RE: [TowerTalk] Chicago Tribune news: Ham radio tower has the OKsignal

["Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>]

I know a lot of us would like to contact the neighborhood spokesman in some 
fashion or other, but as the one who introduced this news item, I say let's 
please respect the wishes of atty. O'Connell and his client and stay out of 
this.   I had been under the impression after reading the newspaper story, 
that the whole matter was settled but I was apparently mistaken about that, 
for which I apologize.  We all want this guy to have a tower I'm sure, so 
please don't contact the non-ham parties in this and give them any fuel to 
burn on and make Mr. O'Connell's difficulties even more of a p.i.t.a. than 
they already are.

I suspect the anti-tower sentiment is really one form of a general 
conformity zealousness--some people want every home and lot in their 
vicinity to appear to have been popped out of an injection mold.  Anything 
that stands out and is unique to the neighborhood is viewed by those with 
that mentality as being bad.   I base this on the knowledge that similar 
disputes have broken out over really bizarre sculptures, radical additions 
to homes, homes being painted hot pink, giant outdoor gyms in back yards, 
and so on.  Some people base some sort of sense of security on having 
everything around them be predictable and similar.  Oddly, baby boomers seem 
to be the worst cases.  Unfortunately, this leads to a general erosion of 
the rights of property owners, which is what the antenna issue is really 
about.  Don't you, as a property owner, have the right to do anything you 
want to on your property, as long as it does not jeopardize the health and 
property of neighbors?  That is what I believe.

When people say such and such lowers property values, what they are really 
saying is that they have been incompetent managers of their resources, and 
have become over exposed to risk in the real property sector of their total 
assets.  If they are going to view property as an investment, which they are 
indirectly admitting to doing, they are accepting some degree of risk.  As 
with any other investment, a competent manager limits his exposure to an 
acceptable degree.  To illustrate:

Mr. A has $500,000 in total assets.  He purchases a $150,000 home and a 
$25,000 automobile, and puts the rest of his money in stocks, CDs, bonds or 
mutual funds for these same items.  He chooses to live modestly and his 
rather unostentateous house meets his needs nicely.

Mr. B has $500,000 but he purchases a $400,000 trophy home and an impressive 
$60,000 Mercedes SUV.  Little is left for equities etc.  or even furniture, 
but everyone is impressed and thinks he must be doing very well.

To Mr. A's misfortune, a lot down the street is sold to a used car dealer, 
who has a hubcap sideline and puts bars on all his windows.  Mr. A's 
property value drops to $130,000.   This is no big deal however, as his 
other investments are doing well, and he can afford to wait for the value on 
his property to return which it will do in time.

Mr. B's house next door is purchased by a church, which turns it into a 
homeless shelter.  He goes to all the planning board meetings to protest 
this, squealing like a near flat tire on a hot day in L.A.
His property may decline $100,000 in value, a pretty hefty hit.  It will 
take a long time to recover, and he is stuck with it unless he wants to 
accept a loss.  However, the reality is that he has no one to blame but 
himself because he incompetently managed his assets and risked a far too 
high percentage of them in his property.

People who complain about property values should be asked what percentage of 
their total assets is made up by their homes.  Chances are it is over 50% 
which is much too high but in this day of never blaming oneself and taking 
responsibility for one's mistakes, this will likely be a tough nut to 
swallow.  Instead they strike out at neighbors such as a ham, who is 
innocently trying to enjoy his pasttime.

Rob/K5UJ


From: "Lou Laderman" <lladerman@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: <lladerman@earthlink.net>
To: "'tom.dixon'" <tom.dixon@xtra.co.nz>,<N8DCJ@YAHOO.COM>,"'Rob Atkinson, 
K5UJ'" <k5uj@hotmail.com>,<towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Chicago Tribune news: Ham radio tower has the 
OKsignal
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:44:13 -0500

I would love Robertson's address, I would like to write him with the
history of property values in my neighborhood over the last 16 years
I've had my tower. Values are up 100-150%, which is just between 6% and
10% per year. Those homes closest to mine are the largest and newer ones
built (40 years ago or so) and have had the greatest appreciation.

When I was a Volunteer Counsel, the "property values card" was always
played by the neighborhood. Studies show there towers (including high
voltage line towers) have no affect on values over the years. Just like
what most politicians do, praying on the fears of people facing a "big
ugly tower" is an old ploy.

Lou, KB0CJ

-----Original Message-----
From: tom.dixon [mailto:tom.dixon@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:59 PM
To: N8DCJ@YAHOO.COM; 'Rob Atkinson, K5UJ'; towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Chicago Tribune news: Ham radio tower has the
OKsignal


Pity we don't have Mr Bill Robertson's address. We could all send him a
qsl card....

