RE: you're comment on the California situation... We could send you our voting
machines from Florida! ;)
KB4CRT - John
Jim Lux wrote:
> At 11:39 AM 8/14/2003 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
> >You're making my point.
> >If I as a ham, buy a house with the knowledge that towers are not
> >and you as a neighbor move in next door, with the knowledge that towers are
> >not prohibited (we both signed off on the closing papers where restrictive
> >covenents were reviewed, right?), then you have no complaint to make about
> >my towers, when I subsequently exercise the use of my property subject to
> >the restrictions placed on them when I purchased the house.
> >Obviously, if zoning changes took place in the interim, a different situation
> >is being posed, but that wasn't the situation being discussed.
> > > Making such a change is itself legal, whether we like it
> > > or not.
> >But they're not generally retroactive....if my tower was erected in
> >with all permits and regulations in effect at the time of installation,
> >going to have a hard time telling me it's now illegal after the fact!
> Actually, they can make new rules that affect existing operations, etc.
> However, they also have to compensate you for the loss (so they don't get
> into trouble with the "takings" clause of the 14th amendment). If you don't
> want to follow the new rule (take down your tower, e.g.), they can make you
> do so, under Emininent Domain.
> There is also a strong thread of "for the greater good" running through
> much constitutional and case law, which is subtly (and importantly)
> different than "majority rule". For example, a majority may decide that
> they want open sewers in their city (cheaper, easy to maintain, they like
> the third world appearance, who knows.. they're the majority). Such a
> change would likely be prohibited on the basis of public health.
> The other thing to remember is that the Constitution (which is deliberately
> vague) is there to protect the rights of the minority from abuses by the
> majority. It's deliberately hard to change the Constitution, so as to
> provide a "low pass filter", so that the majority opinion (which changes
> fairly rapidly and widely) can't drive the Constitution. This is also the
> rationale behind life terms for Supreme Court Justices. Yes, there are
> annoying anomalies, but, taken in the long view, this too shall pass. The
> U.S. isn't likely to cease to exist, or even radically change any time in
> our, or our children's lifetimes (compare any number of countries in South
> America, or USSR/Russia, or South East Asia).
> If you want an example of the inanity from reactive, instantaneous
> government with no low pass filtering, take a look at the ballot for our
> next election in California! It is conceivable that someone could be
> elected governor with less than 10% of the votes (no provision for runoffs,
> etc.). For this excitement and entertainment, each and every person in
> California will pay around $2.
> In the context of antennas, and CC&Rs, and deed restrictions, I suspect
> that case and statuatory law is steadily evolving, and not only for
> antennas. The highly structured CC&Rs and planned development thing is
> relatively new (certainly less than 50 years), and the law hasn't evolved
> to accomodate this sort of quasi governmental thing. And, as several
> posters have wisely pointed out, the folks on the various low level boards
> (planning, zoning, homeowner's association) are largely volunteers who are
> trying to do the right thing, and take an incredible amount of abuse for it
> (I speak from personal experience). Your best bet is education (not about
> antenna physics and contesting, by the way, (too much eyes glaze over), but
> perhaps, how property values aren't really affected all that much), and,
> most important, a realization that "You might NOT get what YOU want, even
> if YOU think it's reasonable!"... you have to be willing to walk away and
> find another solution (e.g. move to Wyoming, develop stealth phased arrays
> and run QRO, choose another activity to pursue)
> Jim, W6RMK
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
> questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> TowerTalk mailing list