ARRL Reaches Agreement with Community Associations Institute on Parity Act

I think I missed something. Why has the ARRL been silent on this for months? Don't us members deserve to be kept informed? And ... "an amended bill". Does that mean they have to start all over again? I'm 69 years old -- we only get so many years of life before we expire. I'd like to put up an antenna before that happens.

 

again the ARRL cowardly backs down to stand...and again let members thought they have a arganization might help and they dont they only want your money for only there benifits ( there ARRL retirements and profits)...So im glad Im one less member to sign ever again with them or back them...........Foolish Amatuers who beleived there word....

 

the Article should read---ARRL COWARDLY BACKS DOWN AGAIN......

 

HOAs are good and bad. They keep people from turning their homes into eyesores and killing property values. They are responsible for maintaining common areas that might go into a state of neglect. They also keep us from putting up ANY antennas (legally).

Unfortunately, bylaws are bylaws, and they usually say "NO outdoor antennas except for small satellite dishes, period." I have lived in HOA-restricted communities, and been on a board of directors. The rules - no matter how stupid, arcane, and backwards they may be - are the rules. They're attached to the property pretty much forever unless someone "dissolves" the association, which costs money. It requires a vote to change bylaws, and very often, there are legal fees involved, which means that most HOA memberships don't have any intention of changing them.

Keep in mind that community associations groups have been lobbying AGAINST this just as forcefully as the ARRL (and us) have been lobbying for it. Read some of the "anti" propaganda they have distributed.

https://www.caionline.org/Advocacy/Pages/Ham-Radio-Operation.aspx

Even today, they call ARRL's "disaster preparedness" reasoning a "GUISE," as seen below.

From https://www.caionline.org/Advocacy/...Amateur-Radio-And-Community-Associations.aspx

"The compromise was reached out of necessity as H.R. 1301 was gaining momentum with 126 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives supporting the legislation under the guise that the bill is necessary to ensure critical amateur radio communications during a local disaster."

Combine a forceful "pro" fighting against a forceful "anti" and you end up with...

N o t h i n g.

If you can get an enemy to back down in their fight, and by making a concession, get essentially what you want, a.k.a.

"a chance of putting up an antenna in an HOA neighborhood,"

you have actually won.

If you can't get the enemy to back down, you end up with a stalemate, and the end result is no change, a.k.a.

"no chance of putting up an antenna in an HOA neighborhood."

I would take "a chance" over "no chance" anyday.

The goal has always been "reasonable accommodation."

Does anyone really think that the goal was free reign to put up a 70' tower with a SteppIR beam in an HOA neighborhood?

It also says that you shouldn't expect to use community property - such as a tree - as an antenna support...sounds fair to me.

As for bashing the ARRL, I don't see individuals able to achieve anything like this alone. Please feel free to try, however.

73, hoping some legislation finally passes...

Scott N7JI

 

Rhetorically speaking, what is the legal basis of determining what is reasonable? Some things may be zoning issues, etc., but some of it is just outright subjective. Subjectivity will eventually result in caselaw, which may actually be to the detriment of the HOAs. In their defense, granting a determination of 'this is presumed reasonable' is just a slippery slope. But they can either agree that some things are reasonable, or have a judge tell them what is. The judge may be a ham

If we could get at least some specifics of 'presumed reasonable' that would be a big help to both parties. Something with at least a bit of specificity like 'presumed reasonable' antennas are 1) completely contained on my property (cannot fall on someone else's), 2) not prominent/visible from the street, 3) properly grounded, 4) etc. These types of things. But all we have now is 'we must at least give you due process--before we say no'.

Everyone seems to dread the 100' foot tower and the beam hanging over the neighbor's house--yet this compromise lumps that concern in the same boat as a vertical that is in a backyard, not visible from the street, and can't fall on the neighbor's fence. So the rule-weary ham must get the same permission for a tower as they would any other antenna. Consider the HOA that took issue with a mobile antenna on a ham's car! They still can!

Reasonable or not is totally in the eye of the beholder--and this does not change that. This remains a compromise of your privilege to exercise freedom to do a legal activity, without any justification why it is limited. The privilege is granted by the FCC, not granted by the HOAs.

 

Yup--absolutely. Good or bad, the bill has about as much chance as reaching the President's desk as a balanced budget with zombie apocalypse emergency preparedness funding. That's just the reality of our democracy.

 

I'm impressed we're 4 pages of posts in, and no one has gone 'political'.

Even more impressive is that no one has invoked Godwin's Law!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

This is already a great step forward!

 

This is terrible. Hopefully it will fail somewhere in the process or get vetoed.

 

Actually it's a "Substitute" amendment. The whole thing is replaced with the new text. Also the title will change from Amateur Radio Parity Act to
A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to amend its rules so as to prohibit the application to amateur stations of certain private land use restrictions, and for other purposes.

It does not yet have a sponsor (as of this morning) or cosponsors. Being a substitute and under a different name, I don't know if that means all the co-sponsors of the original bill will be reset and the cosponsorship process will start over?

