The Amateur Radio Parity Act - Could become reality...

Maybe you could clarify which "he" you are referring to, so the rest of us don't get painted with the same broad brush.

 

LOTS of stuff is inferred about anyone who isn't in lock-step with AWRL. IOW, if you don't like the message, be certain to attack the messenger.

 

Nothing posted, OM.

 

I also like this mentality:

If you don't like HOAs, that's good.
If you like HOAs, you "like control freaks".

We all agree this is a flawed bill but people on their pedestal still feel compelled to criticize how and where others choose to live. (See control freak).

 

I won't name names and turn this personal, but if you read previous posts on the topic and you should be able to figure that out.

Funny how a few HOA-lovers are so thin-skinned that they take (well-deserved, IMO) derision of the national HOA lobby as a personal attack on themselves.

 

Wow. Just... WOW. So much (incorrect) assumption in one sentence.

 

The more this gets discussed, the more it's clear how many points of view there are just on the ham side of the CC&R situation.

1. There are hams who have CC&R but no CA.
2. There are hams who have CC&R but no CA, but the neighborhood as a whole meets the definition of "CA" as defined in the ARPA text.
   
3. There are hams who have CAs but no antenna restrictions (yet), and their CC&R provides no way for their CA to add restrictions.
4. There are hams who have CAs but no antenna restrictions (yet), and their CC&R provides some kind of mechanism to add rules that might someday add antenna restrictions.
5. There are hams who have CAs but no antenna restrictions, but their CC&R does have some kind of "structure" code that has to be adhered to when building stuff on their property.
6. There are hams who have CAs with antenna restrictions, but not outright prohibitions.
7. There are hams who have CAs with antenna prohibitions, but an approval process to request individual installations that must/should be approved if they meet some kind of criteria.
8. There are hams who have CAs with antenna prohibitions, but a way to request an exception that might be approved if the CA/board is in the right mood during that meeting.
9. There are hams who have CAs with antenna prohibitions that are absolute, and if you want an antenna, you can move.

And those are just the ones I can think of from comments I have read.

A one-size-fits-all bill is never going to be able to provide meaningful relief in that kind of environment.

 

There are probably still more perspectives.

It's important to understand what is driving this:
1. a perceived need (for relief) which has never been quantified, and
2. the desire to expand market share.

Add the arrogant nature of a few malcontents to disparage HOAs and the people who live in them and we get the only predictable result -
to alienate hams against other hams.The sad part is this has happened all while having absolutely no influence on the result.

Thanks for the help folks...

 

We only have 503 more days to debate this. Because the following day, a cold Friday in the Capitol, the session will have ended. I have predicted that the bill will die at the end of the session with no action having been taken in the Senate. A repeat of the outcome in the last session.

Many here refuse to believe that is a very strong possibility. I don't think they have a clue how their Government works. I will be here on January 4th, 2019 to say "I told you so" if I am correct. Feel free to flame me if I was wrong.

Will the ARRL push to have this brought up a third time if necessary? Let the debate continue.

 

Probably. At the risk of mixing metaphors, beating a dead horse feels a lot like picking low-hanging fruit. It's a lot easier than fixing real problems that can help the entire amateur community.

 

In politics, appearance is often more important than substance..

 

To the people to whom appearance is more important than substance, yes. To the rest of us, some substance would be nice.

It would also be nice if the League that represented a small minority of the community would go represent that small minority, and in a way that only affected that small minority. I guess now I'm just being silly...

 

it seems many National Organizations only have a small percentage of the total users of the group they represent as members. Its an interesting and puzzling fact.
For example, the NRA has said it has 5 million dues-paying members. Those 5 million members only comprise somewhere between 6 and 7 percent of American gun owners. That would imply that the overwhelming majority of American gun owners -- over 90 percent of them -- do not belong to the NRA.

 

Not difficult to believe at all.