[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift?
From: (Steve Gehring)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 04:35:24 -0800

After eight years of wonderful life in Alaska and Wisconsin, I've been 
drawn to the Seattle area to further my telecommunications career.  My 
family and I are presently renting a house our first year in the Seattle 
area, and are looking to buy a small acreage that will allow 
towers/antennas.  Because of this, we're being drawn to the outer reaches 
of any possible Seattle (Bellevue, WA) commute.  Right now, in order to 
enjoy contesting and DX'ing on a small acreage, my commute would have to be 
in the order of 3 to 4 hours a day.  Is it worth it?  I just don't 
know...or dare I say, "probably not" considering I have a wife and two kids.

Therefore, I urge EVERY ham to become involved with our national 
organizations like the ARRL or RAC, and also your local radio club.  Please 
do it.  Do it just keep and further our cause of effective communications 
through externally mounted antennas and towers.  If you are a member, 
please communicate your intentions concerning this issue to your elected 
representatives.  Offer suggestions, and help where you can.  Only through 
coordinated action are we going to gain any ground.  I personally believe 
this is a major battle that may decide the continued existence of ham 
radio, at least HR as we've known it.

Oh, my unobtrusive 4BTV with a minimum of 48 radials goes up tomorrow in my 
"large" Seattle area backyard.  I hope the neighbors don't object.  We'll 
see.  CU on the air & 73!

Steve Gehring, KZ9G
- a 36 year old, 21 year Ham -

At 08:53 PM 12/31/2001 -0500, you wrote:

