Kindly go to <http://www.hudson.arrl.org/> , scroll down, click on and
everyone please read the proposed bill. It *does* say 95' -
(paraphrasing) "...not less than...". There is indeed the issue of
setback regulations, however, I personally would not want a tower to
(potentially) fall on a neighbor's house/property - regulations or not.
Only the lawyers would get rich on that one. If it were not for clueless
and arrogant govt. bodies, no legislation would be needed as PRB-1 (in
this country) preempts local law. Unfortunately, some are like a mule;
you have to hit them over the head with a 2x4 to get their attention!
You are correct that less government is best - then reality sets in. It
is unfortunate that majority of people choose to be ignorant of what takes
place in government and the generation of laws. They are usually the ones
who complain the most when "their ox is gored". As we approach July 4th,
we need to remember what Democracy is all about and become a part of the
system, not a whimpering bystander.
Tom - WA2BPE
> I especially do NOT like limitations on "antenna support structures".
> Literal interpretation of such laws can prevent one from putting up
> a push up pole to support dipoles or VHF antennas if a tower
> already exists. People with large lots can come under overly
> restrictive limitations based on typical city lot dimensions.
> That government which governs least governs BEST.
> Tom N4KG
> On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 WA2BPE <email@example.com> writes:
> > While 95' would be "acceptable" by most, there are for many people
> > and
> > circumstances where it is certainly much too low. In New York
> > State, depending
> > on where you are, there can be serious problems with 20' or no
> > problems with 200.
> > The proposed legislation, NYS Assembly, A.1565, states: "...2. NO
> > LOCAL
> > ORDINANCE, BY-LAW, RULE OR REGULATION, OR OTHER LOCAL LAW SHALL: (A)
> > RESTRICT
> > AMATEUR RADIO SUPPORT STRUCTURE HEIGHT TO LESS THAN NINETY-FIVE FEET
> > ABOVE
> > GROUND LEVEL; OR (B) RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF ANTENNA SUPPORT
> > STRUCTURES."
> > My apologies for the caps, but it is a direct quote from a proposed
> > legal
> > document.
> > Thus, it does NOT **limit** structures to 95' maximum; in fact,
> > exactly the
> > opposite - the key word is LESS!! It is always possible to gain
> > variances *if*
> > you do your homework to have individual merits considered. The real
> > problem is
> > the large number of ignorant (not stupid) zoning boards/local
> > legislatures who
> > know nothing of the Federal preemption of PRB-1 issued 17 years ago.
> > There also
> > exists the "home rule" advocates and Association of Towns that feel
> > that their
> > power to control and the "balancing of interests" is being usurped;
> > they have
> > failed to come to grips with the FCC preemption. The purpose of
> > this bill is
> > simply to put into place legislation at the state level in concert
> > with PRB-1.
> > In this manner, hopefully common sense *will* prevail and
> > acrimonious and costly
> > lawsuits will become a thing of the past. It is unfortunate that
> > more laws be
> > added to the books, but classically, government makes laws, not
> > solutions. The
> > successful will learn to understand, work with, and even participate
> > in the
> > writing of "common sense" regulations.
> > I, personally, have become involved in helping mold the rewriting of
> > zoning in
> > my township; several local townships are in the process of rewriting
> > their
> > Master Plans. I intend to do all I can to assure that zoning re:
> > towers/antennas is reasonable. Indeed, one local village's zoning
> > specifically
> > (and wisely) yields to Federal statutes relative to Amateur antenna
> > structures.
> > One task on my list is to educate those that will listen that the
> > laws of
> > Physics shall not be denied - you want cell phones? - you want TV/FM
> > reception
> > (and you don't have cable available)? - you live in an area of rough
> > terrain? -
> > height *does* count!
> > Respectfully,
> > Tom - WA2BPE
> > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 10:54:12 -0700, Al Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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".
> > >
> > > There shouldn't be a specified limit. Each case should be
> > considered on its
> > > own merit. Placing a 95 foot limit in one area and then having
> > that copied
> > > in another doesn't judge each on its own. That would be like the
> > city near
> > > me adapting a 55' limit and then the county doing the same thing,
> > just
> > > because. I can put a tower up several hundred feet tall. The
> > county
> > > doesn't care. Common sense should rule, but I know some areas
> > have just
> > > plain ran out of such a thing.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > a g 0 n at a r r l dot n e t
> > > http colon slash slash mcduffie dot ws
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Towertalk mailing list
> > > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Towertalk mailing list
> > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: