At 05:47 AM 1/1/02 -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>At 09:53 PM 12/31/01 -0700, Stu Greene wrote:
>...
> >The Commission took the easy way out by ruling that ARRL persuade
> >Congress to enact a statute depriving courts of the power to use CC&Rs to
> >prohibit towers. The easy way was not the right way, and I suspect that
> >Congress just isn't going to pass legislation preempting CC&Rs.
> >
> >. The right and in my opinion legally correct way to decide ARRL's
> >petition would have been to say this. " CC&Rs are contracts between owners
> >of property in a subdivision, and as such have created property rights
> >with which we cannot interfere."
>
>Stu, Congress was willing to direct the FCC to pre-empt all forms of local
>prohibition against satellite TV antennas, including CC&Rs. FCC wrote regs
>doing just that and then enforced them in some pretty sweeping cases. Why
>do you dismiss the possibility of the same thing happening for ham towers?
Pete -- because satellite television is a business and employs people who
pay taxes as do their employers. That's clout
Weigh ham clout against the clout of property associations, and I think
we lose.
Happy New Year
AN Wireless Self Supporting Towers are now available! Windloading tables,
foundation diagrams and charts, along with full details are now at the
AN Wireless Web site: http://www.ANWireless.com
-----
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
|