The Amateur Radio Parity Act - Could become reality...

The same kind of one-size-fits-all assumptions that have gotten us a broken bill in the first place.

 

Let's be honest here... a lot of what we are seeing with ARPA supporters is just "my way or the highway." Many HOA hams with antenna restrictions could build (or buy) all kinds of indoor antennas and make all kinds of HF contacts, but until they find a way to get a vertical (or a tower) out in the middle of their yard, they just aren't going to be satisfied. And they're going to keep pushing for whatever legislation or rule that is required, up to and including stepping on the rights of other hams who already have the right to an antenna, in order to try to get a vertical (or a tower) out in the middle of their yard for all to see. Their motto might as well be "Screw the HOA or bust!"

The fact that they could work all kinds of DX using efficient and effective indoor HF antennas is irrelevant to these people. It is apparently also irrelevant to ARRL, who ironically sells all kinds of books on the subject of designing, building, and installing effective indoor HF transmit antennas for all bands from 160m through UHF, each of which would be completely compliant with a "no outdoor antennas" CC&R restriction.

The fact that any of these same hams could do their "emcomm" thing from home with these same antennas is also apparently irrelevant to them. It's "screw the HOA or bust!"

This whole issue has nothing to do with ham radio, and it never has. If your CC&R says "no outdoor antennas" and you are using that as an excuse to not make HF contacts, the problem isn't the CC&R -- the problem is you.

 

Do you have outdoor masts and antennas in the back yard? If yes, why is that when supposedly there are so many effective indoor alternatives?

 

Of course! If you check out my QRZ profile page, you will see all kinds of details about my antennas.

On that same page you will see details of some great designs that also work great as indoor antennas, as well. I have used those designs both indoors and outdoors, because I enjoy working on flexible antenna designs.

One has nothing to do with the other. It's a matter of making the most of the situation you have.

I have no CC&R on my property, so I tend to put most (but not all) of my antennas outdoors, because I can. That way, I make the most of the situation I have. I don't have room for a tower (safely) so the "best" for my property is something less than a tower. Someone who lives on a property with a "no outdoor antennas" CC&R can make the most of the situation they have by using indoor antennas. Whether an indoor or an outdoor antenna is best isn't dependent on the antenna design, it is dependent on your personal situation and what options you have, and the options you have depend on what you can legally do within your property restrictions, and those property restrictions include zoning laws and CC&R.

 

What should be passed is a federal pre-emption by the FCC against CAs, CC&Rs, HOAs, or whatever you want to call them, from default, one-size-fits-all rules prohibiting communication antennas, and force these 'associations' to toss out the boilerplate and re-formulate appropriate rules to fit the particular local situation if they even feel the need to address antennas in the first place.

There is no valid reason for antennas to be routinely prohibited from new housing builds, nationwide, by default, as is apparently the prevailing case now. Most people buying into a development likely couldn't care less whatever whether or not the guy down the street has an antenna in his backyard. Just a few busybodies and control freaks who like to meddle in other peoples' affairs are likely to object. Let them present specific, compelling, concrete reasons why the guy should not be allowed to put up his proposed antenna. Radio antennas are NOT the same thing as rusty cars on blocks in the front yard, tractor-trailers parked in the driveway and houses painted purple.

 

At least a full, unqualified federal preemption of CC&R antenna restrictions would avoid harming hams who are already in CAs who today already have no antenna restrictions. That's what would make your idea different from ARPA -- at least it wouldn't add restrictions to hams like ARPA would. And at least your idea is consistent with your assertion that you have rights to do with your land what you want. What I don't understand is hams who assert that they have property rights, and then support a bill like ARPA that not only guarantees them nothing, but takes away rights from others who did them no harm.

The gentleman from Florida would still turn his nose up at a full preemption, but he's going to turn his nose up at anything that CA hams would consider "usable," so convincing him of anything would seem to be an unrealistic goal. If any legislation is going to go anywhere, somebody is going to have to figure out how to work around his hold.

 

^I agree.

But we're really far down the road on all this.

I never understood why sensible local ordinances aren't very sufficient, but evidently in "some places," people really do let their yards get full of 2' tall weeds, display cars on blocks in their front yards and all sorts of weird stuff.

We're not allowed by City Ordinance to do anything like that. We can't even grow our grass taller than four inches, it's a violation of city ordinance and they not just "can" fine you for that, but they really do...happens all the time; and if you don't pay the fine, they place a lien on your property.

Have a car that doesn't run and has no license plates and valid current registration and insurance? They simply come and tow it away...no questions asked. They're very effective.

Ditto for "disturbing the peace," which is why all our gardeners line up at 6:30 AM just waiting until 7:00 AM to start their lawnmowers and leaf blowers and such. And they can't do any of that after 11:00 PM, either, so they know the law.

