Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

If the bill is being re-submitted, without any changes (or would that come later?) and if Sen Nelson hasn't changed his career path...should we expect the ARPA to get any closer to passing? Doesn't this kinda parallel the definition of insanity (doing the same thing but expecting different results)

I see points on both sides of the ARPA discussion, sure would like a good compromise written by folks who have a valid issue in the overall discussion. Pushing this rock down this road multiple times causes noses to hurt and get bent out of shape.

Randy Melton
KA4AQM

 

If you read the ARRL press release, it explains that the new bill is exactly the same wording as the old bill: http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act

"The wording of HR 555 is identical to the language of HR 1301, which passed the US House of Representatives by a unanimous consent vote in September 2016 during the 114th Congress, which adjourned in December."

 

As long as the legislation doesn't require unanimous consent the Florida Senator is a non entity.

 

Nelson needs to get a good RF burn.

 

And I hope that it gets shut down yet again. I will urge my representatives to vote against it.

 

That isn't true at all.

The provisions outlined in the bill applies to HOA's that have existing antenna restrictions, and naturally the bill is not applicable to the one's that don't have any antenna restrictions at all.

The bill only applies....

So if you are not in the category mentioned above then guess what?

...The requirements outlined in section 23, 95.15 title 47 doesn't apply to you that's what...

It's all right there in plain English...

Incidentally, that also includes provisions in in section 23, 95.15 title 47 requiring hams to gain approval from HOA's. It doesn't apply to the one's that don't have any antenna restrictions so why would you have to get approval for any antenna that your are not in any way restricted from installing in the first place?

"HOA Approval" means your antenna meets the HOA's written guidelines. That is to say, if the HOA doesn't have any antenna restrictions or have any "written guidelines" for hams to follow when installing antennas, then why would you need to get any approval from them? There's simply nothing written for the HOA to say, "Yeah ok, that antenna looks like it meets our written HOA standards."

So no, the bill doesn't apply to people who do not have any antenna restrictions.

 

The real issue is that the FCC licenses us to transmit, and then the HOAs can prohibit us from operating a home station by preventing us from putting up an antenna, thus negating the licence issued by the FCC. Sure we can use emergency communications to justify our operation, but there's no reason we should need to be handling emergency traffic just to be able to transmit using the licence we were issued.

I would also like to note that HOA restrictions are based on contract law. In theory, contract law recognises automatic invalidity of 'contracts of adhesion', which in lay terms are literally contracts you are stuck with, and are not a matter of choice, but the courts almost never enforce that rule.

Most hams have little choice whether to live in HOA restricted property or not. I do not live with any HOA restrictions, and it was largely because I am a ham that I chose not to, but for me the specific price of that is no FIOS, no Cable and no DSL, and that no means no chance of them being available ever, except on the other side of the street where they have a no-antenna HOA.

Let's hope it passes this time.

N3KIP

 

I wrote my congressman to support the bill, working as a Title Agent, Real Estate and Civil Law Practice-Notarial has given me the insight to understand why bills like this are important. In Louisiana, CCRs are called "Building Restrictions" and prescribe after 2 yrs if no one "Litigates" the "violation"!! We have a lot of dead Restrictions here in Louisiana which has since been "violated openly" for years causing the Title Opinion to have a questionable effect as to "dead" encumbrances burdened upon the property.

Most developers will record a Master Act (In Louisiana it is called "AN ACT OF BUILDING RESTRICTIONS" passed before a Notary Public and then "forget" while the developer sells lots out of the Subdivision. In most cases, there is not a HOA, especially before the 1990's. Louisiana Legislature did past an HOA Section in Title 9, Civil Law Ancillaries which did allow some subdivisions to enact HOAs retroactively in some cases. One interesting provision allows a lot owner to opt out of any changes to the HOA changes by executing an Act by Authentic Act and recording the same in the Conveyance Records in Clerk of Court's Office within 30 days!!

There is no requirement to Post or Give a copy of the Restrictions at a closing and HOA notification laws are spotty in Louisiana.

Since most houses here have a Heavy Duty Rohn tower due to OTARD, the exemption of Amateur Radio makes sense, since it quiets titles on property which have Amateur Radio Structures and removes the questionable provisions such as:

1. No transmitters
2. No Ham Radio
3. No 2 way radios
4. No Television Interference.

By eliminating the intrusion into the Amateur Radio Service, this bill clarifies the separation between State and Federal Authority over A Federally Licensed Activity.

The CAI agreed to the revised Bill in May 2016 which just became HR 555 (Jan 2017) so that areas without HOAs but restrictions will free of the restrictions on prima facie examination and the HOAs which have Antenna Restrictions may chime in and adopt "reasonable" accommodation which is as much as the CAI was willing to allow, to prevent a few court rulings to go forth and completely knock them out of the Antenna business.


I am not your legal advisor nor is this meant to be legal advice, standard legal advisories apply.

 

Our licenses give us authorization to transmit, not the requirement to transmit. My driver's license authorizes me to drive; it doesn't require me to drive.

