At 05:47 AM 1/1/02 -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>At 09:53 PM 12/31/01 -0700, Stu Greene wrote:
> >The Commission took the easy way out by ruling that ARRL persuade
> >Congress to enact a statute depriving courts of the power to use CC&Rs to
> >prohibit towers. The easy way was not the right way, and I suspect that
> >Congress just isn't going to pass legislation preempting CC&Rs.
> >. 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."
>Stu, Congress was willing to direct the FCC to pre-empt all forms of local
>prohibition against satellite TV antennas, including CC&Rs. FCC wrote regs
>doing just that and then enforced them in some pretty sweeping cases. Why
>do you dismiss the possibility of the same thing happening for ham towers?
Pete -- because satellite television is a business and employs people who
pay taxes as do their employers. That's clout
Weigh ham clout against the clout of property associations, and I think
Happy New Year
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: http://www.ANWireless.com
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com