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: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
  1. WB2KSP

    WB2KSP Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, you obviously have access to the CAI and are aware of its lies about ham radio. What's next, homes in HOA governed neighborhoods can pick and chose which federal laws they chose to abide by? After all Amateur radio is under the control of the federal government and HOA rights supersede those, just ask the members of the CAI. Why don't you post a link to the CAI site where you saw this or better yet, how about suggesting a debate between Gary Pearce representing the amateur radio community and an official from the CAI. Let them each present their arguments. Lets see if the CAI can do it without telling falsehoods and lies, oh and tell their members that they must turn off their cell phones until this is resolved because the cell system will not work without those dreaded towers which so offend them. Or maybe it's the waves lengths which come from ham towers which offend them. I mean they're very good at making up things, perhaps the entire problem is frequency related.
  2. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    That would be interesting, but actually ARPA was drafted with wording almost identical to PRB-1, which became law 30 years ago and did not define reasonable accommodation.

    PRB-1 worked incredibly well without defining that, since it kind of defies definition.

    The OTARD law does not define what kind of television antenna people can use for over the air, non-satellite broadcast reception, either. That's because what is necessary varies pretty much from block to block all over the country.

    I lived in Mt. Arlington, NJ many years ago, right at the summit of a very big hill that was LOS to not only NYC TV transmitters, but also Philadelphia ones; and with a good TV antenna, I could receive UHF-TV from Toronto...that was 350 miles away.

    But my neighbor across the street -- literally across the street -- was more than 100' lower in elevation and wasn't LOS to any of that. He could barely receive VHF TV signals from NYC, only 40 miles away.

    So, my 'reasonable accommodation' for TV would hve been a dipole; his reasonable accommodation would have been four large stacked beams on a tower -- to receive exactly the same signals.

    One size fits all doesn't work.
  3. WB2KSP

    WB2KSP Ham Member QRZ Page

    This is what it comes down to. Who the h*ll are they to tell me that my tower is unsightly? Perhaps I consider the car they drive unsightly, or maybe I find their spouce or children unatractive . What is it that gives them greater rights than I? Has someone appointed them G-d? Are they the final determinate as to what is acceptable and what is not? All of a sudden, I feel like we are living under a dictatorship where independent thinking has been outlawed by the great leader. What has happened to America?
  4. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I put the link is in post #1585.

    As to whether "HOA rights" supersede federal law: No--that's the whole idea behind ARPA.
    But to get the law passed, we need to assure the public that our antennas (beautiful to us) will
    not be what they consider an eyesore. I posted the CAI quote so we'll all know what we're up
    against here: OIC's efforts to influence members of Congress are in direct opposition to ours.
    Their main objection seems to be their fear that unsightly (to them) towers will spring up.

  5. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    We seem to be going off on a tangent here. :rolleyes: Who might this "great leader
    we are living under" be, that you feel "has outlawed independent thinking?"
  6. WB2KSP

    WB2KSP Ham Member QRZ Page

    Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Being on the verge of retirement myself and having lived in the NYC metro area in a home built in 1986, The idea of a neighborhood organization making decisions concerning property that I paid for is an unacceptable way to live. The so called great leader is the HOA board which decides if you can operate a legally purchased transmitter even if you are a licensed operator from land which you pay taxes on and on which you hold the deed. Towers can be unsightly if they are not kept up, like anything else. An improperly maintained pool can attract insects to a neighborhood. As long as the ham transmission is clean and doesn't cause interference I will bet that in short time neighbors won't even notice the tower. In my old neighborhood I had a TH5 on my roof and a 1/4 acre plot and my neighbors offered to help me install it and no one else was a ham. I'm not suggesting a 100 foot tower on a postage stamp piece of land but a 40 foot tower in my area isn't even above the tree line. People who would be outraged at such a thing are only looking for trouble and if its not a tower it's your opening the garage door too early or too late (power garage door openers turn on a light whenever the door is opened and maybe it is bright enough so that people on the other side of the street can see it), or taking the garbage can to the curb the night before pickup. People can find anything to be outraged over but we live in a society of individuals not clones. With the advent of HOA's and the covenants applied to newer communities and the lack of viable alternatives in much of the country it seems that individuality is becoming a thing of the past. I hope I've made myself understood.
  7. WB2KSP

    WB2KSP Ham Member QRZ Page

    The public isn't going to vote for the ARPA and the representatives who will vote have staff which are theoretically better informed. Don't aim down or dumb down the hobby by saying that in no cases shall a tower be installed. We shall stick to ground mounted dummy loads which we won't operate if anyone else is at home. As has been mentioned, PRB1 has been law for years and governments large and small have books filled with previous case law on that bill. This bill comes down to the FCC deferring its power to congress allowing it to uphold the same law as PRB1 when it comes to private property. In other words, it's all political. in the end the government feels that ham radio serves a purpose and by denying the realistic use of amateur radio these covenants are opposed to the governments previously stated position,
  8. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    But are the representatives not beholden to their constituents, when they're up for reelection?

    "FCC deferring its power to congress?"
    Is the FCC not a creature of Congress?

    It's still not Congress--subject to the vote of the people--that must decide whether some hams' desire
    to erect towers supersedes the rights of HOA's to determine what is acceptable in its neighborhoods?
  9. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Indeed they are; thankfully thousands of constituents have written to them. The C.A.I., on the other hand, is not a constituent; they are a relatively small lobby representing a few percent of all HOAs, much like the NRA represents only a few percent of all gun owners. But the NRA has a lot of money to spend and they're an old, long-established organization. Also, the NRA lobbies to keep the Second Amendment intact, so gun owners actually have some Constitutional backing. Lucky for us, C.A.I. isn't in either category and the Constitution doesn't mention HOAs.
  10. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    An oversight that the CAI would no doubt like to correct.

Share This Page