Politico Article Raises Concerns of Amateur Radio Parity Act

Curiously the bold highlighted text (my emphasis) at the end was not contained in the ARRL press release - 73, John, WØPV
--------

GOING HAM FOR HAM RADIO — Lawmakers are making a multi-pronged push to drive the bipartisan Amateur Radio Parity Act through Congress and finally bypass objections from top Senate Commerce Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida, whose allegiance to his state’s homeowners’ associations drove his panel to yank the bill from consideration last fall. The legislation, H.R. 555, would direct the FCC to let amateur radio operators get around private rules, like those imposed by some HOAs, that keep them from putting up radio antennas. The measure cleared the House by voice vote in January 2017 and in the previous Congress.

— House appropriators tucked the amateur radio provisions into the fiscal 2019 Financial Services funding bill that cleared the subcommittee Thursday. It’s also now wrapped into the House’s national defense authorization bill, which passed the House by a wide margin that same morning. House sponsor Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) “is hopeful that Senator Nelson will see its value,” said his spokeswoman. “There are more than 750,000 licensed amateur radio operators in the country, including nearly 20,000 in Illinois and nearly 42,000 in Florida. … When disaster strikes and the power goes out, like when Hurricane Irma hit Sen. Nelson’s home state of Florida back in September, amateur radio operators become critical to emergency response efforts.”

— Senators appropriators haven’t signaled any decisions on whether to follow the House’s lead. “It would suit me,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the radio bill’s Senate sponsor, told John. “I think we’ve done enough that Senator Nelson’s concerns should have been answered.” Wicker and Nelson are also both senior members of the Armed Services Committee, which oversees the NDAA. Nelson’s office didn’t comment this week but last year told POLITICO that homeowners’ associations fear the amateur radio bill is overly broad, confusing and liable to cause litigation over antenna installation.

Contained in the Morning Tech article at the following link -

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2018/05/25/gdpr-gets-real-229693

 

That's funny... Overly broad...

And hams think it is overly vague.

Who knew, writing good legislation is really hard.

 

Does anyone else find it odd,.................... that there is no antenna in that logo?

 

Because it does not really solve the antenna problem. The way I understand it, HOA are supposed to work with a HAM to enable them to put up a useable antena. Useable on 80 meters? Or an 18 inch whip for 2m ? I had a friend tell me that it meant that an HOA could not consider the esthetics of an antenna. I'll bet they can,
since they vote on what color you can paint your house. s far as I can tell HR555 is pretty uch useless in present form. No, I don't live in an HOA, thank God.

Doug N4IJ

 

These kind of Chicken Little statements seem rather broad and are rife with many "what if" situations.

There are many statements out there which are in my mind something that only exists within the framework of legal arguments / legal textbooks and are not necessarily reality in the real world in actual practice.

I suppose we can all speculate about what "could happen" but I feel it's a big stretch to be pulling the fire alarm because of someone's agenda driven laundry list of potential possibilities.

73

 

oooh, another ARPA thread, let’s get popcorn and our favorite beverage and see if the regulars show up to tell us how bad the CAI screwed ARRL!

How the Hamateurs must be saved from evil Commissars of the HOAS Who only want to give them a 6 inch antenna 80 meters!

Want or need, that is the question of the day from the guy who has an antenna farm in the north west.

But the main question of the day if this bill is still in favor of the CAs, Then why are the CAs still fighting it after they agreed to it?

Chapter 892 of ARPA continues on the Zed.

 

Everybody who has read my previous posts on this issue knows my position on HOA's. There ain't NO WAY I'm gonna sign such a thing.
However, I have some concerns as to how annulling private contracts, voluntary contracts, might have other unforeseen consequences. Surely, it is a very aggravating problem--I know that. It seems that, more and more, it is apparently much more difficult to find un-HOA/Covenant-controlled housing these days. Once you open that door, what ELSE might someone want to do with regard to such a precedent? We don't want to commute, so we pay HOA dues and tolerate restrictions. We think any house under 5 years old is a dilapidated money pit (NOT unless your city is a "rust belt" urban area). BUT we want to engage in our hobby. No.............I'm not criticizing, just sayin'. The best way is to bite the bullet, move to the country, eschew the HOA neighborhoods and tell the HOA nazis to stick it. Annulling private contracts............I dunno where that might go. But I know that I've never had to deal with this; my house is non-HOA.....and shall forever remain so so long as I own it!

