We lost a co-sponsor on ARPA

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KU0O, Dec 22, 2015.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. KU0O

    KU0O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Looks like congressman Ryan Zinke of Montana has decided to pull his support for ARPA. If you go to opensecrets.org it looks like Real Estate is his fifth largest contributor. However, when you dig into the numbers it looks like the National Assn of Realtors gave him $1,000 based on on the data as of Nov. 16, 2015. A larger contribution could have been made after that date. I guess we will have to wait for the next filings to come out to find out if money was a factor.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00035616&type=I&newmem=N

    While we wait I urge MT hams to contact the congressman's office to find out why he changed his mind and convince him that it is a good idea to support this legislation. His phone number is (202) 225-3211.
     
  2. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, a DISTANT fifth.

    I'm sure he'll depreciate being called to support legislation to force HOAs and neighbors to accept antennas for the ham radio HOBBY.
     
    N7ZAL likes this.
  3. WA3VJB

    WA3VJB Ham Member QRZ Page

    I've actually talked with Rep. Zinke (R-Montana) a few times. The first time was right after the guy in the gyrocopter landed on the West Front Lawn of the US Capitol. Turns out Zinke, who was once a Navy SEAL, also commanded military drones during his time serving in the Armed Forces. You can look up his biography. My impression of him is an intelligent, articulate, open-minded congressional statesman who may have some very valid reasons for withdrawing as a co-sponsor from this proposed legislation. That doesn't mean he wouldn't vote for it if the bill moves ahead. Sure, call his office, talk with constituent services, and perhaps learn directly why he decided against endorsing this idea.
     
  4. NC5P

    NC5P Ham Member QRZ Page

    This legislation isn't any different than current law that requires them to allow TV antennas. They have not destroyed property values. The HOA here requires they be installed in the roof parapet areas and aren't even visible from the street or parking lots. The "law" doesn't require them to allow installation anywhere on the housing units, just reasonable accommodation which they do. There is no reason why amateur antennas of tasteful design cannot be installed in much the same way. Stop listening to these paranoid, nail biting investors who think the sky is falling on their real estate holdings. I'm sorry that congressman is listening to them.
     
    N2EY likes this.
  5. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Apples and rutabagas. Again, OTARD was instituted to level the playing field between cable, satellite, and terrestrial broadcast. It was necessary. It was a side benefit that users had more choices of the supplier (one of them is FREE).

    OTOH, HR1301/S1685 was proposed to force HOAs and your neighbors to accept antennas for an infinitesimal minority of hams' HOBBY. Further, while OTARD specified antenna sized, HR1301/S1685 uses only ambiguous "reasonable" wording.

    And, while OTARD necessitates an antenna mounted on/near the home, hams have options. They can currently use mobile, portable, club, and/or remote stations to use their hobby. The first two enable the ham to respond AT a disaster site (often much-needed). The latter allows the ham to communicate from his living room and NOT compromise his/her HOA contract/agreement/whatever. In fact, since there would be ZERO RFI, the ham's neighbors won't even know if/when he's on the air.

    The pushers of HR1301/S1685 have yet to show any currently-valid reason(s) for stepping on legal private contracts. Perhaps Congressman Zinke has also figured that out.
     
    AC7DX, W4RAV, W0HC and 1 other person like this.
  6. K4JDH

    K4JDH Ham Member QRZ Page

    I wish I could vote for Zinke.
     
    AC7DX and WA7PRC like this.
  7. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I wish I could vote twice for those who support the measure.

    However, as rehashed here a lot of times, this measure is a drop in the bucket when the real issue is allowing land owners to file property use restrictions for no reason anyone can think of.

    'Rules are substitute for thought' is an appropriate description for all of this.
     
    KD8EDC likes this.
  8. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    (deleted)
     
  9. NC5P

    NC5P Ham Member QRZ Page

    You think we can just run our station off the internet? Now I've played with hotspots but they are not a replacement for over the air radio. I know you investors view our "HOBBY" as a risky liability to your property holdings' value but for us working class stiffs it's an escape from the frustrations of the day. From the working man's point of view, a home is a place to live, not a hedge fund. There should be signs of life like kids playing ball, growing gardens, cook outs, and even birthday parties in the back yard. Our class doesn't want trash, cars on blocks, weeds, or falling down eyesores. Those types of HOA rules we can support. We don't mind however people pursuing their passions. It's only the absent investors who object to our activities. Ham radio for many of us is a vertical in the back yard, a wire between the willow tree and the back porch, or a ringo ranger over the patio. I will never be able to afford a tower with an HF beam on top. We are not demanding that, just to be able to put a tasteful simple radiator where it won't detract from the image of the homes. Why should the small inconspicuous antennas be outlawed because of paranoid investors and the horrible lawyers they hire to enforce these draconian edicts? I will never understand the thinking rationale of the Investor Class.
     
    W7JZE, N2EY and KU0O like this.
  10. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    You assume a lot (incorrectly) about me.
     

Share This Page