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: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: HRDLLC-2
  1. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Should "antennas" be controlled in your community by your local gas station?

    What about GMRS antennas? External Wfi Antennas? External cell phone antennas? Any antennas?

    Should controlled access to use these devices by restricting, or otherwise authorizing "antennas" for use with these devices, be a situation controlled and regulated by your local gas station?

    Should we work with our local privately owned gas stations, so we can put a cell phone antenna outside on the roof?

    ..
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2014
  2. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Please reconsider supporting this bill that millions of Americans don't want, that (at best) 750K hams may want, and no dimensions nor number of antennas has been specified. Consider that, if I want to work 20m, a short ground-mounted vertical will sort-of work. But, if I want to work 160m reasonably well, the same size antenna is pretty crappy. And, if I want to get on 2m w/ reasonably good performance, a small antenna will work... IF I can get it above the trees and buildings.

    Again, the way HR4969 ISN'T worded, it's like me selling you a car but, not specifying anything about it until after the deal is made. I can't support this open-ended bill.

    And, the FCC does NOT support the bill (extending PRB-1 to private contracts).

    Also consider that Congress hasn't MUCH bigger fish to fry (but they're not doing even that). Whatever argument anyone may have for it, the reality is, it's very likely going nowhere.
     
  3. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    ...Do think this document intended for the reasonable accommodation for antennas in HOA's..., wording will work?

    https://www.sctxca.org/export/sites...amradio/Antenna_Permit/antenna-guidelines.pdf


    ...and I Quote:


    "The FCC said, in effect, that should Congress instruct FCC to do so, it would expeditiously extend the policy."


    ...47 state representatives currently support this bill in the house and you say it's going where again?
     
  4. KK4GGL

    KK4GGL Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    So, you disagree with OTARD? What about racial or religious restrictions? Where do YOU "draw the line"
     
  5. KE6KA

    KE6KA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Here the county doesn't get involved in that. If the zoning allows it they will issue a permit. That doesn't give you a free ride to violate the CC&Rs, however. Any property owner in that tract or development is entitled to give you a big headache about it.
     
  6. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    It might have, if it was included in the text of HR4969. Since it's not, nope.

    Yes, the FCC said that (link). They also said they didn't think it was their job to invalidate private contracts:

    47 of 435 House representatives say they'll vote for it. If in fact they do, it's nowhere near a majority (assuming the bill doesn't die in committee). Historically, a similar bill went nowhere, with CAI and their millions of members lobbying against it. It looks like they've geared-up to do it again. This resolution is vague and premised upon ham service that hasn't been the case for decades. Don't hold your breath on HR4969 going anywhere.
     
  7. W6UV

    W6UV Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Good question. Restrictions based on race, for example, are in a different league than restrictions that affect a hobby. One can argue that the government has an obligation to intervene when restrictions arise that affect people as a result of uncontrollable circumstances of their birth. Ham antennas are not in the same league -- they're related to a hobby activity, just like satellite dishes are related to entertainment.

    Another example affected a friend. When he bought his house on 1/2 an acre in the suburbs he had no interest in horses. About five years after moving in, he got into riding and eventually bought a horse and built a stable on his property. He forgot to check the CC&Rs before he bought the horse and built the stable and didn't realize that animals other than household pets were prohibited. He fought the HOA, but eventually lost and had to move his horse to a boarding stables. Was this fair? Were the CC&Rs an unreasonable burden? Should he have been allowed to keep his horse? What about close neighbors who may have had allergies to horses (or just didn't like the smell)?
     
  8. N4DES

    N4DES Ham Member QRZ Page

    That would be correct. The Building Department in my County will not issue a permit unless they have a letter from the HOA if the residence is in an HOA, and yes they do check here.
     
  9. N2EY

    N2EY XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yup, but that's not what I was getting at.

    Even if there is no HOA, CC&Rs can still be enforced.

    All it takes is for someone to drop a dime on you.

    In every place I've lived, property deeds, real estate sales and such are public information. Anybody can go to the county seat and look up the deed to my house, my neighbor's house, etc. - and all the deed covenants, restrictions, easements, plot plans, building permits, regulations, ordinances, zoning, etc., etc., etc. There may be a small fee involved but all the information can be obtained if somebody really wants it.

    I suspect it's like that everywhere.

    So, if there's a deed restriction/covenant/whatever on a property, anybody can find out about it, and then inform the township/city/county/etc. And those folks can't legally issue a building permit that violates the deed. Even if there is no HOA at all.

    Of course there's an exception: If the deed restriction involves stuff that has been outlawed, it has no power. For example, there are properties whose deed restrictions don't allow "those people" to buy them. Such restrictions were struck down decades ago as unconstitutional.

    But a deed restriction that, say, limits the maximum height of structures doesn't fall into that category.
     
  10. N2EY

    N2EY XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Let's do a little math....

    A square half-acre piece of land is about 150 feet on a side. No matter where you go on that half-acre, you are never more than 75 feet from the nearest boundary. If the land isn't square, the separation is even less.

    That's a pretty small space in which to keep a horse, unless you REALLY LIKE horses. An average size horse will produce 35 to 50 pounds of manure a day - that's 6 to 9 TONS per year. Plus urine. That's a lot of...stuff....for the neighbors to deal with, particularly if they're downwind.

    IOW, keeping a horse on a half-acre piece of residential land with neighbors all around isn't really a reasonable use of the property.

    However, a dog would be a different thing completely. On such a piece of land, having a dog or two, even a fairly large one, would be a reasonable use of the property.

    Now, keeping a horse on 10 acres would be a very different case.

    Same for antennas.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page