Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KK5JY, Jan 17, 2017.

Tags:
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
  1. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Boy howdee!
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    So did it pass yet?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2017
  3. N1FM

    N1FM Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

  4. W4RAV

    W4RAV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Is this bill, like the previous, going to undo contracts people have already signed? I've always disagreed with the move as it's unfair to property owners/managers. You said you wouldn't, on paper, now you want to, with .gov's help.
     
  5. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I think the most correct way to describe it is that it will potentially modify any existing antenna restrictions, and it will render ineffective any existing antenna bans, that appear in CC&R of whatever flavor. It also potentially modifies any existing antenna approval procedures, or adds antenna approval procedures, depending on the existing CC&R content and wording.
     
  6. N3MOW

    N3MOW Ham Member QRZ Page

    OK through the house as expected. Now why, if it is worded the same as before, would Senator Nelson not block it again? We should backup, modify the bill and then proceed. Look at the bill pending in MO. Let's learn from history and not do the same thing again. We will get the same result as before.
     
    W1YW, KK5JY and (deleted member) like this.
  7. N1FM

    N1FM Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Good idea. Nelson is the ranking member of the committee to which the bill was just referred. He's already said he has serious concerns about the way it's written and another approach to this issue could gain his full support. Apparently the lobbyists in charge of shepherding the bill haven't read Nelson's commentary. Teeing up for failure's par for the course.


    Additional Views of Senator Nelson

    "While I appreciate the goals of S. 1685, I write to express my concerns about the approach taken by the legislation. I agree with my colleagues that amateur radio operators provide a key communications service in the nation. In fact, even the National Hurricane Center has acknowledged that amateur radio operators play an important role in collecting and disseminating information in emergency situations. Given this role that they play, I believe it is important for homeowner's and community associations to try to work cooperatively with the amateur radio community to find ways to further the continued availability of these services.

    That said, I have serious concerns about S. 1685. It is one thing to try to find a way to balance the interests of homeowner's associations and amateur radio operators. It is another to preempt the ability of those homeowner's associations to enforce privately-negotiated covenants and restrictions that have been entered into freely by the persons who voluntarily chose to live in those communities. In one fell swoop, this bill would effectively repeal parts of millions of private contracts and agreements relied upon by homeowners around the country.

    I know that the bill's sponsors believe that their legislation continues to preserve a measure of authority for homeowners' and other community associations to protect their interests. And I respect the fact that this legislation takes a far different and more limited approach compared to the Over-the-Air Reception Device installation rules. But by requiring ``reasonable accommodations'' and the ``minimum practicable restriction,'' this bill would tie homeowner's and community associations' hands and leave them open to potentially endless litigation. And there is a fear that the broadly worded language of the bill - that it applies to ``any private land use restriction'' - could be read to preempt a landlord's ability to place limits on a renter.

    It may be that another approach to this issue could gain my full support. But I will look very skeptically on any proposal that would limit the ability of homeowner's and community associations to prohibit the installation of amateur radio equipment in the communities governed by those associations. That includes an approach that would require those associations to allow amateur radio operators to install effective antennas, as some have suggested. What is an effective antenna to one operator is very different to another - and a boundless legal standard like that again threatens these associations with endless litigation."


    https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/senate-report/400/1

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2017
  8. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Or better yet, for those whose state has a bad CC&R problem, go to your state legislature and solve it in your own state, using language that works best for your state. If you get an ARPA-like bill passed in your state, you can have it as a law rather than a federal regulation, which will allow you to enforce it however you want.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2017
    1 person likes this.
  9. N1FM

    N1FM Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yup. And state laws are MUCH easier to modernize and adapt to changing situations than asking congress, the senate, the president, and the federal courts to agree on the the meanings of "reasonable" and "effective" and similar word salad.
     
    KK5JY likes this.
  10. N5PZJ

    N5PZJ Subscriber QRZ Page

    That is letting the camel stick his nose under the tent!!! Once you let the States Regulate a Federal Matter, the Locals tend to get their tentacle's into other parts of the Federal Matter. RFI is where most local agencies want to go, The Petit Letter http://www.arrl.org/files/file/petit.pdf explains this very well. Keep federal things federal and state things state! Amendment X US CONSTITUTION.
     

Share This Page

ad: AlphaRF-1