HamRadioNow: It Ain't Parity Until WE Say It's Parity

Prior to the above post, nothing was said (or even hinted) about negligence. Thus yet again, the legislation supporters followers have decided to:

(move the goalpost)

 

The visual aids to which you are having to resort should tell you something about the quality of the arguments you are trying to rebut.

 

I'm used to it. I have a younger brother who is ALWAYS right and everyone else is ALWAYS wrong. He uses circular logic and moves the goal posts. When one doesn't work, he switches to the other, et cetera. Until I walk away, it never ends.

 

If ARPA passes, and these folks take their "arguments" to court against their CAs, it will be fun reading indeed.

 

I don't take this matter as being fun/funny. To me, it's serious and sad.

 

I understand. I guess I'd rather laugh at life's absurdities than be sad about them.

 

Moving the goalposts? The argument has been that certain things cannot be signed away...as much as some people with very limited view points might not be able to see. Whether it's human rights, negligence, or the right to apply a reasonable antenna. Unfortunately their are a number of hams out there totally devoid of the concept of figurative examples. All they know is that "YOU SIGNED AN AGREEMENT". Wow...what an astute viewpoint! Guess what?.... not all agreements are binding under our constitution. Horrors if this rocks your boat. Please ignore this observation since it is beyond your understanding. You must not have been paying attention to recent legislation in other areas. Please feel free to go back and stick your heads in the sand. Don't worry....you won't be missed.

There are other hams out there who feel that any agreement short of allowing them to install whatever they please is a sell out. Luckily there are saner heads out there....because I am appalled at the opinions of licensed hams out there on this simple little matter.....people should be able to come to an agreement on what a non offensive antenna might be.....it may vary from one area to another based on limitations of property...but they should be able to come to an agreement.

This long thread has definitely demonstrated to me that a ham radio license is no indication of reasoning capabilities. The mouth frothers have not prevented this legislation from getting to its current location. Lets just wait and see what happens. If people didn't take this issue to court prior to this legislation I see no reason for a sudden onslaught of lawsuits. People do not relish in taking things to court unless someone is being unreasonable. This legislation is aimed at creating discussion and agreement. Those that ignore such discussion and choose to dictate ultimatums deserve whatever comes their way as a result. Whichever side they stand on.

 

Thanks for your [incorrect] opinions...
...and have a nice day.

 

The flaws in your statements above are both numerous and obvious:
1. It's nonsensical to think the absence of litigation is an indicator of the future. For one reason, there is presently no basis for any litigation. Second, the ARPA would create a situation not presently existing, that being subjective guidelines for determination of "reasonable".

2. Legislation is never intended to "create discussion". Certainly not this one.

3. The irony of you implying failure to "discuss" rather than "dictate" deserves whatever... is monumentally silly given how you and others believe HOAs and CAs are dictatorial. Yet when it suits your purpose, you argue that they will somehow magically transform into cooperative allies in a fight to erect antennas.

If you want to be taken seriously, keep trying.

 

I am starting to wonder if everything done by the bill's authors, the bill included, is just to generate visibility. After all, their participation rate among their target audience is poor.

 

I think the vast majority of people who actually have a life outside ham radio including HOA residents don't know this exists. If they did, it's likely they would be against anything which detracts in any way from their environment including any type of antenna. As to their target audience, it creates the appearance of doing something regardless of how misguided.

To them, the target audience, even the wrong thing is preferable to nothing. We see that here repeatedly. Unfortunately, for HOA resident hams, the silence among that group is astonishing. I think they recognize this is the wrong thing destined only to hurt rather than help.

 

The flaws in your response are both numerous and obvious. As is most typical in this forum you have twisted words.

So ongoing cases of litigation regarding antennas don't exist today? Gee....really? My references toward litigation was a response to someone claiming litigation would expand if parity is passed. I think this statement was unsupportable. That's all I was saying.

Exactly....that is why many hams support it.

I beg to differ.....currently nothing forces an HOA to discuss resident's requests....short of litigation. That should be corrected.....given a reasonable HOA board discussions do take place in a great number of instances. Kudos to reasonable residents and HOA boards who work together. However, nothing forces an HOA to defend it's "NO ANTENNA PERIOD" policy. This should be corrected.

As an example....there is currently a homeowner in Colorado who has been asked to remove lawn and patio decorations by his HOA. In the absence of reasonable discussion the HOA has merely asked the homeowner to remove them all. That's the easy way out for an HOA board.....much easier than applying what the residents may view as reasonable. I recall being on our HOA board when the big decision was "annual" or "perennial" flowers in our entry median. You would not believe how this hog tied the board....so no decision was made and our welcome median went to weeds. A few years later interested residents took over the median and the decision was left to the residents......the people taking care of the median. That's where it belonged....with the residents. It's much too easy for a board to "just say no".

This is not to imply that there is a one size fits all response. However, there should be a size that fits the residents of the HOA.

 

I only responded. That you accuse me of twisting your words indicates only that you either didn't intend to say what you said or regret saying it.

As to your only substantive comment, HOA covenants generally already contain processes to obtain modifications to the rules. Including antennas. The danger here is that this farce of a 'fix' doesn't so much replicate existing procedures to obtain permission but rather creates more onerous rules, procedures and conditions. As subject matter experts have already stated this, it's a wonder anyone still supports something clearly not constructive.

I understand your opinion may differ from that of objective experts but I don't get why you think your judgment is superior.

Noticeably absent here is any effort by you or your 'side' to contradict the judgment of the expert lawyers. Absent a rational response, your side appears to rest its argument on obstinence.

 

Expert lawyers are a dime a dozen after the hammer comes down. Yes I am wary of "expert lawyers".
Rational response is in the eye of the beholder.
Quite often "obstinence" is responsible for change.

And I make no superior judgement other than HOAs do not automatically make good or reasonable judgements on behalf of their residents. This is what I would like to see changed...whether it applies to how I landscape my front yard or whether or not I am allowed to install a mutually acceptable and legal antenna. It is a very general issue actually. Parity is a step in the right direction IMO. You may disagree. You may follow the mantra of "EXPERT LEGAL OPINION". Just remember that roughly 50% of Expert Legal Opinion is wrong on almost every legal issue.

 

Proving the theory that when someone can't contradict an argument, they either dismiss it (as seen above) or attack the messenger ( as seen above attacking the subject matter experts).

And if HOAs don't make reasonable judgments now, this bill will serve only to exacerbate that problem. Nothing in it can change judgment calls. So we are back to the beginning - ARPA can only hurt.