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

Emotion where it's appropriate. No emotion where it's not appropriate. Here, only amazement that many drank ARRL's Kool-Aid.

Hardly.

I pass on reading it again.

Without currently-valid reason, therein lies the problem.

Try harder.

 

If you had read the PDF you just linked, you would see that the court declined to hear the core claims of the matter, which left the ham "free" to pursue another building permit. The court warned the regulating authority that another simple denial would not be satisfactory, but there was no specific enforcement performed nor threatened. Based on a number of considerations, of which PRB-1 was just one, the court awarded the ham court costs, but that did not obligate the regulating authority to subsequently perform any specific action with respect to the ham. The court only instructed the regulating authority that another blanket denial wasn't permissible under PRB-1. The regulators could have gone the route of that in the Zubarau case and sidestepped the entire matter by simply allowing a permit for a much smaller antenna than the one requested.

Just as with the Zubarau case, the only requirement imposed was that the regulators avoid a complete denial. You got a UHF GP? That means you were "accommodated." You got a screwdriver vertical mounted on the ground, with the whip required to be beneath the privacy fence line? You were accommodated. Your 70' tower was reduced to 5'? You were accommodated.

The case you cited did nothing more than award attorneys' fees to the ham, and then refuse to hear the case further due to a perceived preemption that other zoning authorities have successfully challenged.

 

That's the funniest (and most absurd) assertion about ARPA and/or PRB-1 I have heard yet.

 

This among other problems was why I purchased a home with out an HOA.

 

You're one of about 3 in 4.

 

Just showing that the they have the same issue in the UK.

 

... looked at the Photo of the "PRB-1 victory antenna" - - WA8ZHN PRB1 antenna photo.JPG

That's an HF tribander at a reasonable height AGL. (plus it looks like its mast may telescope up)

Again, read what is posted - WA8ZHN won when Court found "significant federal interest in amateur radio communications" expressed in PRB-1. MacMillan I may be found at 748 F.Supp. 1241 (1990). This is MacMillan II, a grant of attorney's fees under §1988 by a Federal District Court after finding the bylaw valid but preempted as applied. Courtesy of Atty. Robert M. Winston, W2THU

Here - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/748/1241/1966769/

The WB6X case was resolved successfully in regards to PRB-1. That station appears of have a very effective roof top HF vertical antenna installation. The tower / beam he attempted to install, through ill-advisable methods, was disapproved mostly based on standard setback code violations. Common sense dictates NO preemptive law will EVER help a Ham in that fight. Nevertheless compromise was eventually attained and ALL parties were reasonably accommodated.

 

So in other words, PRB-1 was irrelevant in that case, too? Once he dealt with non-PRB-1 issues, he was allowed a permit?

The core problem PRB-1 encountered in Zubarau was that the zoning authority was able to convince a court that PRB-1 had been satisfied by allowing any antenna of any size. That makes PRB-1 a toothless tiger, and it's why hams should be running for cover from the "reasonable accommodation" language in ARPA. It is meaningless.

 

You mean, the same NON issue, unless you're referring to a minority of hams are trying to be let out of their freely-signed contracts, so they can ragchew. THAT is a problem.

 

I'm actually looking forward to ARPA passing... I'm going to start a business selling STLs and the mounting equipment to put them in people's attics. I think I'll call the company HOAla-Hoops!

 

No, it doesn't say "any size" it says what he already had permission to install, ie, the roof tripod (and apparently the other stuff in the yard now). Yes, Palmdale had fulfilled its obligation under the law. PRB-1 was never intended to overcome all ordinances and enable specific antenna structures.

In WB6X, that tower, or a shorter tower, may have been acceptable if it had been placed elsewhere on the lot. Also depends on how far the antenna on top extends, especially horizontally. In that case the incredibly tiny size of the property is the ultimate restriction on what a "reasonable" HF antenna installation could be.

Any antenna installation design, commercial or amateur, is often an iterative negotiation process between many parties. (includes most XYL's ) Neglect them at your peril. By the time it reaches a court-room its usually too late to make cooperative changes. PRB-1 helps avoid courtrooms, but doesn't do so in all cases.

 

You missed my point. I wasn't commenting on the ham's allowance on the large size. My point was that the zoning authority has the ability under PRB-1 to restrict your installed antenna to any size they want, regardless of what bands that might restrict the user to using. That was part of the Zubarau case.

To put it another way: PRB-1 has now been successfully weaponized so as to allow a zoning board to deny access to effective HF outdoor antennas. Now that such cases are on the record, ARPA will have such cases up front, rather than 30y down the road.

Perhaps, but again, you are missing the point. The court's assertion that a small VHF antenna constituted "reasonable accommodation" means that PRB-1 was unsuitable as a tool for obtaining a tower of any size, no matter how big or small it was. PRB-1 only requires the zoning authority to grant you something more than nothing, no matter how infinitesimally more than nothing it might be. That is the point of PRB-1 case law that applies to ARPA.

No doubt. And as long as the zoning board allows you to have something more than zero, they have met the requirements of PRB-1. That's the case law as it stands today.

...another case where PRB-1 won't help you...

That's a great assertion, which, unfortunately, is not backed by any documentation. That may be the nature of "we didn't have to go to court," but there are no statistics that show PRB-1 to be successful. For those cases that do make it to court, PRB-1 is a repeatedly demonstrable toothless tiger, that rarely gets more than a token mention in the aggrieved ham's legal filings.

 

NO, not "ANY" size they want! As found by legal judgement,

"Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose."

MacMillan I, 748 F.Supp. 1241 (1990).

Size of the Ham's property (and proximity to neighbors) is the biggest dictator of restriction. Many Hams employ the strategy of finding a smallish lot but its on the perimeter borders of a development with fewer neighbors or a public natural buffer which can minimize hassles and can expand their potential practical antenna area greatly.

 

And one of the biggest test cases on that found that a VHF antenna was enough to meet the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of 97.15(b).

Tell that to the zoning board who successfully argued that a VHF antenna was enough to meet that requirement. Most of the words in the quote you offered are widely open to interpretation. That's the reason that OTARD specified specific antennas with specific sizes that were designed to interact with specific services at specific ranges on specific wavelength bands. Otherwise, OTARD would have been just as useless as PRB-1.

There is no minimum size requirement to 97.15(b). If they give you anything, they have given you enough. That's how the case law stands today.

No federal court has overturned that finding, nor has FCC intervened to enforce a reality that is otherwise. Any antenna is a "reasonable accommodation" under current case law.

If somebody challenges that (which is unlikely 30y after the rule was made), I think what they will find is that no court has standing to enforce 97.15(b). It's an administrative rule that must be heard before FCC to be enforced.

 

The court did not assert that in the WB6X case. PRB-1 doesn't guarantee towers, or their placement anywhere on a specific lot. WB6X has a nice roof tripod with an effective HF antenna and well equipped HF shack.