[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift?
From: (Stu Greene)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:20:30 -0700
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 
we lose.

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:

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

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