Tom Dixon
zl2hgr@xtra.co.nz
IRLP 6931


-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dan Bookwalter
Sent: Friday, 24 September 2004 5:39 a.m.
To: Rob Atkinson, K5UJ; towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Chicago Tribune news: Ham radio tower has the
OKsignal

"The
federal government in its infinite wisdom interceded
years ago on
behalf of
a small
minority of radio operators when they might have been
relevant to some
national
emergency and defense.


i wonder how the guy would feel had he been in the
path of one of those hurricanes or a  major tornado
etc... we are irrelevant until needed then we are a indispensable...

i actually had someone welcome my tower since in the
case of an emergency we might have a viable
communication path....

Dan N8DCJ
--- "Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com> wrote:

> another PRB1 victory of sorts...de rob/k5uj:
>
>
> Ham radio tower has the OK signal
> Wheaton says it can't deny request
>
> By Bob Goldsborough
> Special to the Tribune
> Published September 23, 2004
>
> Despite opposition from neighbors in [west] Wheaton,
> a proposed 42-foot-high
> ham radio tower can be built in a resident's back
> yard under federal law
> without any
> sign-off from local officials.
>
> John Siepmann, given the go-ahead recently by the
> city attorney, has been
> pitted against dozens of neighbors in the Farnham subdivision, many of

> whom have "NO RADIO
> TOWER" yard signs.
>
> Opponents believe the tower would be an eyesore, a
> safety hazard and a
> potential interference to their television and
> telephone reception.
>
> Siepmann, an amateur ham radio operator, first
> approached city officials
> requesting a zoning variation to allow him to build
> a 65-foot-high
> free-standing tower in
> the back yard of his Browning Court home. An initial
> look at the zoning code
> suggested the
> maximum height of such a structure could be 12 feet.
>
> After reviewing Federal Communications Commission requirements, which
> pre-empt municipal regulations and force local
> communities to be "reasonably
> accommodating" to
> amateur ham radio operators, city officials
> concluded they have no choice
> but to allow a
> tower of up to 42 feet, said city planner Brad
> Boese.
>
> That height was determined by adding Wheaton's
> 12-foot height limit for
> antennas that sit atop houses to the 30-foot height
> limit for single-family
> houses, Boese said.
>
> "`Reasonable accommodation' isn't really defined
> anywhere, so what we have
> to go by is what other communities in the area have permitted," he
> said.
>
> Siepmann has deferred his request for a zoning
> variation for the 65-foot
> tower, which would require City Council approval,
> until Oct. 12, and is
> asking for a
> building permit to allow a 42-foot-high tower. That
> request, submitted Aug.
> 19, is pending,
> with the Building Department having sent drawings of
> Siepmann's proposed
> tower to a local
> structural engineer for evaluation, said Joe Kreidl,
> director of building
> and code
> enforcement.
>
> Meanwhile, Siepmann's attorney, James O'Connell,
> said Wheaton's present
> ordinance doesn't meet federal requirements. He
> cited other communities that
> allow ham radio
> tower height limits of 65 feet or more.
> Unincorporated DuPage County, which
> is
> immediately to the west of Siepmann's property, has
> a ham radio tower height
> limit of 100 feet, O'Connell said.
>
> With a 42-foot limit, Wheaton officials "are wrong
> under the amateur radio
> law," O'Connell said.
>
> "We may very well petition the City Council to
> create an ordinance that
> meets federal requirements," he said. "I can't tell
> you what Mr. Siepmann
> will eventually
> decide to do. I recommended to him that he take the
> city up on its offer to
> issue him a
> 42-foot permit on the grounds that something right
> now is better than doing
> six months'
> worth of hearings, which can be very expensive. We
> are prepared to do that
> if we have
> to."
>
> Ham radio towers need to be tall, O'Connell said, so hobbyists can
> communicate clearly with fellow radio operators
> around the globe.
>
> "If you want to be able to talk internationally, you
> need to have your
> antenna above ground and above the surrounding
> trees," he said. "[Siepmann's
> neighborhood]
> is a wooded area."
>
> Siepmann's neighbors wish the entire issue would go
> away. Bill Robertson,
> spokesman for the neighborhood group that opposes
> the tower, said it could
> reduce property
> values.
>
> "Anybody living in a nice suburb today would assume
> that their neighbor
> couldn't put up a 65-foot tower in their back yard,
> but they'd be wrong,"
> Robertson said. "The
> federal government in its infinite wisdom interceded
> years ago on behalf of
> a small
> minority of radio operators when they might have
> been relevant to some
> national
> emergency and defense.
>
> "Now they're not, but the government hasn't gotten
> around to amending the
> law," he said. "We're hoping the city will find a
> court or a judge who would
> say that this
> is passe, and that it's no longer reasonable to
> expect a city to provide
> this kind of
> accommodation to a hobbyist."
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

_______________________________________________

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
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk