Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by K5XS, Aug 8, 2017.
"Logic and sound legal argument" often hit a firewall it's called....emotion.
Oh no doubt.
I would go further than that and say that many people are basing their ARPA arguments based solely on faith in the source of the legislation, and not on the content of the legislation, or the court history of similar rules like PRB-1.
I have spoken to a number of people in the forums who make impassioned arguments for the passage of the bill, but who themselves haven't even read the bill -- not even once. When you confront them with the actual text, they try to reason around the wording with unicorns and rainbows: "no HOA is going to deny your request for a reasonable antenna once this passes," and "once this passes, I'll be guaranteed to at least have a flagpole," and "once this passes, they will have to allow me to have at least a vertical," and other such arguments that are found nowhere in the text. One guy argued in favor of ARPA for months before he realized it wouldn't help him put an antenna up at his condo, because he didn't have any property area under his exclusive control. Oops.
So yes, there are any number of subjective drivers of the legislation. I would really like to know why the learned leadership at ARRL is so devoted to such a poorly worded piece of legislation, but in the end, it doesn't matter. Their insistence on spending membership money to support a bill that will clearly harm people I know personally is reason enough for me to drop my membership -- and I have. It's a shame, too, because I liked QST.
Have you ever had a job at a point there was little work but you had to look busy? That's why the ARRL is pushing this, they need to look like they are doing something.
What is interesting about that is that there is plenty of work to do, they just don't want to do it, for whatever reason.
I give them the benefit of the doubt and prefer to think their effort was well intended.
It's too bad this legislation ended up where it did as there was an opportunity to help a small segment of the ham community
Perhaps it was.
Let's assume it was for the sake of friendly discussion. Now that there are plenty of detailed professional legal opinions available describing the impotence of its intended uses, and the potential legal harm that it can cause, the proper thing for them to do is to withdraw it. Instead, they have chosen to issue misleading counter-positions that make no sense, and attempt to gloss over the problems it has, so they can continue to press forward with a bill that they know, or should know, is fatally flawed.
That's not well-intended.
Perhaps it was well-intended in the beginning. I cannot see how that can possibly be the case now.
In the context of history, "well intended" in the beginning doesn't justify blind devotion to a course of action when it is discovered that initial assumptions were wrong.
Pride of authorship can be a difficult obstacle as can embarrassment.
It's hard to get an objective picture as the League officers are barred from expressing opposing views. I wrote to the current League CEO asking why they didn't reveal the % for/against in the poll they conducted. Never received a reply.
Yes, that's true.
Yes, that's also true. I was very disappointed to learn that from a director last year. Once you are on the board, you toe the party line. It's difficult to understand how there can be accountability in such an environment.
This legislative effort is fundamentally an attempt to obviate accountability as it relates to HOA agreements limiting antennas. It's accountability avoidance.
League officers are barred how? What would happen if they didn't agree?