 

Annulling private contracts, yeah, might have Something there, like no divorces, or no lemon laws, or bankruptcy laws!

Deed restrictions are not private contracts they are adhesion contracts forced upon you because when you buy a piece of property they run with the land you may not know about them but they’re there.

 

PZJ is absolutely correct. HOAs are not a negotiated contract, they are adhesion contracts. Take it or leave it. This greatly restricts where people can live. Not everyone can live in the rural areas; schools, jobs and, in my case, age. I'm 75 and have been a ham for 61 years-not going to give up my life-long hobby. But my wife and I can't live out of the area of good medical care and access to shopping for basic needs in a reasonable travel distance. I assume the above poster meant any house over 5 years old was thought to be a dilapidated money pit- no, but non-HOA areas are considerably more than 5 years old, more like 25+. My wife and I are going to move to San Antonio to be closer to top quality health care and easier flights to Chicago to visit our children and grandchildren. The realtors there tell me that only one house in one hundred in the area we want would allow ham antennas. I don't mean a 40 meter beam on a 100' tower, I mean a vertical!! I'm not sure what we will do. Bob Stevens, K9ING

 

There is something patently wrong with this effort when there is virtually no cry for help from those actually living in HOAs who should,but by their absence, don't seem to support this farce. Evidenced by the deafening silence from HOA residents, it should be apparent they/we neither want nor need it. It seems only a few vocal minority non-HOA hams bent on interfering in the lives of others support it along with the CAI. That should tell any objective person all they need to know.

On behalf of those of us who actually live in a HOA, please find something worthwhile to spend your free time complaining about.

 

I have found that bribery, extortion, and intimidation are very effective tools when dealing with HOA's and antennas.

 

The original ARPA started out great... but morphed into "HR555 legislation language" which says the exact opposite of its original intention.

It takes away freedom from ham radio operators, forcing a new HR555 FCC rule that injects hams into a new adversarial legal posture vs. HOAs.

Basically, for hams living in HOAs, the new HR555 FCC rule injects new language into the HOA adhesion contract... language that nobody ever agreed to when they bought their home.

That FCC rule is adverse to hams, and shall force hams who have been operating quietly for many years in HOAs into new high cost litigation, or else go off the air on HF.

With the new HR555 FCC rule, HOAs are given stronger legal rights to force HF hams off the air.

And yes, some do have the wherewithal to go purchase a new home somewhere else.

Hams should not be forced to move and disrupt their lives, just because "ARRL needs a win" to justify the millions they dumped into bad lobbying over the years.

The legal cost of complying with the HR555 FCC Rule in some HOAs will be more than a brand new top-of-the-line HF radio, kilowatt amp, beam, and tower.

The voice of experience speaking here, as someone who has already spent many years in litigation fighting an evil HOA.

 

I'm really confused by your post. I've not followed the Amateur Radio Parity Act much, but the way I read your post it came across that hams in HOA neither want nor need "it". ("It" is in quotes because I'm not sure if you are talking about the bill or the ability to have HF antennas. Either way...) I live in an HOA like yourself. I certainly would be happy for this to pass, but I can completely understand why you appear to be against it. I'm just confused though that you feel this was pushed by hams not living in HOA's. Is there some evidence of that? (Sincere q.)

 

Is there any effort being made to go back to the original language? I get the Sen Nelson opposes it because it won't get CAI's approval, but just trying to understand why this would move forward if this is so adverse to hams.

 

It's not adverse to hams. There's just a lot of misinformation / things taken out of proper context that's making it appear that way.

A lot of the opposition to it has more to do with Anti-ARRL bashing, than with ARPA itself.