Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

Not correct. The wording does not constrain to that subset. It applies to all HOA's that have a "and other matters that arise " clause, which is almost all of the other HOA's, which typically deal with snow removal, water rights, trash, road leveling, removal of dead wildlife, and so on. So the HOA that requires you to pick up road kill will now decide your antenna fate. To wit: with this new law, dealing with ham antennas wll be a 'matter that arises'.

We've already been through this with HR1301's amendment. The wording is fatal. Fix the wording to reflect the intent.

 

We do not need any more federal intervention into this hobby. If you want to partake in amateur radio and you are going to buy
a house/property just make sure it is NOT in a restricted HOA/community.
Eventually this will lead to all amateurs wanting to have a station to obtain a construction permit, needing FCC approval before even
attempting to put up an antenna ---ANYWHERE...

 

Correct. If you lie down with dogs, you will get fleas.

http://imgur.com/a/V5y4X

 

So riddle me this..

If you're required to get "HOA Approval" then it must be apparent the HOA has "written standards."

If no antenna restrictions exists, then this is apparent by the lack of any existing and written "Antenna Standards"

The bill only applies to HOA properties with land use restrictions which serves to restrict antennas installations.

No where in this bill does it state that this bill applies to HOAs regardless if they should have any antenna restrictions or not.

If they do, then they are required to publish a written set of guidelines.

If they don't, then it serves no purpose to seek approval because you can't approve anything if there's no written criteria established for the approval process to take place.

The "HOA Approval" process is based strictly on the premise the stations antenna is installed according the HOAs written standards and ONLY thier written standards and absolutely nothing else.

When there are no written standards to follow, then obviously no antenna restrictions exist.

Therefore in cases where no antenna restrictions exist, no HOA approval is required, because you are not restricted from installing any antennas in the first place.

The bill addresses antenna restrictions at HOA's, "IF ANY" should exist.

Those are the two magic words you are looking for.

 

That's where you're wrong, and everything that follows is logical, but when you start with a wrong statement and draw logical conclusions, the conclusions may be wrong.

If a schoolteacher requires a note from a parent before allowing a student on a field trip, does it mean it's only required for kids whose parents have a written field trip policy?

The FCC would require an approval from a HOA before allowing an antenna to be set up. Period.

 

Prove it.. Period.

Show me the exact wording where it specifically says the "FCC" is required to seek HOA approval, before a ham can install an antenna at the HOA anywhere in this bill?

What it says is the H.A.M. ( not the F.C.C.) is required to seek approval from the HOA.

This is also assuming they have written standards for the installation of antenna's at the HOA that are required to be followed.

The written standards are part of the HOA approval process. Can't "approve" anything without them. If they don't have any written standards to follow... then they don't have any required standards to follow!

 

Yes. That is a very real danger.

Not only that, but ARPA is just a copy-and-paste of PRB-1, applied to private contracts. PRB-1, on its own, has been anything but a "success":

http://www.antennazoning.com/main/page_amateur_radio_legal_library.html

http://www.kd0s.com/PRBcaseLaw.doc

If that's the kind of "success" that ARPA is going to bring to the hobby, then we don't need it. If you include the very real danger of the ARPA (albeit unintentionally) causing a "viral" attachment to CC&Rs that currently don't occupy the subject of amateur antennas, as W1YW described, there is the real potential that the ARPA will result in fewer hams being able to have outdoor antennas than have them today. Do you all really want to roll those dice??

 

I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment.

If the legislation passes this time around and if in fact the language in the bill is being interpreted correctly and if in fact it would be a requirement for a ham living in a HOA/CC&R restricted subdivision to have to notify the HOA of a stealth antenna already up or before putting a new antenna, if the ham did not do so would he be violating a new rule in part 97 that stems from the law and could he get cited by the FCC?

Could we be opening a new can of worms?

 

You must be new here.

Yes, what you describe is a real danger, and many people are concerned about exactly that, up to and including people on the ARRL board of directors.

 

This is the part that gets me. Even if @KC8VWM is correct about the intent of the bill, and perhaps even about the overall effect of the bill, there was absolutely nothing stopping ARRL from fixing the wording of (3)(b)(1) to make it clear that KC8VWM's interpretation was the correct one. For reasons that nobody seems to understand, they not only failed to do that, but they insist on reintroducing the bill without such a fix. The "fix" would do nothing to harm the effect of the bill, yet it could easily save countless dollars of court costs and litigation time down the road that can result from vague or inconsistent language in the bill.

 

I would look at OTARD to see how the FCC has handled these "apparent violation" cases at HOAs in the past.

In many of these cases the FCC have basically told HOAs to pound sand.

I think in the "real world" it would be difficult for the HOA to prove a violation of the HOA standards occurred, if they have provided you with all the required approval to install the antenna in the first place. That would make themselves look kinda silly before the FCC wouldn't it?

I think once the antenna is up and approved, I bet their mindset becomes the same toward ham antennas as with satellite dishes and OTARD antenna's.

IE...

" Yeah we don't like them, but there's nothing we can do, so we don't care anymore. - Hey look over there! It's a blade of grass that's 1" taller than they are allowed! Let's get that guy!"

Of course, this example Is just my lame attempt at injecting some humor.

 

OTARD doesn't require notification or approval of your landlord, HOA, CA, etc. Ever.

Oh, I dunno, the municipalities have provided all kinds of PRB-1 case law for the last 30y that the HOAs can use for inspiration. Attorneys generally "eat what they kill," and they can get very creative when their mortgage comes due every month.

 

If passed as written, HR555 will make incentive licensing --40 years ago--look like a mere joke between friends....

We will also be the laughing stock of the international community for allowing US amateur radio operations to be determined by private contracts that normally deal with road kill; water rights; paving; trash; and 3 wire barbed fence installations, but by law must, as the 'matter arose' via Federal law, MUST include antennas and vetting therein.

Huzzah!...and Boy Howdy!

Maybe we should all move to Nauru.

 

Never suggested you had to notify HOAs about OTARD antennas.

Making the point how HOAs vs. FCC have "handled" the antenna matter at HOAs in the past.

Also PRB-1 requires you to deal with a bureaucratic government political organization complete with layers of city employees and government officials.

It's an entirely different set of dynamics you are dealing with when compared to "Mary, the HOA president who lives down the street and wears pink slippers" at the HOA.

 

Right, and that's why it's a bad comparison. If you want an OTARD antenna, you just put it up. The landlord is stuck with it. He/she doesn't approve it, or even have a right to notification. You just put it up. The current language of the ARPA will require the CC&R-restricted ham to get approval from his HOA, which means he could be turned down based upon the magnitude of his intended installation.

No it's not. The PRB-1 cases continue to this day, and some hams continue to lose them.

Yep, which just the way that CC&R-restricted hams will have to get approval from their local bureaucracy to do their own installations under ARPA regulations. Boards, approvals, documentation, variances, vague "reasonability" standards, etc. Same deal, different place.

Mary painting her fence pink is exactly the same kind of "aesthetic" issue that has the HOAs wearing war-paint over this issue. They won't want your antenna tower any more than they want Mary's pink fence, any more than the people in six-land and four-land big cities want radio towers permitted under the city zoning ordinances.

So to summarize: OTARD is apples v. oranges, but PRB-1 and pink fences are a very good comparison. So you have skillfully made my point for me.