ARLB011 Amateur Radio Parity Act Language Inserted in National Defense Authorization Act

Its NOT JUST HOA's.

The law applied to ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS. That includes CA's that pick the roadkill off the road; mend fences; plow driveways; pick up the garbage; and so on.

NOT JUST the HOA subset of CA's that proscribe antennas...

That "other matters that arise" clause is the issue.

 

Can we finally drop all these bogus interpretations of HR555?

IT DOES NOT SAY "EFFICIENT ANTENNA".

IT DOES NOT SAY "REASONABLE ANTENNA".

It says "effective outdoor antenna".

THAT MEANS an antenna --A SINGLE ANTENNA--that meets the mission of Part 97. Period.

 

Charles,

You have no factual basis upon which to pose this opinion.

Someone may argue that your antenna poses a health hazard that fails the FCC requirement on RF exposure. They may argue that you will have to put a fence around the area. They may argue that you will have to post signs warning of RF HAZARD. They may argue that you cannot dig up your lawn to bury the coax. They may argue that the coax is radiating and thus outside the grant. They may argue that your "classic wire antenna" is not an enhancement of the radio art and thus is a lateral piece of hardware to the Part 97 mission.

Why do you make such an assumption?

CA's will NOT make decisions on what antenna(s) are acceptable. They will have an 'expert report' provided by (purchased by) their lawyer(s) that will have a list of acceptable antennas, for a given CA situation. THAT will be the standard of practice, because it prevents any further litigation from those (other neighbors) who want to sue the CA over your antenna installation.

Those who think that they can come up with an antenna and apply to the CA will be very much freaked out to see the answer is cut and dry and defined by ANTENNA PROFESSIONALS who sell a document to CA's through lawyers (for example). NO CA will be willing to risk further litigation on a federal law, by making individual decisions.

Will the ARRL be able to muster its OWN such document for the hams? I doubt they will, because by defining WHAT ANTENNAS YOU CAN ASK FOR, the ARRL will be showing EXACTLY what has been given up in order to make that narrow list:

Say goodbye to--

1) HIGH towers;
2) LARGE YAGIS
3) MONOBAND ANTENNAS
4) WIRE ANTENNAS
5) EXPERIMENTAL ANTENNAS (an undocumented potential RF hazard)

Why will there be a list--at all? Well, if you have 10,000 acres, you may be justified in asking for more than the six inch stubby, for example.

BUT the CA agreement that you use over water rights will now apply to federal law on ham antennas. Woopeee!

It is a 'matter that has arisen'. Because of this stupid, fatally worded piece of legislation.

 

I am going to stress this one last time: at this point, enough OUTSIDE readers will have access to this info, and my job will be accomplished....

HR555/NDAA is NOT a piece of legislation that will allow YOU, the HAM to get (what you believe is) a 'reasonable' antenna up despite your HOA.

HR555/NDAA IS a piece of legislation that will REQUIRE virtually ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS --not limited to HOA's that proscribe antennas already-- to adhere to an ANTENNA PROFESSIONAL recommended listing of what a ham may have as "AN (single) effective outdoor antenna" . The list will be very short, and only potentially deviate from a SIX INCH STUBBY ANTENNA based on lot size; location; setbacks; RF exposure; and so on. The legislation will have PROFOUND NEGATIVE IMPACT on nearly ALL hams in the USA; not just those in antenna-proscribed HOA's.

Is that REALLY what you want?

 

In fact, more military residential areas are HOA communities than that of the general public being comprised of condos and apartments. And they usually cost or rent for higher dollar value.

 

Semantics...

The intention is for HOAs to allow reasonable antennas. Yes, it's recognized the text indicates the antennas are to be "effective" from a technical operation perspective however, that's not to suggest this replaces the intention of installing outdoor antennas in HOA's which are deemed to be physically reasonable in scope.

As far as the rest goes, there's no point in jumping to conclusions. The bill will pass and just consider this as an opportunity to work with HOAs in situations where that opportunity never existed before.

