Due to the extraordinary circumstances of the CA recall of Grayout Davis
parts of CA will be using the Chad Machines!
Seems they have not mastered those new fangled computerized machines out
there in the heart of technology.... hmmmm....
Astalavista
K4OJ
John Silberman wrote:
> 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, brewerj@squared.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're making my point.
>>>
>>>If I as a ham, buy a house with the knowledge that towers are not
>>>prohibitied,
>>>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
>>>accordance
>>>with all permits and regulations in effect at the time of installation,
>>>you're
>>>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
>>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
|