Every day, private contracts/agreements/promises/whatever are renegotiated by the parties or modified/canceled by government. In the former, the parties must agree, and it happens. In the latter, one party has government force a change. Sometimes, government is fooled into doing the wrong thing.

Many non HOA homes have lots of utilities available. Notably, new construction receives new technology first but, as infrastructure is spread, older homes receive it as well.

Since NONE of the testimony has stated MORE hams are needed on the air using outdoor antennas, there's no stated public need... and therefore, no public need for any legislation. IMO, it's all about what a few hams WANT, and they want government to make it happen in the faces of millions of their neighbors.

Let's hope it fails, like it did before (at least twice).

 

N3KIP's comments are why I have come to support the idea. At first, I considered HOA and deed restrictions to be simply the voluntary terms of the contract - if you don't like them, don't buy into the HOA or deed restriction.

But the more I learn about it, the more it starts to sound like this is headed, if it isn't already, to where there's no real "voluntary" in it.

First, market forces seem to favor HOAs. That's fine, except that what that means is there really aren't alternative state-of-the-art residences that don't have an HOA. So the choices become limited, like N3KIP describes.

Second, I saw a post on this website from a ham reporting that in his state, all new development is required to be under an HOA. I haven't verified that statement. But I would not be surprised. As local governments become financially strained, the HOA is attractive: the HOA takes care of trash pickup, snow removal, road maintenance, parking enforcement, landscaping, and sometimes utility connections. So what you have is a government policy that encourages HOAs.

Therefore it seems to me that the trend is reducing the non-HOA alternatives, and the HOA restrictions may even be quasi-government regulation.

This is not to say that hams should have unilateral right to erect whatever they want wherever they want - I get why an HOA may not want a tower towering over the community (ha ha) on a postage-stamp sized lot. But I also don't get why a small form factor antenna such as a dipole, vertical, or loop - especially if installed at the rear of the house - is a more objectionable eyesore than the satellite TV antennas.

So I don't understand why this can't be win-win: the HOA doesn't have a Voice of America-sized array to look at, and the ham has the ability to meaningfully utilize the privileges of the FCC license - which is the distinction between this and other 'hobbies': ham activity is sanctioned and regulated by the FCC. And the skills practiced on the air may prove valuable to the HOA if there some sort of incident.

This is what I think ARPA is intended to achieve.

My 2 cents.

 

For the Lackeys out there that say such a bill lets one "flinch" on your previous CC&R "agreement"... Certainly, they will be relinquishing their TV Small Dishes, since the OTARD Act also did this after the fact, right?.
I mean, since they're so fair minded and principled....

 

The Party Is Over, and The Parity will pass this time.

As did the OTARD bill: Someday in hindsight, Historians will see that THIS was the beginning of the end to the HOA's, and not our bill.

Our bill is just the logical progression of this precedent.
And therefore would I believe stand up in ANY Judicial Challenge.

It also seems to me that the only argument that will hold water based on ancient law is that ownership of any land in any country can only be in essence an agreement between two parties , and only two parties:
The Owner, and the Sovereign.

The problem in a Democracy is NEVER an issue of the Majority having more clout than the Minority.
Instead, the issue has always been about the problem of protecting the Minority FROM the Majority. Always. Always!
The only solution to this is to have a Representative Republic. Which is what we are. And why we have the right to petition the Sovereign.

73 and All the Best!

DE Bill W8LV

 

No, we should just let HOA'S continue to prevent us from putting up antennas, and tell us what to do on land we own and pay taxes for, anytime they feel like it.

 

Just wanted to make this clear...and believe me; it will come up, maybe later than sooner:

Given the fatal wording of the present ARPA and the total failure to fix that fatal wording--

I will not have anything to do with any future amateur radio legal cases in which I am asked to participate as a witness or expert witness on the side of ham radio regarding the impact of RF exposure from ham antennas. So you guys will be hit with the 'DNA is a fractal antenna' stuff and you'll be on your own.

Furthermore, after scuttling the KY superstation and its open-remote architecture (because of HR1301), I will not include any open-remote architecture in the planned /7 location.

The ARPA, as worded, is a major disaster that will spell the end of ham radio as we know it in 90% of the United States. It forces virtually all HOA's to be deciders of ham antennas, not just HOA's that previously dealt with antennas and aesthetics. SO the HOA that governs your water rights, with its "and other matters that arise " clause, will now be a decider on whether you can have an antenna on your farm. Of course, the CBer in town won't have that problem. Nor will the short wave listener. But you'll do just fine with your rainspout antenna on the farmhouse, bunkie. Heck, just load up the itsy bitsy spider web! It'll play just fine keeping you and your community isolated in emergencies. And that money that the HOA insisted you put up front in escrow for indemnification? Heck, what a paltry price to pay for the privilege of being marginalized.

Hey..maybe you can "enhance the radio art" by discovering new antennas? Nah. Gotta get PERMISSION for that....every time you build an antenna.

You guys worked hard at it, so enjoy the future disaster.