We lost a co-sponsor on ARPA

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

ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: l-BCInc
  1. N1FM

    N1FM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I live in south FL, in an area that's been ravaged by hurricanes. I was a first responder for 20 years, during several declared weather emergencies. I live in an HOA neighborhood in FL and my other house up north is also in an HOA neighborhood. I have a large beam, two towers, and wire antennas. I negotiated with my HOA's to get those. Granted, others may not be able to negotiate successfully. After retirement from my career in police work, I became a realtor and a broker. My wife (also an amateur op and a realtor and broker) and I, might benefit financially if the act passes. I'm an ARRL member.

    On the other hand; beware the camel's nose.


    There's an argument that "emcomm" somehow requires this act. Most of Field Day takes place in the field for a reason, but if you'd like to learn about "emcomm" you can begin with the ARRL's intro course at $50 for members and $85 for non-members.


    The ARRL has no pecuniary interest in "emcomm" or in getting more hams to buy memberships if the act passes, as AD0AC mentioned. The ARRL has no pecuniary interest in amateur radio. None whatsoever.

    http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About ARRL/Annual Reports/2013-ARRL-Annual-Report.pdf

    On the other hand, as I mentioned; beware the camel's nose.

  2. N1EN

    N1EN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I've been playing with remote-controlling a radio at my home in CT while I'm in TN. The only additional expense over a non-remote station so far has been the time required to figure out the setup.

    There may come a time where I move to an HOA-dominated area. I have a tentative blessing from my in-laws to set up a station at their place to remote into, if/when it becomes necessary.

    It's not terribly expensive to do a modest setup IF you have someone willing to host rig, antennas, etc..

    (I'll concede, however, that there could be some incremental additional expense if you start talking about remote-controlled antenna switching, rotor operation, etc.)
    WA7PRC likes this.
  3. KK4GGL

    KK4GGL Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    To be clear. IANAL, but if the covenants prohibit radio transmission of any kind, wouldn't they be unenforceable? They would preclude baby monitors, cell phones and a number of other devices.
  4. N5PZJ

    N5PZJ Subscriber QRZ Page

    In Louisiana, The covenants that prohibit radio transmission are deemed to be beyond the Powers of the Court to prohibit a Federal Activity duly licensed!!!! Towers/Antennas are fair game but radios are under the province of the Federal Communications Commission. Judges here are instructed to avoid Federal Matters.
  5. KD4MOJ

    KD4MOJ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Simple... tell 'em the (very large) log periodic is a TV antenna... :D

    KA0HCP likes this.
  6. KD4MOJ

    KD4MOJ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Looks like we both were thinking the same thing... but you got it first.

  7. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    Not that I doubt your veracity but that isn't my experience. You use the term "overwhelming majority" so i think it's a fair question, yet unanswered, in order to judge objectively how many people are potentially impacted by any such exclusion. Do you have a knowledge base that might be considered national in scope?

    As to the other question ( neighbors), your response is interesting - as though it's irrelevant. It is relevant but also interesting that you (and others?) consider it otherwise as though ONLY the ham radio operator's perspective is significant. Obtrusive antennas are the fundamental issue here and specifically their impact on others' aesthetic concerns. That you so quickly dismiss that consideration doesn't work.

    The question of what constitutes "overwhelming majority" and "most" are quantitative measures as is the estimated number of neighbors potentially affected. Absent any objective perspective including numbers, such arguments are frivolous. But I infer that is irrelevant.
    WA7PRC likes this.
  8. KK4GGL

    KK4GGL Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Obtrusive antennas as opposed to reasonable antennas. It appears ARPA supporters are requesting and end to blanket dis-allowance of amateur antennas and that reasonable antennas be allowed. Reasonable. Not Obtrusive.
    KC8VWM likes this.
  9. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Obtrusive is very subjective. "Obvious" is also, but there are HOAs who actually do allow very obvious amateur radio antennas, and their home values are higher per square foot than their surrounding HOA communities who don't allow them.

    This is one.
  10. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    Obtrusive means noticeable in an unwelcome way. You've already been clear that you don't 'welcome' or respect the opinion of others. Can you add something substantive in response to what should be considered an unobtrusive questions like the implication transmitter bans are ubiquitous or a reasonable estimate of the number of neighbors who could be affected? Or are those considerations meaningless?
    WA7PRC likes this.

Share This Page