----- Original Message -----
> I live in NY (upstate, semi-rural) and although I had no problem getting
> (140-foot and 120-foot) towers approved by my town, I dutifully wrote and
> called several NY state representatives last year and again earlier this
>(which resulted in squat, zip, nada)
I live out west--please interpret !
> But...I have to wonder about these
> bills that stipulate a specific height. Maybe some feel there *needs* to
> one to make the bill workable, but I think it's a bad precedent to set:
> essentially declaring 95 feet as some kind of magic height - one at which
> hams should be happy and shut up.
When I inquired at about 25 towns for what their tower height restrictions
were, by far the most was 35 feet. It appears to be true that a precedent
was set (actually, planners just copied what others before them have
done), I don't agree at all that 95 feet is "essentially declaring 95 feet
as some kind of magic height ...."
> I know, I know, there are plenty of hams who would kill for a 95-foot
> but anyone looking for a 100 foot tower is potentially going to have to
> harder to justify it, if this passes.
but not as hard as if the 35-foot tower regulation is in place?
> My guess is it'll do more good than
> harm (for we hams), but it still bothers me at some level.
At our clubs bi-weekly meeting the president conducting the meeting
always speaks a phrase containing "... for the good of the order..."
I seems to me that a 95-foot regulation would definitely be
overwhelmingly for the "good of the order".