U.S. Congress: HR 4969--extending PRB-1 to private CC&Rs

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by WA7DU, Jun 27, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-Geochron
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
  1. W6UV

    W6UV Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    What if your neighbor believes that it's unreasonable that he not be allowed to keep a derelict car up on cinder blocks on his front lawn? How would you feel about that? Or does your definition of reasonableness trump his?
  2. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    I can't agree with that. His neighbor should use wood blocks. :p
  3. KO6WB

    KO6WB Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Reasonable is a quanity that needs further clarification.
    As an example of the car in the front lawn. It might be reasonable if it was fitted with a conforming cover that was a so-called neutral color (whatever that is).
    So, a reasonable accommodation for an amateur antenna could have a height restriction of 35 feet (no AV-18HT, sorry) or one that cannot be viewed without aide (whatever that is).
    The point is there are reasonable ways to accommodate just about everybody but that's not what HOA's want.
    They usually are written from a boiler plate form or even a simple web posting. One size fits all, when it really doesn't.
    A lot of HOA's have no idea why there are certain restrictions, they just are and there can be no deviations, no matter what. All because they said so.
    For the most part it is doubtful any of the signatures to the agreement have a definite demand there be no antennas. They may not even be aware of other restriction until they violate it.

    So, is it reasonable to preclude a certain group (those people) by restricting their activities?

    Have fun
  4. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    ..and it will be.., by the FCC..., after the bill has passed. Just like OTARD has it's own set of "clarifications" written for antennas installed in HOA's.

    Keep in mind, the "Bill" is only intended to enact a law. Once it has passed, the government will direct the FCC to enact the appropriate changes to accommodate the new law. The FCC will also be given a specific time frame to accomplish this task.
  5. W6UV

    W6UV Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yes, it is, if "those people" signed a contract with a stipulation that they not engage in certain activities. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

    There are many issues here to consider, but the one that should prevail is that the people affected voluntarily signed a contract for property with conditions attached. No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to sign. They knew what they were getting into from the get go (and if they didn't, perhaps because they didn't read the CC&Rs before they signed, then I have no sympathy for them either as no one should sign a contract for a house without knowing all of the restrictions, etc., that they'll be required to follow).
  6. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sure. And, after we close the deal on the car I'm selling you, I'll let you know what it is.
  7. KK4GGL

    KK4GGL Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    No, actually, you don't get to tell me what my position is. Or are you saying you get to tell people what to think. You know, I'd believe that about you. You think you get to tell people what they think.

    .. a real man? Do you know about such things?
  8. KK4GGL

    KK4GGL Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    My position is if the restrictions are unreasonable, you should be able to work to change them, whether you have signed something or not.
  9. W6UV

    W6UV Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I agree with that position, but only to the extent that you should work with your neighbors to change the restrictions, and not rely on big daddy government to bail you out.
  10. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Are you actually suggesting entities such as the ARRL, The United States Congress, 47 state officials who support the bill, AND the FCC, are all incredibly neglectful and not a single one of them, never bothered to actually consider, "what a reasonable antenna means" prior to the introduction of this bill?

    ...Please reconsider.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page