 

CRAP - Cherished Radio Amateur Paraphernalia.

 

There's a lot of that going around.

Because the League's press release told him so.

 

Based on your posts it seems that you have never had to deal with an aggressive HOA. My home QTH is in Florida and I have known several people who have gone up against their HOAs, for various reasons, and found it quite difficult to satisfy their requirements. Some of them have spent considerable amounts of money on legal fees trying to overcome them.

One nearby Subdivision, where the HOA accommodates antennas, will allow a TV Antenna as long as you abide by their rules. The antenna can not be on a tower. It has to be no more than 20 ft above the highest roof peak. It has to be located in the back yard etc. etc.

I would suggest that you google up some HOA agreements (some are online) and read them for your self. HOAs can, and often do, require you to paint your house a certain color, require a certain type and color of shingle on your roof, stipulate the pitch of your roof, require your house to have a certain roof style, stipulate what kind of plants you can put in your flower beds and where the flower beds are located, stipulate the texture of your outside walls, prohibit Motor Cycles, stipulate what type of grass you grow in your yard, require you to paint your house periodically, require you to keep leaves from accumulating in your yard, etc. etc. etc. If they can do all that I'm sure they will be able to regulate your outdoor ham antenna too. And, there will be plenty of Perry Mason legal drama because people (Hams) are not going to agree with all their 'conditions' for having an outdoor antenna and will challenge their HOAs in court. You can count on it.

While you may be correct in saying they won't be able to decline your request there is nothing saying how long they can take to decide. I have seen some HOAs take 2 - 3 years and require numerous revisions to the plans before approving.

Oh, and get your Engineer lined up. You're going to need one. The HOA is not going to accept anything with out your Engineer's seal on it. Forget about buying used tower.

IMO you are underestimating the egos of the people who run the HOAs. Did you ever see the 'Soup Nazi' episode of Seinfeld? Now imagine the HOA is the Soup Nazi.....

Dan KI4AX

 

Another key factor that you folks are NOT considering is:

WHO WILL THESE ANTENNA PROFESSIONALS BE that the CA's use as 'guidance' on "an effective outdoor antenna"?

If they want to prevent future law suits upon grant of antenna permission, those ANTENNA PROFESSIONALS MUST BE disinterested parties.

That mean....NO HAMS.

 

NOT semantics.

YES legislation with intent.

But not the intent you desire.

 

I think in the vast majority of situations HOAs are going to be perfectly fine with hams throwing a piece of wire into the air.

We can talk about the "what if" scenarios all we want to but the first step to resolve anything starts with getting an antenna law on the books.

We can work with HOAs and if they don't want to, then we have other available avenues on our side.

Of course you can always do nothing and just not have any antenna, which basically means nothing has changed.

 

I have severe concerns about that.

Again, you are looking at this as 'ham vs HOA'. No longer, BECAUSE OF THIS FEDERAL LAW, any deviation from a PRESCRIBED LIST OF ANTENNA(S) will be considered AT VARIANCE WITH STANDARD PRACTICE. That means that members of the CA who are NOT HAPPY with the decision to grant the ham said antenna will LEVERAGE THE STANDARD OF PRACTICE to get the approval RESCINDED.

In that case, the ham will have to start ALL OVER AGAIN-- and gain acceptance of an antenna that they consider NOT reasonable.

With due respect, why don't you guys think this stuff through???

ANY approvals by CA will be from a prescribed list of antenna(s).

I can guarantee, a priori, that NO HAM will be happy with that list.

This was NOT the intent of ARPA.

This IS the meaning of HR555/NDAA.

 

The case law alone will be enough to shut down most HF installation requests. They won't need a professional to deny your HF antenna project.

 

No way.

The improper use of wording has prescriptive and profoundly negative outcomes, that do not capture the intent of your lateral interpretation.

There was NO NEED for interpretation AT ALL-- there was AMPLE OPPORTUNITY to get the wording CORRECT.

Nope. Not only denial, but defiance.