wrote in message
oups.com...
From: (Bill Gunshannon) on Sat, Mar 10 2007 9:35 am

Alan WA4SCA writes:

[snip]

Hams make up approximately 00.2% of the US population.

0.023 % actually (understanding the typo on decimal point).


Best to double check that math. It is indeed approximately 0.2% (not 0.02%)
or about 2 hams per thousand people.

Dee, N8UZE

On Mar 11, 3:56�pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

From: (Bill Gunshannon) on Sat, Mar 10 2007 9:35 am

Alan WA4SCA writes:

[snip]

Hams make up approximately 00.2% of the US population.

* 0.023 % actually (understanding the typo on decimal point).

Best to double check that math. *It is indeed approximately 0.2% (not 0.02%)
or about 2 hams per thousand people.

Yes. :-) (710K / 300M) = 2.3^(10-3) = 0.23%

88, AF6AY

On Mar 10, 12:35�pm, "Howard Lester" wrote:
wrote

I think there *is* a compelling public interest in the anti-antenna
regulations contained in many CC&Rs.

First off, those regulations have become "boilerplate"
in many if not most new construction since the 1970s.
The percentage of "no antenna" homes keeps growing
with time.

However, a number of years ago the FCC prevented HOA's from restricting the
use of outdoor TV antennas *and 3' satellite dishes unless the home is in a
"historic district" or is on a list of "historic homes." The only
restriction I know of otherwise is, as I recall, that the HOA may restricted
the antenna's height to no more than 12 feet above the roof line.

FCC only did that because the Supreme Court told them to.

IANAL, but here's what I learned:

What happened was the satellite TV folks claimed that no-antenna CC&Rs
were unfair restraint of interstate
commerce. IOW, they effectively created a cable-TV
monopoly in many areas, because the satellite TV
pizza-dish antennas won't work reliably unless they
can 'see' the satellite.

The satellite TV folks fought it all the way to the Supreme
Court, and won. But only for the small dishes.

"Regular" TV broadcast reception was also included, if the TV antenna
did not exceed a certain size and wasn't more
than a certain height above ground. But the antenna must be
used *only* for TV reception - not ham radio, Wi-Fi, FM radio, SW
radio, public service, etc.

For more details, search for the "OTARD" ruling ("Off The
Air Reception Decision", IIRC.)

It doesn't matter what the HOA rules, deed restrictions,
covenants, etc., say, or that people knowingly bought into
places with "no antennas" clauses. Unless they're in a
certified historic district, they have the right to put up
certain antennas for TV reception. The Feds preempted
those contracts and rules.

Yes, I know some HOA's prevent even the use of a 2 meter "J pole" taped to
the inside of the owner's window....


---

In reading this discussion, it seems there's a major point
being missed: reasonable accomodation.

The issue isn't just about towers and big beams. It's about
unreasonable prohibition of even simple wire and vertical
antennas that are almost invisible.

The simple solution of "don't buy a restricted property"
works well in some places and not in others. It all depends
on what houses are for sale in an area when *you* need to
move. In some areas, there's no shortage of affordable
unrestricted homes for sale, but in others, they are
essentially nonexistent.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
But the antenna must be
used *only* for TV reception - not ham radio, Wi-Fi, FM radio, SW
radio, public service, etc.

One more example of an irrational federal
government completely out of control. What
ever happened to "We The People"?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:11:53 CST, Alan WA4SCA
wrote:

Some time back, I did some looking around for an Arizona retirement
home.

You would be interested to hear that the proposed Arizona statute
mirroring PRB-1 is drafted to apply to homeowner restrictions enacted
AFTER the statute goes into effect but not retroactively.

At least it's a start.

73 de K2ASP -- Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:35:55 CST, (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:

What you
can't find is a place that is willing to operate by your terms.
If you want an antenna farm buy property where that is allowed. If
you want to live in developed neighborhood, then either build one
full of hams or accept that your neighbors don't share your idea
of aesthetics.

The history behind antenna restrictions, BTW, have nothing to do with
ham radio or aesthetics. They were instituted at the urging (read:
financial support) of cable TV companies in the mid 60s to prevent
outdoor TV antennas from being erected, forcing the buyer to take
cable service at a time when all one could get on the cable were the
local TV stations anyhow. Like a bad fungus, it kept on attaching
itself to every new development filing - "monkey see, monkey do".

With all due respect, Bill, there have been several surveys in the
past years that new or modern developments all have the same
"boilerplate" restrictions. You are certainly entitled to the
opinion which you have presented above, but it's not in the best
interests of amateur radio as an integral part of our community. If
it takes the government to force reasonable accommodation, so be it.
Somehow it has to be done. That's my opinion.

A large part of my legal practice is concerned with fighting
unreasonable zoning restrictions on radio facilities, including
amateur radio stations, whether instituted by government or by
individuals.

73 de K2ASP -- Phil Kane
--
Philip M. Kane P E / Esq.
VP - Regulatory Counsel & Engineering Manager
CSI Telecommunication Consulting Engineers
San Francisco, CA - Beaverton, OR

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:57:50 CST, wrote:

The simple solution of "don't buy a restricted property"
works well in some places and not in others. It all depends
on what houses are for sale in an area when *you* need to
move. In some areas, there's no shortage of affordable
unrestricted homes for sale, but in others, they are
essentially nonexistent.

As you know, Jim, we passed up three homes which were better and nicer
than the one we got because of restrictive covenants or in one case a
"thick" local zoning authority which was known to not understand what
"reasonable accommodation" is all about.

I'm assisting in a case this coming week on just that issue.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:15:04 CST, "KC4UAI" wrote:


I was just reading on the ARRL's website where the FCC has once again
declined to include CCNR's (Deed restrictions) in it's "must be
accommodating to Ham Radio" rules. I was wondering if anybody knew
much about the organization that petitioned the FCC?

The ARRL, among others.

I was also wondering if somebody has re-introduced the bill into the
new congress that would force the FCC to include CCNRs in it's PRB-1
pre-emption rules? I'm just guessing but it seems that the previous
bill that was introduced, got shuttled to committee and died there.

I haven't heard that it was reintroduced, but I hope that it is
shortly.

This is important to me because I live in a deed restricted community
with a very picky HOA.

It's important to all hams nationwide, whether they know/admitted it
or not.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:35:04 CST, "Howard Lester"
wrote:

However, a number of years ago the FCC prevented HOA's from restricting the
use of outdoor TV antennas and 3' satellite dishes unless the home is in a
"historic district" or is on a list of "historic homes." The only
restriction I know of otherwise is, as I recall, that the HOA may restricted
the antenna's height to no more than 12 feet above the roof line.

The history behind that is that The Congress in passing the
Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 specifically directed the FCC to
do that. This of course was at the urging of the satellite TV
companies. Money talks, and big money talks loudly.

The FCC specifically said in reply to a petition by the ARRL recently
that until and unless The Congress directs otherwise, they will not
exercise the preemption on CC&Rs and HOA regulations.

(I do this stuff for a living.....)
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:38:34 CST, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

I think homeowners are justified in seeking relief from _government_
regulation of antennas, since such rules are not the sort of thing local
governments do well. Deed restrictions, however, are something I think
the government should stay out of unless there's a _very_ compelling
public interest.

But there is a compelling public interest, Bill, there certainly is.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net