Well, the original bill had 126 cosponsors and for the past year some people have been harping about that suggesting that it meant it was virtually a sure thing. But when it came right down to it, it took just one powerful committee member opposed to it to upset the whole cart. If nothing else, this clearly shows how unimportant the number of cosponsors is in getting a bill through.

Although one good thing came out of it, the guarrantee of an "effective antenna" (whatever that means - dipole stapled to the eaves?), otherwise the additions to it seem to be focused on affirming CA power and protecting CA interests.

And actually until it has a sponsor and is formally introduced, nothing will happen.

 

And FWIW, "dipole stapled to the eaves" is exactly what I used as a Novice in 1971. No HOA restrictions. Just parental restrictions.

And it was effective enough for what it was used for. I never knew what I was missing until some 31 years later when I returned to the hobby and was able to put up more effective antennas.

 

Reasonable is subjective in terms of HOA interpretations just as it is subjective with respect to PRB-1 and municipal codes.

In Florida, there are procedures to challenge if an applicant believes that an architectural reviewer's decision is unreasonable. These protections vary from state to state.

What is reasonable for a large lot in the back and/or on the edge of a subdivision may not be reasonable for a minimum-sized lot in the center of that same development.

Many subdivisions are laid out in irregular shapes. Look at adjoining outparcels that the developer didn't purchase when the development was built.

If you want to install a tall tower, buy a lot/home on the edge of the development. Then, buy or get a lease on the adjacent property.

An HOA has no control outside the subdivision borders. And sometimes, property abutting a development has very loose zoning. (agricultural, open rural, etc.)

 

I doubt it it will make it out of the current committee. The new last section of it is a booby-trap that will kill the thing. I have a hard time imagining any congressperson voting in favor of letting HOAs preempt the FCC in regulating amateurs. The original intent was the other way around.

I am sure the CAI likes the status quo. They have no reason to "compromise" in this, even if it's overall favorable to them.

 

Dont take away my freedom of speech...please...

It is unfortunate that towers are under attack, and the recent cell phone rat studies...ditto.

It is fascinating that the more an antenna tevhnology is needed amongst hams, the more it is vilified amongst a small ham community.

The result? Atlas shrugs.

I, on the other hand, am amused by the batch of yesterdays PO's, which includes a well known defense firm, whose antenna guru didnt want me to speak at the Pacificon antenna forum.

Atlas Shrugs.

BTW, antennas stapled to rafters, or any wood, suck at HF Ron

 

If I've "asked" it once, I've asked it a thousand times.

(A) What portion of today's ACTIVE ham resides within the domineering walls of a deed restrictive community?
(B) Why are active hams [there] in the first place?

While there certainly no easy answer for "A" and to whatever this "beating a dead horse" discussion...or controversy...leads to, let's address "B" for a moment.

Granted in life, no one wants to under be subjected to unreasonable people and my experience with the entrenched of HOA Nazi's, I assure you, have nothing better to do with their collective lives than to control every aspect of every resident within it's prison walls. And, let's it all my ARS brothers and sisters. When you moved in you moved in on your own accord and knowledge of the CC&R's and the people who are sworn to uphold them.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What's that Sparky? I didn't hear you. Would you mind repeating that?

You say you didn't know about the HOA when you closed on your home?

OH! You KNEW about the HOA and CC&R's...but didn't bother to know and understand what you're paying into monthly but still...signed your personal wants and desires away...just the same? Is that what you're telling me?

Well than Sparky. It looks to me like you're going to be spending A BUNCH of time in a hopeless and endless battle instead of ALL that time you could have been on-the-air,..enjoying the hell outta' life!

What's that, Sparky? You say you wanna' defend your rights as an American?

FABULOUS Sparky! By all means, DEFEND AWAY! But, while you're doing so, you're missing one HELLUVA GOOD TIME and wasting an unimaginable amount of emotional energy in a lifetime...that really isn't as long as you think it is. But, also Sparky, life comes with both responsibilities and consequences. Your responsibility was a conscious decision to move into an HOA community...where folks don't give one flying flip about your hobby, don't believe in one second all the once hoopla about your so-called worth during an emergency and most of all...REALLY don't want to look at your antenna. And, Sparky, the consequences of YOUR DECISION are obvious. But again...DEFEND AWAY!

WHAT NOW SPARKY?!?!?

LMAO! OH, REALLY?!?!

THIS IS WHERE YOUR XYL INSISTED ON LIVING, SPARKY?!?!?

Well, there's not a whole bunch I can suggest about THAT as far as a choice of XYL's go but, next time, in lieu of an XYL, who doesn't care for a moment of your desires in life, may I suggest a golden retriever?

AH, COME ON SPARKY! DON'T GO AWAY! COME BACK! I'LL LET YOU GUEST OPERATE IN MY SHACK!

Oh, my. Poor Sparky.

 

HOAs have won again.