Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

Where there should be little if any further debate. It's the same bill that passed a House Floor vote last year. It's just a matter of getting it on the docket; with Greg Walden as Chair it shouldn't be a problem. . .

 

Why does MO need a state based Parity Act?

 

Have you considered what might happen if your state passes a law that conflicts with a new federal law?

 

This is a BAD law. Not all HOAs prohibit or control antennas. THIS bill would give ALL HOAs the power to control antennas and towers. For example, my HOA in WA state has over 1000 lots and does not control antennas. Tower installations have to have building permits. That is it. This bad bill would give my HOA power over my current and future antenna placement and installation. Do not support this bill!

 

Yeah, you're absolutely right. So how do we get the lobbyists away from the lawmakers? I understand HP Maxim was a military contractor (silencers) like his father before him (Maxim machine gun) and his uncle Hudson (Maxim-Schupphaus Smokeless Powder) but aren't there enough wackers in amateur radio already -- and bearing in mind it didn't start out that way at all, do we really want to further "embed" our hobby with .gov interests?

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hudson-Maxim#ref275688
https://www.britannica.com/technology/Maxim-machine-gun
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hiram-Percy-Maxim

 

Yay. I popped a bowl of popcorn just in time for this thread.

 

Lather
Rinse
Repeat

 

At this point, I think our best option is, "Dear Congressperson, as an amateur radio operator, I would like to ask you to PLEASE OPPOSE HR-555, which my own legislative advocacy group has introduced in the House..."

 

We have a "kardashian blocker app" which is great and made the internet usable again. Anyone care to write a web browser blocker for this subject?

 

Yes it would be nice to have parity act pass both houses BUT as we all know there is NO NICE in politics. All it will take is one nay from the other isle unless it comes to full floor vote and it's dead. With the bitterness that is currently extent don't count on it going anywhere any time soon; if it does pass it will be a nice surprise.KD2GFO

 

It doesn't require them to. If an HOA doesn't have antenna restrictions now it chose not to. How does this REQUIRE HOAs to enact antenna restrictions, or make it easier to do so?

Your contract probably states (or should state) no antenna restrictions. If they don't restrict, and it doesn't have that language in it you should get it codified in the contract, or an addendum to it.

 

The language is quite clear that the FCC's new regulation must include a requirement that the licensee both notify and seek approval from their "community association" if it exists. It doesn't matter if your covenants don't occupy the subject of antennas at all. The bill would require FCC to require you to talk to your HOA or CA and get their approval prior to outdoor construction of an antenna.

And I quote from ARRL's own website:

"(3)(b) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS — In amending its rules as required by subsection (a), the Commission shall — (1) require any licensee in an amateur radio service to notify and obtain prior approval from a community association, if any, concerning installation of an outdoor antenna..."​

It doesn't say "if your covenant or HOA bylaws restrict antenna installation..." It says that the FCC must require you to both notify and obtain prior approval from the CA concerning installation of an outdoor antenna. Period. The fact that your covenant doesn't cover antennas is irrelevant under the current language of the bill.

That is why this is a bad bill.

 

Understand. But if an HOA contract codifies the fact that there are no antenna restrictions, then they cannot prevent someone from putting it up. Notify -- yes. But include a copy of the contract language stating no restrictions. The fact the contract allows for no restrictions is not modified by the legislation.

It has to be either in the contract, or in an addendum, prior to the notification. They could not deny approval, because you already have explicit approval.

 

And that's exactly the problem, because the bill requires FCC to require you to get approval from the HOA whether they can or not.

Look at the language. It's very clear and rigid. The FCC has to put language in the implementing regulation that requires you to get approval from the HOA, no exceptions. If they can or not, or if the covenant doesn't occupy antennas or not, or whether you have a variance or even if your covenant says, "the landowner has unrestricted rights to erect any and all antenna structures desired" as part of the deed closing. It doesn't matter. The language of the bill would require FCC to require you to get the HOA approval, if one exists. The character of the HOA or the contract language doesn't matter -- remember, this bill is intended to preempt private contract language, so it can do so both ways. It can (and does) override your lack of antenna restrictions and adds an approval and notification requirement to you, regardless of what your HOA arrangement was prior to the regulation.

 

Yes -- it preempts specifically language that prevents the homeowner from installing an antenna. It does not nullify any language that permits an antenna.

I understand where it could get "fuzzy" -- my interpretation is any dispute arising from this would go to either arbitration or court. I believe the existing "agreement" (contract that specifically permits antenna installation) would not be vacated simply because a notification is required.

I'll do some homework. . .