The ARRL confirmed that HR1301, the 'Amateur Radio Parity Act', has died in the Senate. ARRL.org reports the bill will be introduced in some form with the next session of Congress. 73 Chip W1YW
After reading the text I could not see why so many were in favor of it. If it comes back, I hope it is renegotiated. 73, Larry WB8LBZ El Paso, TX
The amended HR1301 bill was written and pushed in haste. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again, and is corrected and thoughtfully written before submission to the next session,IMO.
GOOD!! This was BAD legislation. It was poorly written and gave ALL the power to the HOA. Even more power than many Home Owners' Associations currently have. MY HOA currently has no say in what antennas I set up. All I have to do is to obey county setbacks, and if I put up a tower, run it by the county for concrete and rebar analysis. The HOA has nothing to do with it. Under 'Amateur Radio Parity Act' the HOA would have the power to say NO. Understand that most every piece of land in the West under 5 acres has some sort of HOA, because that is what the local counties dictate. Most of the current HOAs are loosely held groups for water delivery and private road maintenance. But, under this bad legislation they would ALL have the power to eliminate antennas...
Thanks very much for enforcing this; I've been telling people this now for months. I stopped installation of a superstation on my farm in KY for exactly those reasons. Hard enough to negotiate HOA water rights, let alone ADDING something like antennas... 73 Chip W1YW
The posters who say the bill gave all the power to the HOA's either haven't read the bill or don't know how to read a statute. I don't mean to be rude but I've practiced law for over 38 years. In an earlier thread, I posted the exact language out of the bill, and it indicated that all HOA's had to make "reasonable" accommodations for a ham antenna. The term "reasonable" is an objective standard in the law, and would have given us an opportunity to take it to court had the HOA refused to make an accommodation. The statement above that HOA's "would have ALL the power to eliminate antennas" is simply wrong. It wasn't the perfect language we'd like to have but it would have given hams in any neighborhoods a chance to erect something decent, rather than to rely on "stealth" antennas or attic antennas. If we can get better language next session, that would be great. But don't automatically assume it'll even be introduced.
You missed the point, IMO. These (aforementioned) HOA's don't deal with antennas, and now they will have to. Why? Because the HOA contracts all have clauses defining their HOA purpose as XXX"..and other matters that arise." This law, as written, would force the matter of antennas to "arise" and be required for them to be involved. You (as a rural ham)will see huge expenses,because these HOA's won't know diddly about antennas, will hire attorneys to sort it out, pass that costs onto the hams, require third party assessments of near field measurements and RF exposure, pass that cost onto the hams (i.e. make that assessment part of the application), require indemnification against suit for nuisance, RF exposure and alleged endangerment, and pass that cost onto the hams. Previously those HOA's had no responsibilty NOR INTEREST with respect to antennas. This federal law would change that.Now they would be a cynosure for expenses and risk from the antenna issue. Costs passed onto the hams. Whereas before they (the HOA's) had no interest nor involvement with antennas, this federal law would force them to be involved--and pass those costs onto the hams, who previously the HOA's couldn't care less about, nor sought any sort of involvement nor oversight. They would take on risk mandated by Federal law, and pass those costs onto the ham. That's IF the previous wording becomes law. Hence the need for re-wording. 73 Chip W1YW
Some of the proponents haven't read it either. Or if they did, they read part of it or the earlier version before the so-called "compromise". The final "compromise" version gave all power to regulate visibility, aesthetics, placement, appearnace, height, and so on, to the HOAs. (Even if the HOA did not already have such power.) And gave HOA control of ham radio the force of federal regulation. In return, the ARRL backed off of the initial intent and settled for "effective outdoor antenna" which is undefined in the bill. However the CAI position paper from earlier in the year (written by someone with a ham license by the way) explicitely describes what they considered to be "effective outdoor antennas". Those are non-visible wires stapled up to the house eaves; temporary 15 foot poles; and operating from your car. In other words, stealth antennas that we already have. Towers never had a chance. The only thing the bill would have accomplished was that HOAs would be prohibited from outright banning amateur radio operations. The could restrict it all they want but could not ban it totally. This was NOT "PRB-1 for HOAs". Not even close. Maybe initially it was, or was the intent, but once the CAI got involved in and "compromised", it took off in a different direction. Senator Nelson did us a favor by stopping it. Now there is a chance to work up a more thoughtful bill that might actually give hams some say in the "compromise".
Sorry, guys. You're reading things into the language that simple isn't there. I'm not going to debate this with you, you're just wrong about how the law would have affected us. One of the reasons I wanted the law to pass is that I am retiring in just a few weeks. The XYL and I might consider moving, but there are so few places you can move to that don't have HOA's that completely eliminate the ability to have an outside antenna. Had the bill passed (and it a law passes next year), I might have the option.
The average percentage of properties in the US that involve a HOA is about 25% and relatively steady. Currently, aside from not buying into a HOA, hams have several options including mobile/portable/remote operation. And you can petition your HOA to allow an antenna(s). Why wait for government?
I think you are the exception in HOAs. I've lived in 3 HOA subdivisions since 1982, and all had antenna prohibitions in their documents. While not as good as I would have liked it, it would have improved things for most of us.
I would like to see the source of your statistics. In urban areas, virtually 100% of all subdivisions built since the early 1980s have HOAs.
Note that I did not entitle this thread 'Amatur Radio Parity...' as seen on the home page. I take no responsibility for the re-titling.