>You don't have a constitutional right to pursue happiness.
>That's only in the Declaration of Independence.  (Ditto for
>life and liberty.)  Actually, you don't have an inalienable
>right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness either,
>but that's a different story.
>-----Original Message-----
>[]On Behalf Of Mike
>Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 2:06 AM
>To: George Skoubis;
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel
>The crux of our constitutional right to pursue happiness
>is best summed up in the idea that one mans fist can
>extend as far as another man's nose. The problem with
>towers is that everyone has a different opinion of where
>the other guys nose begins. Personally I can sympathize
>with both points of view. There are for example
>neighnorhoods around my QTH that are "high end". All
>the lawns are manacured by landscapers and people
>park their cars in the garage at night (not many 4 x 4
>pickups over there). There is a certain look and
>feel to those neighborhoods. In that situation, I can
>see how someone might be upset if I showed up next
>store on a stuck a 110' bertha pole in the backyard. Of
>course over here on the other side of the tracks where
>I live, zoning is much looser. My neighbor is an urban
>hillbilly. He keeps a 4x4, a cigarette boat, and a little
>travel trailer parked in the front yard. His front yard
>is usually filled with over the top decorations for the
>latest holiday (he installs a large cemetary during
>halloween for instance). Does this bother me - no
>not one bit. This is unicorporporated Los Angeles
>county. Expectations are (and should be) different
>here than down the street in CC&R-Ville.
>Whats needed is a dose of common sense that is
>consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
>Once you get out in a rural area, there shouldn't be
>any restrictions, especially if the property in question
>meets a certain minimum size. At my previous QTH
>in Brevard County, Florida the regulations allowed
>for 35' without any permit. Installations above 35'
>required a conditional use permit if the property size
>was less than 1 acre. If your lot was greater than 1
>acre, then there were no restrictions.
>I think George is correct - the amateur community
>needs to be involved with local planning commissions
>so that reasonable standards are adopted. In Los
>Angeles county the ham community got involved with
>the planning board and got them to compromise on
>amateur tower regulations. You can have whatever
>you want under 35'. For installations over 35' you
>can have one "whip" up to 75' tall (low band vertical??)
>and one tower up to 75' tall provided that it is a
>motorized crank-up that can be nested when not in
>use. Not exactly paradise, but better than nothing
>when you consider the population density in this area.
>The end of the other guys nose is always moving.
>Where it ends up largely depends on who makes
>the most noise. Imagine antenna CC&Rs in the
>days before cable TV when everyone needed a
>roof mounted antenna for TV reception and in some
>cases a tall tower. Its pretty hard to tell a ham that
>his antenna installation will distract from the
>neighborhood aesthetics when everyone in the
>neighborhood has a 40 foot tall TV tower in their
>backyard. Cable TV and undeground utilities came
>along and changed everyones view of what is
>aesthetically pleasing. There is a whole generation
>of up and coming homebuyers that have grown
>up on cable TV. Their perception of towers will
>certainly be different than someone like me who
>grew up in a town where practically every house
>on the block had a 50 foot tower for TV reception.
>73 de Mike, W4EF...........................................
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "George Skoubis" <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 9:14 PM
>Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> >   I live in Wisconsin and the latest trend is to impose
> > ordinances limiting antenna towers.  It doesn't matter how
>far you live
> > town, or if you own a section (640 acres), you still need
>to go to the
> > variance committee if you want to build a tower taller
>than the allowable
> > height (I can't remember what it is in our county).
> >
> >   I went to the county meeting when they were drawing up
>the draft
> > (there were about 10 other hams that went also).  The
>committee said the
> > main purpose is to limit the number of cell towers and
>their location but
> > that they were only excluding amateur towers less than 50
>or 60 feet (I
> > don't remember the height that was agreed upon).
> >
> >   I talked to the head of the zoning department after the
>meeting and he
> > mentioned that the ordinance doesn't apply to me since I
>live in the city
> > limits.  The city has no antenna/tower ordinance and I am
>exempt from the
> > county one.  I can build a taller tower (without a
>variance hearing) on my
> > city lot than my brother-in-law can on his farm a mile
> >
> >   The county I live in is Iowa county Wisconsin, there are
>probably as
> > cows as people here.  I don't think this is just an issue
>for people who
> > live in cities, suburbs, or CC&R restricted communities.
>These county
> > ordinances will continue to happen and every ham should
>speak up to their
> > county representative when the ordinance is still in the
>planning stage.
> >
> >   Our proposed county ordinance did not originally exempt
>amateurs, it
> > restricted all antennas/structures that could TRANSMIT a
>radio signal.  A
> > local amateur club notified the local hams and we
>contacted the zoning
> > administrator and sent him information as well as attended
>the meeting.
> > There were many citizens that didn't want to exempt hams
>at all (most of
> > them cited visual pollution as their dislike).
> >
> >   Don't think we can leave these issues to our elected
>representatives and
> > they will protect our interests.  They listen to those
>that complain the
> > loudest, they only changed their mind when presented with
>facts and
> > testimonials (they seemed most impressed with a letter
>from the National
> > Weather Service emphasizing our weather spotting help).
> >
> >   If the county introduced this ordinance and none of us
>spoke up to have
> > amended we would have a county ordinance that banned all
>antennas that
> > transmit a signal.  This would have been contrary to
>PRB-1, but you would
> > have to go to court to get it turned over.  Who pays for
>this? The ham
> > twice! Your tax dollars pay for the attorneys for the
>municipality to go
> > court and amend the ordinance after it is overturned.  You
>also would
> > probably hire an attorney to take the case against the
> >
> >   I do NOT agree that is not right to impose our likes on
>our neighbors,
> > they don't pay my taxes. I wouldn't LIKE it if they
>painted their house
> > purple, but I wouldn't try to get an ordinance passed
>against purple
> > If you don't pose a health or safety hazard to others and
>you pay your
> > you should be able to use your land for any legal use you
>see fit. Period.
> >
> >   My father came to the U.S. from Greece when he was 15 to
>start a better
> > life in a free country.  I can go to Greece and build a
>tower on his land
> > and notify no one.  I find that ironic.
> >
> >  Sorry about the rant, I just feel that we can't just sit
>by and let these
> > restrictions of our rights continue without putting up a
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > George / KF9YR
> >
> >
> > Hello All
> > I have been following this thread and I read the
>newsletter from the ARRL.
> > don't think this is an issue for the ARRL or the FCC.
>After all if you
> > choose to buy a house in an area that has CC&R's then you
>know from the
> > you bought the house you couldn't put up a tower or
>outside antenna. If
> > buy a house without CC&R's then find out that the city has
>restrictions on
> > towers or outside antennas then you can use PB-1 to fight
> > It is up to the buyer to find out these things before you
>buy a house. You
> > can make it part of the contract that there are no
>restrictions on towers
> > outside antennas. If it is revealed that there are
>restrictions then the
> > contract is void.
> > If you can't find an area where their are no CC&R's then
>you can buy land
> > the country and have plenty of room for towers and such.
>You have to
> > which is more important to you and your family, no
>antennas or ham radio
> > a nice neighborhood close to schools malls and work or a
>country home
> >
> > maybe not as nice as a city home) where you can have all
>the towers you
> > but have to drive farther to work, schools and the mall.
>You have choices
> > is not fair to impose our likes on our neighbors just
>because we are hams.
> > Just my point of view on this
> > 73
> > Rick
> > KC5AJX
> > P.S. I live in the country. 20 min drive to the nearest
>town of any size
> > 45 min drive to the nearest big city.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
> >
> >
> > 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:
> > Submissions:    
> > Administrative requests:
> > Problems:       
> >
> >
> > 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:
> > Submissions:    
> > Administrative requests:
> > Problems:       
> >
>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:
>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:

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>