On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:20:26 EDT, wrote:

On top of that, the local governments, if they have any sense, will
say it's the FCC's area, not theirs, and to go talk to them.

At least one state (Florida ?. New Hampshire ?) incorporated that
preemption of private contracts into their state "PRB-1" statute. The
US Constitution inhibits Congressional interference with the right of
contract (subject to the usual time, place, manner and least
restrictive means exemptions) but civil contracts such as CC&Rs are
creatures of state law and can be regulated by the state.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Jul 23, 3:08 am, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:20:26 EDT, wrote:
On top of that, the local governments, if they have any sense, will
say it's the FCC's area, not theirs, and to go talk to them.

At least one state (Florida ?. New Hampshire ?) incorporated that
preemption of private contracts into their state "PRB-1" statute.

Gotta find out which states - and add to the list!

Pennsylvania isn't one of them yet, I know that much.

The
US Constitution inhibits Congressional interference with the right of
contract (subject to the usual time, place, manner and least
restrictive means exemptions) but civil contracts such as CC&Rs are
creatures of state law and can be regulated by the state.

Now I'm a little confused.

I recall reading that FCC has been repeatedly asked to extend the TV-
antenna-preemption thing to amateur radio antennas, but has responded
that they will only do so when Congress tells them to (in the form of
legislation).

But now it looks like the state (not local) governments can, if they
want, incorporate PRB-1 into their civil contract statues. I think
this means they could declare too-strict no-antenna CC&Rs as
"unreasonable" and therefore illegal.

If I understand this correctly, we hams have two avenues to pursue;
state and federal.

73 es TNX de Jim, N2EY

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:54:13 EDT, wrote:

If I understand this correctly, we hams have two avenues to pursue;
state and federal.

Thus has long been recognized, but the states are too close to the
developers to want to take them on, and it would take 50 campaigns to
do what a single Federal campaign would do.

We've seen what happens when such a bill is introduced into The
Congress, even when it is cloaked in "equality" and "public service"
terms.

Maybe we need to get some pictures of someone or other.... :-)
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Phil Kane wrote:
We've seen what happens when such a bill is introduced into The
Congress, even when it is cloaked in "equality" and "public service"
terms.

The magic phrase is "For the children" or, now, "To fight terrorism."

Properly done, it could lead to anyone WITHOUT a tower will be viewed
with suspicion by the rest of the neighbors.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi