We lost a co-sponsor on ARPA

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KU0O, Dec 22, 2015.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: Subscribe
  1. KE6KA

    KE6KA Ham Member QRZ Page

    The issue isn't about towers. The issue is that most of these restrictions prohibit any type of antenna. Most hams do not have a tower. They have dipoles, loops, and other wire antennas that have less visual impact than HVAC units on rooftops. However, we shouldn't be limited to wire antennas either. If someone chooses to participate in VHF/UHF activities in the hobby, wire antennas in trees aren't a very good compromise.
    KC8VWM and N2EY like this.
  2. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    That was one impetus. Here, we don't have or use any retention ponds, so that certainly wasn't the impetus here.

    We have a storm sewer system maintained by the County and the "L.A. River" is the primary drainage path. It drains to the ocean. No ponds. It's empty 90% of the time, but when it rains it would be good for high speed kayaking.:)
  3. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Well, my advice is, for a better chance at getting ARPA passed,
    don't spook the public with the prospect of what they consider
    to be an unsightly tower in their neighborhood.

    KC8VWM likes this.
  4. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Only C.A.I. is doing that. The bill, and everything the ARRL has published and presented doesn't say anything about towers.
    KC8VWM likes this.
  5. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Ah, yes:

    " Community associations would need to make reasonable accommodations for HAM (sic)
    radio equipment; including amateur radio towers, antennas, and other external devices."


    Maybe that's one reason we may lose more sponsors, as well as public support.
    Perhaps ARRL should clarify exactly what are "reasonable accommodations."

    Last edited: Feb 6, 2016
  6. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yep, C.A.I. lied. But that's their job...their 'clients' are HOAs, and although they only represent a small percentage of them, they get paid fees for their service.

    ARRL did already clarify with their video production 'Clarity on Parity,' which you can view freely on their website. They have submitted that to all members of Congress.
    KC8VWM likes this.
  7. WJ4U

    WJ4U Ham Member QRZ Page

    KC8VWM likes this.
  8. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page


    "CAI opposes HAM Radio legislation and any unnecessary attempts by federal lawmakers to
    pre-empt community associations' CC&Rs and by-laws and is working with Members of Congress
    to help them understand why HAM Radio (sic) pre-emption should not become law. Further, CAI is
    engaging membership around the country to let members of the U.S. House of Representatives know
    that they oppose HAM Radio (sic) legislation because they support the preservation of the community
    association model of allowing neighbors to create reasonable rules for their neighborhoods."

    IMHO, our bill would stand a much better chance of becoming law if it were amended
    to spell out exactly what is--and is not (towers)--meant by "reasonable accommodations."

  9. W5WN

    W5WN Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Oh, no! The thread is starting all over from the beginning arguments again. :( SSDD
    KC8VWM likes this.
  10. KK4GGL

    KK4GGL XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Actually, towers are included IF, and only IF, it is a reasonable accommodation, and is requested. A 50 ft tower on a 100x100 ft lot? Almost certainly not. A 5 acre lot. Probably.

Share This Page