W7CCE Develops New Argument and Files Petition with FCC re: PRB-1

Prior petitions to the FCC to modify PRB-1 (my own included) have contested the assumptions in CC&R's (ARRL) or directly challenged PRB-1 as being unfair to those who must or who find themselves (children) in an HOA by no choice of their own or alleged minority discrimination in the case of low cost housing which also employ CC&R's. None have worked.

A new strategy has been developed, and it's explained in only two pages. It presumes that HOA's are RIGHT! Antennas DO compromise the aesthetics of the community. It then demonstrates that the FCC, by allowing HOA's to divest themselves of compromised aesthetics simply by their agreement to do so, while then forcing the non-HOA areas to accept the compromised aesthetics under penalty of Federal Law creates an unconscionable situation and violates the 14th Amendment.

Sometimes the most understandable analysis comes from looking at the problem with reversed assumptions.

The paperwork has been filed. We'll see what happens.

In the meantime, I have developed yet another argument which will not be disclosed at this time. Before any of these can make it to Federal court we must demonstrate that administrative relief was sought and denied. While I have made several arguments (as noted above) this argument is so simple and easy to demonstrate that it could make it through the judicial process very quickly.

I have asked to speak at Dayton on the subject of dealing with your HOA. Perhaps we will have some reaction by that time from the Commission.

73,
Len
W7CCE

 

Invalid Attachment Error Message. Can you provide an FCC filing document number?

 

Don't move into an HOA area if you want antennae. Everyone has that choice.

 

Is this a reason then for the government to ban all transmitting antennas except for those who's sponsors have $xxB to help them write an exception? Be careful what you wish for.

 

Slippery slope. If the FCC, at the behest of the ARS, declares visible antennas a blight, it simply makes it easier for non-HOA areas to ban them outright through legislation (zoning). Worse, it forecloses any future opportunities for the FCC to weigh in on any debate, anywhere in the US, in favor of liberal government policies with regard to visible antennas.

 

A review of the 14 Amendment would show that it had a rather limited scope as it relates to conferring citizenship on a certain class of people. To carry it over to other areas of law is, and has been, a stretch. You see this happening as recently as yesterday at the Supreme Court.

Here is a good take on the 14th Amendment for those who might be interested, from originalintent.org: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

 

You don't allow for the 'Law of unintended consequences". With out PRB 1, there would be alot more communities that would hold down heights to say 30 feet or so. And this would be done by the zoning board or town council. If you live in a HOA community then move!! You knew what you were getting into before you signed the offer contract. You knew before you closed on the property. Find another way to enjoy the hobby. Or is this your new hobby? Trying to get the FCC to change PRB 1?

Rick wn2c

 

One problem is that aesthetics don't matter - property values do. Laws exist to protect one's property value. There is no evidence that ham antennas lower property values - none. The only studies done to date reveal no effect what-so-ever. If the FCC agreed that ham antennas DID lower property values, that would open them up to all sorts of shenanigans regarding OTARD, which allows those "ugly" TV antennas and Satellite dishes!!

 

It's a communist plot.

 

Actually, it's a capitalist plot.

Think about who puts CC&Rs, HOAs, etc., in place - and why.

For example, I've had folks in real estate tell me that developers routinely include all sorts of CC&Rs in their new-home developments, from townhomes to McMansions. They do it to guarantee that the early buyers don't do anything to change how the development looks. They do it because they are used to doing it. They do it because the banks like it. And they do it because they have it in boilerplate and don't want to pay a lawyer to change it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
The Fourteenth amendment like the rest of the Constitution is subject to all manner of abuse.

 

Don't mean to butt in, but what is the basic premise you are arguing?

 

That when you move somewhere and accept the rules, they dont apply to you.

Or that people can't make rules for the houses they sell on the land they own.

 

Exactly. Which is why efforts to do an end run around the CC&R's are pinko. Of course, I'm being (somewhat) facetious.

 

While interesting, this seems doomed to fail.

The FCC has already made it perfectly clear what it wants to see before it will consider overriding the anti-antenna restrictions in CCR's: either evidence that hams are unable to find places to live above/beyond the evidence previously submitted, or direction from legislators or judicial officials to enact some form of pre-emption.

I think efforts would be better spent with a two-pronged approach:

1. Petition the FCC for a minor pre-emption of CCR's -- preempt outright prohibitions on the use of transmitters on the owners' property (found in a few naïve covenants which didn't contemplate how pervasive cell phones, wi fi, and wireless devices have become), preempt prohibitions and too-onerous restrictions on antennas that cannot be seen from common areas, and reaffirm the FCC's position that it is the primary authority in adjudicating RF interference complaints for everything except 11 meters (where the FCC has already permitted some local enforcement).

While this is nowhere close to what some hams would hope for...it provides some relief without overriding the purpose of CCR's. There's a slight chance that the FCC might be willing to go this far without being nudged by a judge or an act of Congress, and really it just codifies the status quo in some places, where hams already circumvent restrictions with stealth antennas, etc.

2. Separately from #1, someone with a bit of clout ought to pursue a logic exercise with the FCC: In some areas, local governments effectively require developers to incorporate certain features that necessitate the formation of an HOA and the imposition of CCRs. If the local governments are constrained in their ability to restrict amateur radio antennas, shouldn't that mean that constraint should pass through to any form of deed restriction those entities may de facto require?

I would advise against attempting both prongs of the strategy simultaneously, and I would advise against a random amateur attempting #2 via a proposed rulemaking. The first prong is probably one that can be sold by anyone who can polish it up as a reasonable step within the FCC's delegated authority by virtue of codifying the status quo. The second will take a bit more of a political sales job to achieve, I think.