On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:54:23 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

First Howard v City of Burlingame had to do with two things the first was a
local antenna ordinance and the second was Mr. Howard attempt to cover
attorney fees . It had nothing to do with the local or federal government's
attempt to regulate the content of the programming on the radio.

I quote from the Ninth Circuit's opinion published at 937 F2nd
1376: [EMPHASIS added]

Howard then filed this lawsuit, claiming that the City's
ordinance and its decision were preempted by an FCC ruling known
as PRB-1. HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE CITY HAD VIOLATED THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983, INTER ALIA. On cross-motions
for summary judgment, the district court held that PRB-1
preempted the City's decision-making powers and required it to
"reasonably accommodate" Howard's request. It found the City's
grounds pretextual, ordered the City to reconsider the matter
and suggested some avenues for compromise. IT ALSO GRANTED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY ON HOWARD'S OTHER SEVEN CLAIMS,
WHICH IT TERMED "MAKEWEIGHT."

II. Free Speech Claim and Cross-Appeal

The district court correctly held that the City's zoning
ordinances are legitimate, content-neutral time, place and
manner restrictions, with only a tangential relationship to
speech. [ Citations deleted ] CONTENT-NEUTRAL ZONING ORDINANCES
SUCH AS THESE HAVE LONG BEEN HELD TO BE PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTIONS
ON FREE SPEECH. See, e.g., City Council of Los Angeles v.
Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 808, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772, 104
S. Ct. 2118 (1984); Schroeder v. Municipal Court of Los Cerritos
Judicial District, 73 Cal. App. 3d 841, 141 Cal. Rptr. 85
(1977), appeal dismissed, 435 U.S. 990, 56 L. Ed. 2d 81, 98 S.
Ct. 1641 (1978) (LIMITATION OF ANTENNA HEIGHT NOT "BLANKET
PROHIBITION" ON EXPRESSION). We therefore affirm on this point
as well.

As for your question I have been very active in the micro broadcasting
movement and I'm very knowledgeable when it comes to radio law. I am current
working with a member of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunication in
regards to the FCC and the licensing processing including filing windows and
waivers.

In other words you are not a lawyer but you like to play one in
public....

A pity that that "member of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunication" doesn't get his/her advice from real
communications attornies who. like myself, have no other axe to
grind except to support quality communication regulation and
compliance therewith.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane