The Scottsdale Communications Commission

<blockquote>
<H2>The City of Scottsdale, AZ, proposal for amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 455</h2>

<H3>ATTENTION: QRZ has removed the original article.</H3>




<a
href="http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0406wireless06.html" target="new" </a><font
color="#FF0000" face="Comic Sans MS"><u>CLICK HERE to
see the Arizona Republic article on this issue</u></a></p>
<p align="center">

(This will take you to the Arizona Republic website to see this story.
To return, just close the new browser window.)




Read on.
</blockquote>



<blockquote>


<pre>
There is a LOT of misunderstanding regarding this issue. Lots of
people have written, saying that they have received "rude and
unprofessional" responses to their emails regarding this issue,
stating "Just read the ordinance." And we at QRZ have been accused
of "jumping the gun" and creating a false alarm.




I submitted this article, and here is what I know about it:




First.. it is true that the ORDINANCE states that amateur radio is
EXEMPT. However, the point was NOT the ordinance, but the proposed
AMENDMENT to the ordinance. It's intention was to "broaden the
scope" of the ordinance. And that intent was not well established.




It states that it would include "personal wireless facilities." I
was told that it had been considered, since the planning commission
thought "personal wireless facilities" was synonymous with "personal
wireless service facility" and "PCS" or "Personal Communications
Service," (it isn't) that they might not even need the specific
exemption for amateur radio.




Second... there is a lot of confusion amongst hams, and as I have
found, apparently also within the Scottsdale planning commission
themselves about the terminology of the proposed amendment AND the
original ordinance. I talked to the gentleman at the planning
commission and it seems that the intent was not to include hams, but
the wording didn't exactly reflect that.




Third... the proposal was sent to an ARRL Regulatory person, and he
was taken aback by it as well.




I have to question even the non-Amateur radio parts of this ordinance
and proposal. I mean, it's wording also includes "reception
devices." Why would a reception device be required to have an annual
certification that it complies with the FCC's RF emissions guidelines?




A few more interesting tidbids from the City of Scottsdale planning
website regarding another idea:

http://www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/communitydev/WirelessFactSheet.asp




"The purpose of the Wireless Communication Text Amendment is to
address the following issues that surfaced during recent public
dialogue. These issues include:

*Permitted heights of ham radio antennas.

*The use of flagpoles to conceal wireless antennas."



Oh, well. We tried.


Mark
Editor, QRZ
</blockquote>