Bill Could Provide Restrictive Covenant Relief

Certainly H.R. 4270 is a major step forward. What I can't understand is why everyone is ignoring the FCC' reopening of its docket(s) in this matter. Most interestingly, the FCC chose to reconsider the whole issue just about the same time that Congress introduced H.R. 4270. BOTH MEASURES NEED OUR FULL SUPPORT! Don't bother to write to Congress without writing comments to the FCC, and vice-versa. Look for RM-8763. You should be able to file comments electronically at the FCC Web site:
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html
We have from 31 May until 7 June to file comments. Do it!
(Actual Federal Register text below...)
73,
Alan Dixon, N3HOE
Contributing Editor - Popular Communications
Founding Member, Monaco Estates Homeowners Assoc.
"Monaco Estates, an antenna-friendly community"


-----------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2551]

Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

May 6, 2002.

Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's
rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is
available for viewing any copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street,
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, Qualex International (202) 863-2893. Oppositions to this
petition must be filed by May 30, 2002. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be
filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Modification and Clarification of Policies and Procedures
Governing Siting and Maintenance of Amateur Radio Antennas and Support
Structures, and Amendment of Section 97.15 of the Commission's Rules
Governing the Amateur Radio Service (RM-8763).

Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

[FR Doc. 02-12063 Filed 5-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
-----------------------------------------
[Federal Register: May 15, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 34713]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr15my02-80]
..

 

Many fine comments in support of HR 4270.

Perhaps I'll be thought of as a heretic for saying so, but I'm left to wonder if this is the right way to solve the problem at hand.

For too many years the federal government has increased its size and scope by nationalizing issues that I think fall under the realm of state's rights. HR 4270 is no exception.

Granted, we are licensed and regulated at a federal level and it makes some sense to push for enaction of HR 4270 into law. However, with many states already having enacted similar legislation, is HR 4270 really needed?

What is to be gained and what might be lost in those states that already have made PRB-1 style accommodations into law? Surely there are a few that enacted stronger standards. Would hams in those states actually lose in the long run?

I guess I'm just a bit queasy about asking the federal government to stick its nose into private contracts like this. Remember, Washington operates on Quid pro Quo and nothing is gained without a loss somewhere else. I think we should be careful what we ask for here.

TIA.

- Nate >>

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0NB @ May 24 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Granted, we are licensed and regulated at a federal level and it makes some sense to push for enaction of HR 4270 into law.  However, with many states already having enacted similar legislation, is HR 4270 really needed?

What is to be gained and what might be lost in those states that already have made PRB-1 style accommodations into law?  Surely there are a few that enacted stronger standards. Would hams in those states actually lose in the long run?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What states have enacted laws pre-empting private land use rules such as CC&Rs?  I didn't know any had.  I know some have adopted PRB-1 like laws as applied to state and local ordinances, but had not heard of any state rules affecting CC&Rs.  

Dale

 

Personally I think this is a great idea to push for. I do have concerns though that it may be revoked at a latter date because all of us willingly entred into these agreements (whether we were or were not hams at the time). Now I have no say in where I live as I'm only 16 and must live with my family. It would be great if this goes through. I have a CC&R at my QTH but no HOA (wonder how this happend). Actually I was talking to a person on the radio just yester day that said because my restriction says no devices to recive or transmit electromagnetic waves except mini dishes they actually are not even valid at this current time. That aside the bill would make it great for me. Needless to say we can't go to our organization and ask to put up a 200 ft tower that would be a little outragous. The main thing is its open to interpritation and the fcc in prb-1 says that the hight is neccesary. We all will meet a ton of resistance but write and keep writing it will be worth the the time if we get it through. Please remember that not to long ago that president Bush talked to some hams of either ares or races (not sure which) and they did tell him that "Anntenna restrictions restrict are ability to provide reliable effective communications" or somthing to that extent. This bill would be a foot in the door at the very least.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Quote (W5ATX @ May 20 2002,06:48)
Yes, this bill would be a foot in the door if it passes.  We'll see.  I own a condo, and I have a satellite dish, so I know THAT rule pretty well.  I will give you a warning that may affect how ham antennas might be affected by this bill.

An association or landlord (for rentals) cannot prohibit a video reception antenna (most folks think "dish," but it also applies to regular TV antennas) if it is completely within an area exclusively used by the occupant of that unit (no, that's not a direct quote, but that's the rule.)  Thus, if you have a deck or balcony and put the dish on that, you're fine.  What it also means is you can't stick a pole in the ground outside in the middle of the garden, you can't put it on the common roof of the building, you can't put it on the stair railing if any other occupants share those stairs with you.  

In my case, I've been lucky.  I don't have a deck or balcony.  I live upstairs and I have sliding glass door to nowhere.  (See photo below.)  My dish is mounted on the railing (it helped that I had it done by a professional dish installer who just happens to be a ham&#33.  BUT - and I'm fortunate that in 2-1/2 years nobody at the association has bothered to read the details about the common area rule - the railing is the outer limit of my "exclusive use" area.  The dish as it's mounted, hangs over common area - the ground outside the unit downstairs.  So legally, they could tell me to take down my dish.  My dish is not in compliance with the FCC rule allowing video antennas.  

How would this possibly affect this ham antenna proposal?  I would think a similar restriction could reasonably be placed on such permitted ham antennas.  That would rule out the roof, running a wire to a tree, etc.  Just a thought.

So yes, this bill is a good start, but living with these condo rules and tiptoeing around them for a dish, I know the limits too.  Reasonable is the key word, and when has anyone known a condo or neighbourhood association to be reasonable?

Good luck, write those letters, but we have to keep our expectations realistic.  

73,

Chris

--------
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Regarding apartment and condominium dwellers: We should be aware that nothing in H.R. 4270 does not deal with common elements (areas) any differently than exclusive-use areas, including limited common elements.  In other words, the bill does not permit condo or homeowner associations to exclude common elements or to otherwise treat common areas any differently than exclusive-use areas.  Rooftop antennas on apartment buildings are an excellent "reasonable accommodation".  This practice has been used for years in some areas of New York City, long before any such mandate was under consideration.  Likewise, apartment managers nationwide often used to allow separate rooftop yagi TV VHF/UHF rooftop antennas.  (Yes, some of those rooftops looked a bit like forests.  Yet this was often considered quite acceptable.)  Anyway, we shouldn't make assumptions about what the bill says.  It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>  

As for above I would say apartment dwellers would not realy stand any gain in common areas as for two reasons. 1. This area is not your's its totaly held by the apartment owners. 2. It could be cited as a possible safty hazzard to the other residence.

In the very least we gain in the fact that those those who have land can set up somthing with a descent anttena.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Granted, we are licensed and regulated at a federal level and it makes some sense to push for enaction of HR 4270 into law.  However, with many states already having enacted similar legislation, is HR 4270 really needed?

What is to be gained and what might be lost in those states that already have made PRB-1 style accommodations into law?  Surely there are a few that enacted stronger standards. Would hams in those states actually lose in the long run?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Im not up much on the laws but I do belive that the PRB-1 adopted rules in those states if they do have a height say for example you can not stop some one from having at least 50 ft where their is no CC&R would take presidence over the new bill most likly as the height is defined and resonable.

---------
73's
KG6JEI
Conrad

 

I am worried that the land developers will convince the local government officials that there should be no ham antennas anywhere in town. The local governments listen to the developers, because, money talks and BS walks.