[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift?

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift?
From: (Rick Bullon)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 05:28:05 +0000

>On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 21:53:52 -0700 Stu Greene wrote

>  The right and in my opinion legally correct way to decide ARRL's
>petition would have been to say this. " CC&Rs are contracts between owners
>of property in a subdivision, and as such have created  property rights
>with which we cannot interfere."
>It has been suggested by others and I agree that if hams want to install
>towers they need to check CC&Rs as well as zoning before they buy.  Then
>it's decision time for the buyers.

Bravo Stu this is what I have been trying to get across but everyone keeps 
lumping CC&R's and city anti-antenna ordinances in to the same group. They 
are not the same with CC&R's you agree to the restrictions and knew what you 
were getting into. With city anti-antenna ordinances you don't know about 
them till you try to put up an antenna then you use PB-1 to fight it
It is like people who buy houses near a commercial airport knowing it is 
there then trying to get the airplanes to stop flying over their homes or 
complaining about the noise and trying to get the city to put a stop to it.

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

AN Wireless Self Supporting Towers are now available!  Windloading tables,
foundation diagrams and charts, along with full details are now at the
AN Wireless Web site:

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>