Censured ARRL Director Dick Norton at the Yuma Hamfest on HamRadioNow

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I too listened to the whole thing... Now, more then ever, I have a deep feeling of disgust towards the ARRL. His talk was not toxic, but the ARRL sure sounds like the "Evil Empire." All I can say is, hearing this, my belief is reinforced that the ARRL does not deserve another penny from me.

de NK2U

 

If I may kindly state the obvious...

"Leadership is transient; institutions are forever"....

There a whole lotta great people who work at the League. That's where the money mostly goes...

 

Antennas are NOT banned in all HOA's............... where did you get this wrong information?

About the only thing "Boilerplate" are comments, like yours, that want to over ride a willingly signed contract between willing individuals.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That may be true, but at this time, here and now, I feel that the league has been taken over by a bunch of thugs. Their attitude towards the ham community is disgusting. I hope they can weed out the bad apples and bring in some people who love radio.

de NK2U

 

NE1LL makes a good point about the influence of HOA trade groups. That influence goes beyond opposition in the legislative machinery.

Another poster presumes that if the law were passed "there will indeed be 'pre-defined' antenna installation guidelines for people to follow in the vast majority of HOA's and every one of them, are probably going to be written different than one another." That might be reasonable if we didn't have the last 40-or-so years of HOA governance behavior to use as a guide. What we know from history is that if the law requires that the HOA adopt "reasonable written rules," HOA trade groups and professional HOA managers will offer exemplary rules packages for antenna installations just as they do for other aspects of HOA governance. Existing HOAs tend to adopt these models or something very close. New developments will use the developer's standard HOA rules package, possibly influenced by the HOA trade group models. Insurance carriers will also impose some discipline. Apart from the hams, every stakeholder opposes these antennas in the first place, so the rules will be designed to be as restrictive as possible and to make compliance by the ham as expensive as possible. The bottom line is that the chance that each HOA will individually assess the particular characteristics of its buildings, and the outdoor components thereof under the exclusive use or control of the homeowner, to formulate rules that constitute the minimum practicable restriction on the homeowner, is somewhere between slim and none.

Even if the law were passed, the supposed parity for hams is likely to be illusory. Hams need the protection of specific minimum standards for the types of antennas they can install, not the ambiguity of "an effective outdoor antenna..."

 

Understood

Not sure they are all bad. We certainly need a group of leaders that are radio-active.

Many are out of touch with the wishes of the membership. That is obviously changing

73
Chip W1YW

 

Well, of course each one will make an assessment. The 'pre-packaged' info was already alluded to. The CAI and commercial vendors/lawyers will no doubt market said packages.

HOA's won't do diddly until a ham inquires to apply, or one is caught.

 

I don't have any skin in the game so to speak but I would support HR 555 if the toxic fatal language were to be removed. I'm sympathetic to hams living in a HOA/CC&R antenna restricted subdivision because I rented a house in one for a few years and it was a real hassle as a ham.

I did manage to hide outdoor antennas from the roving enforcers but it was really difficult. I was forced to take down a low profile weather station mounted on the roof.

I now live in one of the very very few modern floor plan housing subdivisions near shopping with a low crime rate and with no HOA and no antenna CC&R issues but it took me more than one year to find it. I bought it back in 2005.

Every other surrounding subdivision has an HOA and antenna restrictive CC&R issue. One day I was out in the front yard putting up a low profile full wave (on 80 meters) wire loop antenna into my oak trees when this guy jogging by stopped and told me that where he lived outdoor antennas weren't allowed. I already knew him to be the HOA president in the subdivision just to my east, as in the past I'd seen he and his wife hassling people living there about high grass, to many cars in the drive way, etc when on my evening walks.

I told him that I knew who he was and was glad not to have to deal with any of his B.S. I also told him that I knew where he lived and that he had a sinkhole issue on his property and that one day it was going to damage his house. He was visibly rattled by my knowing personal stuff about him and jogged away.

His house and others adjacent to his did suffer sink hole damage in 2007.

73 & GUD DX,
Thomas F. Giella, W4HM
Lakeland, FL, USA

http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/spaceweather
https://www.facebook.com/thomasfranklingiellaw4hm

 

Instant karma....

 

Hmmm, there sure is LOTS of speculation about ARPA from non-legal folks..

The ARPA language isn't perfect, but I believe most people/HOA Boards will be reasonable when it comes to modest antennas in a sub-division. Will hams get 75ft crank-up towers in an HOA development? Probably not, unless the homes are on 5 acre lots with tall trees. Will Hams in dense housing get a VHF/UHF Vertical on the roof and/or an HF Wire or Ground Mounted Vertical approved, I would bet $100 on a "Yes" vote from the Board.

ARPA will provide flexibility (backed by Federal Law and FCC Regs.) to HOAs when responding to an Amateur's request for an antenna installation. Right now, depending on how the CC&R's are written, all the HOA Board can legally say is "NO".

To all of you "NAY" Sayers that seem to criticize anyone trying to do anything positive for Amateur Radio, I say come up with an alternative, and we'll see you on Capitol Hill next year.

73,
Russ

 

Poor characterization.

Does the opinion of 4 separate attorneys count? That's who I asked.

Who did YOU ask?

BTW--full disclosure time-- K1VR is my personal attorney--but I did not procure advice from him on HR555. The fact that there is a strong resemblance to Fred's position and mine is because the problems with HR555 are so factually obvious.

IOW, it should be obvious to everyone how unacceptable HR555 is as written.

Frankly, I strongly take exception to the comment about 'nay sayers not doing anything positive for amateur radio'. Just because HR555 is a bad, bad bill with fatal wording doesn't mean that those who object to its factual fatality are against ham radio. That's appalling.

ARPA is FB. HR555 is lidsville.

BTW, CB'ers can have towers without relying on the HOA's to execute a federal law.

Hams? Not so. We're SPECIAL! Slam us with federal law invoking private contract!

73
Chip W1YW

 

As I said earlier, "I look forward to your proposal next legislative session"... Good luck to you, and if it's better than ARPA, I will be happy to support it....

73,
Russ

 

You might consider that if HR555 does not pass, there will be alternative future wording for ARPA--or-- ham radio will not be merely 'speaking with one voice', as they say.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I look forward to an alternative piece of Legislation and possibly another National Organization that represents Amateur Radio... BUT, Right now all I'm getting is STATIC and B.S. talk from all of the Anti-ARRL folks, there's nothing being brought to the table, except hot air...

BTW: When I talk with several local hams, they feel the same way I do about all of the Online static... All the yelling and fist pounding about the ARRL has gotten OLD Really fast... You guys need to learn a new tune, folks are throwing your CD's away by the truck loads :^)

 

So, I am confused by your characterization.....

I am hardly Anti-ARRL. I am a strong supporter. Heck, they even showcased me in QST this month. Happy it was there.... I don't mind being a poster child for the ARRL. If it helps, I am for it.

I am most certainly not giving you B.S. Its the straight poop.

If you are convinced my input is static, well, good luck to you

The real issue is the leadership is not listening to the membership on this issue of HR555 wording, with an objective sense for fact. And THAT --IS-- a problem. Given that seeking outside counsel for an experienced opinion on the present wording of HR555 would resolve the 'issue' in two shakes of a ham's tail, one wonders why that has not been pursued. Heck, just can the DC expense account for a few weeks. There's your kitty for the lawyer.

73
Chip W1YW