> Please reply direct if you have information (not just emotional
> opinions) on whether a height inclusion in the state law
> (such as Alaska, Virginia, Oregon, and Wyoming) has been
> helpful or a hindrance. I will post a summary.
>
SUMMARY:
There isn't much to summarize. I received 7 direct responses
on the same day as my posting and none in the week since.
As far as I know, none of the responses resulted from my
posting to the ham-law reflector. I am wondering if that
reflector is an e-mail bit bucket?
No response offered information on whether a state law
height inclusion has been helpful or a hindrance. All
were opinions. One stated that "...70' might not be ideal,
but it is better than the alternatives.". Another was hearsay
that "...Washington County, Oregon, where permits have
normally been hard to obtain, where upon submission
of a copy of Oregon PRB-1 statue the county went easily
along with a 70 ft tower permit. {NOTE: Oregon not only
has the PRB-1 but also has a 70' tower height inclusion)
A third response took the position that a specified height
would become a de-facto maximum height rather than
a minimum height.
I asked the same question to ARRL hdq regulatory
N1KB and my ARRL section manager but their
response did not cover my question!
k7puc
|