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

If you have no antenna restrictions currently, why would things change after this bill is introduced. The HOA's are only enforcing covenants. If you have no current restriction on antennas, this law will have zero effect on you. I don't live in a HOA restricted neighborhood. I put up the antenna I wanted to put up. However, when I lived at my previous address in the same town. I had to apply to the town for a permit to install my TH5. The individual from the town who wrote the permission was not an RF specialist. Somehow I received permission. From what I see, this bill removes covenants from the equation and allows a person to tell an HOA what type of antenna they wish to construct. There will be some minimal rules, such as not allowing a tower with lights on your property or even not allowing a tower which could under any circumstances fall on a neighbors property. Disallowing a roof mounted antenna, such as a beam or a vertical such as a R8 would be considered an overreach. It all depends on your ability to negotiate.

 

You are misunderstanding the bill's requirements. Here is an explanation from a legal expert: https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/k1vr-shows-hr555-arpa-to-be-a-ham-radio-killer.577132/

 

A former FCC attorney, Jim N3JT, thinks otherwise. He details how the presently worded legislation would unfortunately and very probably back-fire for those even in HOA situations as described above. See these links,

http://files.constantcontact.com/40babb3f001/871f8604-5223-44b1-9a26-87619cb90164.pdf

http://files.constantcontact.com/40babb3f001/cd81cb95-e983-494b-a16a-13dfa693870a.pdf

73 de John - WØPV

 

Unfortunately, this is not correct.

The bill does not define, narrowly or otherwise, the purview of what 'community associations' have responsibility. That means that if you have a communal contract, with the phrase 'and other matters that arise' in it, or similar language, then each and every one of these contracts which bind you will now have responsibility, under Federal law, of communal judgement of your amateur radio antenna allowance.

Notice: only ONE, as in 'AN effective outdoor antenna'. No multiple antennas.

In Kentucky I have two communal contracts regarding a 500 acre farm. One deals with water rights and access. Another deals with roads, fences, hunting, and so on. No antennas dealt with those contracts to this point. But each has an 'other matters as they arise' clause. Under the ARPA bill, as presently worded, I will have to secure prior approval and then future approval of a 'single'(that is 'AN') effective antenna that meets the "principles" of Part 97. With each communal group.

Such an antenna is a short, 1 foot whip, for example.

73
Chip W1YW

 

If after reading the above articles you still support ARPA as it's presently written all I can say is GADS!!! It's a disaster in waiting and I think that the ARRL is really dropping the ball on this one with the screwed up language still contained within, as in the same one submitted in 2016.

 

OK, those who are against this bill, why not write your own alternative bill so we who support this legislation can read your words of wisdom and get behind your ideas for returning the rights of property holders and overturn the evil covenants. I'm waiting to read your proposed legislation.

 

First, there is no compelling reason to do so. People who have agreed to live in/on property with antenna restrictions have made their decisions. Problem solved.

Second, some of us who are inclined to suggest legislation language are spending substantial time trying to warn others about the poor language proposed by ARRL. Fred Hopengarten spent a lot of time in his excellent whitepaper on the subject. If he had been allowed to spend that time on a bill, and if ARRL had spent the same amount of effort putting forward a bill written by him as they have pushing their own compromised product, we could have had a much better bill, since he is a subject matter expert on CC&R issues.

Third, ARRL had an acceptable bill when they started. It was a one-paragraph bill that directed FCC to extend PRB-1, as is, to CC&R. That's really all ARRL wanted anyway, since the League has been mostly satisfied with PRB-1 over the last 30y. There was no reason for them to deviate from that bill, as it was a harmless bill that could have accomplished their goals without doing harm to any hams. Instead, the League leadership chose to cave to CAI and push a compromise bill that destroyed the rights of hams who currently have no antenna restrictions.

Forth, several of us have tried repeatedly to work with our division directors to correct the flaws identified by Hopengarten and many others, in the current legislation, going as far as to suggest changes to the bill that would eliminate the potential harm to hams. Unfortunately, the League leadership insists on pressing forward with a bill that has been predicted by more than one professional legal opinion to cause harm to many hams, and to not have the power to guarantee help to anyone in the amateur service.

Fifth, if covenants were evil, and hams entered into them, then the hams knowingly entered into an evil device, and the consequences they suffer are those that they are due. I don't accept that covenants are evil, but that's the logical conclusion of your assertion.

So while your suggestion might sound reasonable on the surface, the situation is such that you are in no position to demand that opponents of the League's bill produce a competing bill. There is no moral or ethical equivalence here. The League's position is so clearly in opposition to the interests of its membership and the service as a whole that supporting the bill at this point is to oppose the rights of your fellow hams, who have no duty to produce a better product just to satisfy you.

It's also interesting that you haven't put forward one single word in all your posts suggesting how to improve the legislation so that it doesn't take away antenna rights from hams who currently have no antenna restrictions. So before you demand that others produce alternative legislation for you, perhaps you should practice what you preach.

