ARRL Reaches Agreement with Community Associations Institute on Parity Act

This is not a bad compromise. It appears to deny HOAs the ability to impose absolute bans on Amateur Radio antennas--as many now do.

After an operator submits an application, architectural reviewers decide if it is reasonable. I don't see much difference in this compromise and the original proposal.

I have been the architectural reviewer for a 260-lot subdivision for the past six years. Decisions about what is reasonable depend on the characteristics of the lot where the installation is proposed.

For antennas--in some cases, a low-profile wire is appropriate and in others, a mast or tower might be appropriate.

In Florida, there are channels to appeal an unreasonable decision by architectural reviewer(s). The language in this compromise increases the chances of an operator receiving a fair decision.

If this compromise makes it through the legislative process and into reality, hams will be much better off compared to the way things are now.

While not an ideal outcome, it is probably the best that can be expected.

 

Now let's get ARRL and CAI to run with this baby and get it to the President's Desk ASAP, with both sides in agreement, there can not be any opposition, Time for the IANAL crowd to defer and give it a rest, let the
Bill proceed, Glad to get a compromise, and Thanks ARRL and CAI for working on this.

It is not perfect. GIT er DONE. NO EXCUSES.

 

Then why is this needed at all, why is PRB-1 not sufficient?

Don't answer, please.

 

Let me see if I have this right. Even though it's not perfect, above all the other 15K pieces of legislation waiting to be acted upon, this legislation should be acted upon before ALL other pieces of legislation. And, it's time for those not in lock-step with it to shut the hell up.

 

PRB-1 only applies to Municipal zoning codes not homeowners associations, this is a big step it's not perfect but there were many man-hours put into it. We can thank a couple of people on Capitol Hill who have really helped get it this far.
I think the ARRL will be coming out with the whole story on this shortly, outlining all the battles they had. And provid an overview on the two legislators on Capitol Hill that basically told the homeowners group that they had to come back in and deal with the league, or we would have never got this far.

 

YOU ARE KIDDING RIGHT

 

I wonder how many HOAs consider a 70 ft tower with an HF log periodic on top to be
"consistent with the aesthetics and physical characteristics of land and structures in community associations."

 

TINLA and the usual disclaimers, Stand alone CCRs will be difficult for individuals to bring legal action for injunctive relief since the enforcement will have to depend on legislative intent. MY OPINION is that without an applicable HOA, stand alone CCRs will be difficult to enforce since the Act in Section 3 (a) prohibits the application to amateur stations of any private land restrictions, including a restrictive covenant, that-

(1) on its face or as applied, precludes communications in an amateur radio service.
(2) fails to permit a licensee in an amateur radio service to install and maintain an effective out
door antenna on property under the exclusive use or control of the licensee; or
(3) does not constitute the minimum practicable restriction on such communications to accomplish
the lawful purposes of a community association seeking to enforce such restriction.

Covering ANY land restriction brings every Antenna Restriction into play. The fact that the Amateur Radio Service is specified allows the Prohibition to stand only for those Stations in the Amateur Service and rule out any other service such as business, CB, GMRS, MARINE or Broadcast to get their nose under the tent!!

Since it says ANY, that alone covers a lot of territory and the OR between Paragraphs 2 and 3 opens up the removal of restrictions since Paragraph 3 only seeks to enforce "the lawful purposes of a community association. Private CCRs seem to be left with an open door to banishment from enforcement. No HOA, well, so sorry, it takes (an active) "Community Association" to enforce the restrictions. Paragraph 2 covers the enabling clause which allows for a the restriction's barrier to enforcement.

IMHO, this is a Compromise which should be carried forward into law, will it be tweaked? Possibly, but as written it preserves the HOA as the defender of the Architectural Standards, No HOA, well, best of luck enforcing the prohibition.

 

For all practical purposes, this legislative session ends at the end of August. So there really is not much time to get it passed this year.

 

Time is of the essence.

 

Am I to understand that stealth antennas would be held in violation of FCC R&R's?

 

So here we go, antennas allowed with permission, permission that will never be granted...been there done that....

 

Reasonable may be defined by the fiction of the "average" ham antenna. That provides
an entrée to negotiations. Reasonable is not the tallest antenna, nor is it the shortest.
There are many nuances applicable to these machinations. But in the end, an array of "reasonable"
choices by formula may lead to acceptable antennas in pathological situations.

In any negotiation, paper is the substance that best covers one's mule (sic). And, also,
by and large the loud angry person loses in any disciplined forum.

In court, one party shows up with contrived data manufactured for an agenda involving
putting the skids under the Federal law. The opposing party evinces charts, diagrams, and
other objective items that are agenda-independent. Who wins? Or, more likely, who would you
bet wins? (Keeping in mind juries and judges often surprise.)

 

Interesting that you must report your antenna to your HOA, even if they have no rules preventing it.

 

Don't prevent it? Then not covered!!! No permission needed if no rules against!!