We're not allowed lots of stuff by city ordinance, and almost everyone abides willingly. CC&Rs or HOA by-laws add nothing to "property values" here -- it's actually the opposite, and real estate ads in the papers boast "NO HOA!" as a feature, which brings about a 10% premium on average because people will pay a premium to not be in one.

 

Lots of assumption. Again.

 

See??? There are still places to live in the US where people value property rights.

 

It's a difference without a distinction. Whether equivalent property control rules are written by a municipality or a HOA is important only to those with some unnatural hate of local HOA control. Your property rights are equally limited regardless.

From my perspective, it's preferable to have neighbors making up the rules rather than municipal government bureaucrats

 

Perhaps. Even so, I would rather live in a state where the default assumption is that neither the muni nor the neighbors write onerous rules than in a state where they both pile on. Long live Pirtle v. Wade (1979) [oscn.net].

 

But at least under municipal ordinances imposed by elected officials, you can take them to court to contest unreasonable prohibitions or restrictions, and the municipality must defend itself by showing a compelling reason not to allow the proposed activity such as an antenna installation. With CAs, you have signed away your rights at the outset, and are obliged by contract to abide by whatever arbitrary rules are formulated (usually with no input from potential property buyers), with limited, or in some cases, no right to appeal. "Neighbors" are NOT the people making up the rules; the rules were already in place before you or the "neighbors" even came on the scene and everyone had to agree to them in order to purchase the property.

This is a perfect example of one of the pitfalls of governments "outsourcing" their services; HOA restrictions embedded in every new housing development spares the municipality of the responsibility, allowing them to weasel out of the expense of their lawful function. This is why in some cities and counties, developers are required by local ordinance to include a community association with a set of restrictions with every new sub-division. In the case of hams, a significant advantage of municipal control rather than control by local contract, is that municipalities are required by law, under the FCC's PRB-1 rules, to allow 'reasonable' antennas, although the word 'reasonable' is undefined, making court action necessary in many cases.

Nevertheless, the main argument here is that (1) CA's should formulate their own set of rules to fit each unique situation, not merely copy a set of one-size-fits-all regulations off some boilerplate model likely written by an out-of-state entity with no interest whatever in that particular community, and (2) there is no justification for a blanket prohibition of outdoor antennas by default, which apparently has become ubiquitous with CA rules in recent years.

Given that affordable housing in desirable communities within easy commuting distance to corporate workplaces with good-paying jobs is scarce in most municipalities, the prospective home buyer is given little or no choice whether to buy into a HOA community or a piece of property with no CA. Reportedly, over 90% of new properties are encumbered by HOAs, and the vast majority of HOAs prohibit or restrict outdoor antennas.

The bottom line is that in the United States, it is increasingly becoming unlawful to erect outdoor amateur radio antennas. Antenna prohibition by default is a new Normal, spreading across the land like an untreated cancer.

 

Good point, good point, and good point.

 

You're missing one very big piece of the picture, Steve.

Those ordinances of which you speak - grass mowing, junk-car, noise ordinances, etc. - are all part of the local municipal government......which means property taxes. Also means the local municipal government must make hard decisions that will tick some people off.

In some parts of the USA, there just is no local municipal government. Such things are done by "the county" - and "the county" can be very large.

In some parts of the USA, the mantra of "small government" means the local municipal government, if it even exists, is underfunded and struggling to do basic stuff like police protection. So there is a built-in incentive to "outsource" those ordinances, and their enforcement, to HOAs, CC&Rs, etc. This is particularly true in areas that have seen rapid growth in the past 30 years or so.

The no-antennas boilerplate is a direct result of this trend, and the cable-TV industry.

 

Sounds fashionable by let's examine your points:
1. You "can take them (the muni) to court to contest reasonability.

That is nonsense. Rather, you are claiming it's somehow easier to sue a muni claiming injury which must be justified to the court's satisfaction. The onus is on you to demonstrate cutting your grass rules are unreasonable, noise ordinances are unreasonable, etc.. good luck with that trick

2. Establishment of CAs is "government outsourcing".

Rather, it's government substitution with local control, smaller government, less bureaucracy, lesser political influence and greater homeowner involvement in that the people who create HOA rules and modify them at their discretion ARE the people who live there, not some outsider.

3. HOAs should independently formulate neighborhood specific rules.

That you believe they don't is indicative of an uninformed opinion on which you base false conclusions. While many HOA rules begin with some ubiquitous conditions, each has its own formula for both applying rules and methods by which residents may obtain modification or waiver. Such procedures are the rule,not the exception, and allow flexibility far greater than anyone living under municipal law can enjoy.

I get it. You hate HOAs. The cancer metaphor is priceless! You think they somehow threaten your freedom because HOAs are more concerned with aesthetics than a hobby. Such is the perspective of someone who measures quality of life with antennas.

I hope you never get cancer but that's the only way you may ever understand the difference.