[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] 90mph windloading

To: "Jim Jarvis" <>, <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 90mph windloading
From: Jim Lux <>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:01:38 -0700
List-post: <>
At 09:15 AM 9/13/2006, Jim Jarvis wrote:

>Does anyone have a feel for the regulatory implications of
>going with a building code which requires 90 mph windload ratings?
>Is this simply a strategy by the league of municipalities to
>price amateurs out, since they can't regulate them out?  It's
>hard to argue with safety.

I don't know if it's specifically aimed at amateurs (I can't imagine 
that there's a concerted effort for this).  I suspect it's more a 
general trend towards more regulation, and, as you say, it's hard to 
argue with (a potentially specious) safety claim.

There IS definitely a trend towards regulation of antennas and tall 
structures in general, and ham towers just get caught in the 
flow.  There IS an active anti-cellular tower movement, and since the 
anti tower folks can't use aesthetics (the real reason) or RFI as 
arguments, they're hammering on safety. The FCC has been quite clear 
that local agencies can't formulate antenna rules for satellite 
dishes, communications towers, etc., except for historical 
preservation and structural safety. They've preempted things like RFI 
and aesthetics.There's a case going on in La Canada-Flintridge about 
whether the tower consitutes a visual encroachement on a public 
right-of-way, creating a safety hazard.

In my city, one has to have a building permit to build a children's 
play house, or, at least, conform to a whole set of rules (setbacks, 
maximum floor space, maximum height).  In that case, it's not that 
they're down on playhouses, but they're trying to prevent the 
building of "garden sheds" that become de defacto "granny flats" with 
someone living in them.

Jim, W6RMK


TowerTalk mailing list

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