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.
TowerTalk mailing list