 

You obviously have not gone house hunting lately. Unless one wishes to live in the woods, or in a lower class neighborhood, one does not find middle class housing in a neighborhood built within the past 15 to 20 years that doesn't come with restrictive covenants. My wife and I have been looking for homes in central and northern Delaware,Florida and New Jersey without HOA attachment. I'm looking for a home in the neighborhood of 500,000$ and so far we've found nothing and we have gone to quite a few realtors who all have said, if you want to live in a modern homes in a newer neighborhood, there are NONE without HOA's being constructed. I'd stay were I am in a home built in the mid 1980's but the taxes in my county are the second highest in the country (a colleague who lives a few towns over is paying 20,000 plus a year in property taxes and a house around the corner has taxes exceeding 46,000$ a year). That's a lot off the top when one has reached retirement age. By the way, Westchester NY pays the highest property taxes in the country so, it could be worse.

 

Actually, I have. My current home was built in 2010 and it is CC&R free. Most of my neighbors' homes are less than 20y old and they are all CC&R free. All of the houses I looked at in the last 10y that have CC&R are free of antenna restrictions. All of them. I have looked at many covenants, and only one had any mention of antennas, and that covenant was over 30y old.

I'm sorry that you live in a part of the world that has no respect for your property rights. Maybe then you should think twice before you support a bill that is going to take away the property rights of others, because ARRL (and you) are pushing a bill that is going to take away the rights of people who live in HOA neighborhoods who currently have no antenna restrictions. If you watch the HamRadioNow episode that was just uploaded today:

http://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/hamradionow-it-aint-parity-until-we-say-its-parity.577504/

...you'll see that Fred has also encountered many such HOAs in his work with hams around the country. You and ARRL are supporting a bad bill that is going to guarantee you nothing, and take away the rights of other hams. If you aren't a YouTube watcher, you can read Fred's legal opinion here:

http://www.kkn.net/~n6tv/Just_Say_No_to_S.1534_v4.pdf

The arguments are numerous and comprehensive. There is no way to watch/read that opinion and deny that the ARRL bill will cost many hams their antenna rights. So if you are so interested in property rights, you need to seriously rethink your position on ARPA.

 

There may be some compelling family or maybe job issue that requires a person to live in a state with those confiscatory property taxes my solution would be to see how fast I could exit that state which is exactly what I did when I retired and escaped from NJ. Can only speak for Pa there seems to be plenty of the 2561 municipalities that do not have any sort of antenna restrictions mine is one of them and there are plenty of homes to be had outside of developments or areas that have HOA regulations.

 

Again, simply stated, more requirements = fewer choices. If you categorize (must-haves vs nice-to-haves) and then prioritize what you seek, you'll have a better chance of finding something you can live with. I won't mention the concessions I made because, I know you're not interested in my example of give and take.

 

I in no way would say you're not generous, OM! But I think you may be a bit Penny Wise and Pound Foolish to not take my Counteroffer...

For soon the HOA CAI Goons will be tossing your pad, and relieving you of your Last Pixie II if your prediction of Parity Act Doom brings The Darkness to HF. All Fractal Antennas will be determined to be merely RF Spewing Dipoles in Disguise, a Pestilence upon Everytown, Loathsome to the Eye as well as the Property Healths. And the Next Generation will never know the joy of a warm Cantenna.... Even the image of HP Maxim will be banned from Google in Newspeak Shame, and The Brick Shack Near Hartford will become a Parking Lot for a Dollar General Store, where no one may purchase a radio. All Things Sixty Cycles will be banned as the Parity Act changes the shape of our world, forever.

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV Bill

 

"It's a disaster in waiting". Well said.

 

I live where I live and am happy in the north east. I have yet to find any home without an HOA of recent construction which also has access to high speed internet (MY current speed is over 80 Mbps up and down) on the east coast and is not located in a rural environment. I live in a suburb of NYC, which is still the largest city in the United States by population. By the way, I think you should have written "Maybe then you should think twice before you support a bill that MIGHT take away the property rights of others". Until something passes into law while we might make predictions that fit our narrative, we really don't know what the outcome will be. By the way, my wife is an attorney so, if it comes down to it, all I face are court costs. See, not everything is so black and white.

 

So high speed internet is more important to you than preserving the rights of your fellow hams. I see.

And time. Have you read Zubarau v. Palmdale? That pour guy has spent years in court over just one antenna structure.

The more important fact is that you are supporting a bill that will take away the rights of fellow hams who did nothing wrong to you. There are several very credible expert legal opinions that have reached that exact conclusion about this legislation. I provided you a link to one of the best. If that's not good enough for you, or if you simply don't accept it, that's on you. But that PDF is a detailed opinion from the foremost legal authority on the subject -- someone recognized as such by ARRL, no less (and ironically).

In light of such information, if you continue to support this bill to the detriment of your fellow hams, you have no right to expect anyone to give a rat's rear what your personal situation is. Such brazen hypocrisy is frankly unbelievable.