and then pray that you don't have a neighbor who throws a fit and "knows" somebody.

    Thats where the problem exists.
  16. NN3W

    NN3W Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, the litigation is to overturn absurd and burdensome ordinances (like San Diego and Palmdale) which patently ignore the FCC's mandate. This is not an HOA issue.
  17. AA4HA

    AA4HA Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I agree, there are some really tacky looking installations, overloaded towers with antennas stacked three deep, coax flapping in the wind and booms that extend well over their property line and over a neighbors yard.

    I "like" antennas but there are some sites that just make me shudder. If they were my neighbor I would throw a fit, even if it was not in an HOA restricted tract of land.

    This will upset some folks but here are a few things that any municipality could require;

    1. A documented RF exposure report, demonstrating that the general public or neighboring properties are not exposed to any levels greater than the minimum threshold when the station is operating at maximum power.

    2. That no part of an antenna structure will impinge upon areas where the general public or across any neighboring properties if the structure falls over. (this will limit hams to putting antennas in the middle of their property and limit the total height to less than the distance to the nearest property boundary.

    3. That all tower structures and antennas are documented to be in compliance with the latest revision of ANSI 222. (P.E. stamped analysis) This includes loading calculations for all antennas, feed-lines and accessories for maximum elevated winds.

    4. That all structures be maintained in a clean and painted condition with annual inspection by the local code enforcement entity.

    5. All antenna towers will be equipped with climb-guards and a fenced perimeter to limit public access.

    6. Increased liability insurance.

    If you look at these requirements you would think them as reasonable for a commercial installation. We build structures in residential neighborhoods but many think they can install any old rusty tower with 1500 pounds of teetering hardware up in the air and that it is our god-given "right".

    We have an obligation to install equipment in a responsible manner with as much respect to the mores of the surrounding community.

    Ref: Mores: Latin term for societal norms, customs, virtues or values. Mores derive from the established practices of a society rather than its written laws.

    Tisha Hayes, AA4HA
  18. KD6TR

    KD6TR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Why should this be such a problem? Here in California there is a law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor requiring localities to allow Ham antennas as per PRB-1. Why not just put the darn thing up. Before a local authority can take action to have it removed, they must appear in court and obtain a court order. Wouldn't simply showing up and waving a copy of the legislation in their face put an end to the entire problem?
  19. K1VR

    K1VR Ham Member QRZ Page

    A Worthy Cause

    I know the people and the purposes they seek to promote. This is a worthy cause and deserves financial support.

    Fred K1VR
  20. NN3W

    NN3W Ham Member QRZ Page

    No. Go look at the history behind the ordinances in San Diego and Palmdale. They don't care.

    They'd rather throw their weight around and assume that the amateur will knuckle under.

    Big guy v. little guy litigation strategy.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page