My third attempt to post this to TT. It seems that you can't
name a religion on TT. I'll try again by breaking up the
offending word with hyphens.
Rick,
I'm having a lot of problems with your post.
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that there is only
an either/or choice between having a ham station that can actually
radiate effectively on the HF bands or satisfying other family
needs. Ham radio exists only because our governments have
recognized the value of the highly functional, distributed
communications system and services that we provide. The
distributed nature of this system means that it cannot be
destroyed by natural disaster or any number of terrorists. As a
consequence of this, amateur radio operation is a legally
recognized use of private, residential property. It doesn't
matter what the neighbour likes or dislikes, we have the legal
right to operate a ham station. (If you're told you have a right
but mustn't exercise it, then you don't, in fact, have that
right.) There seems to be no shortage of folks who dislike places
of worship so much that they try to burn them down or attack their
members. Should we close all places of worship? No towers in the
city or town means no HF and not much VHF communications via ham
radio in a time of emergency. So what happens if hams are
needed? Are they going to call out the guys in the rural areas?
"Hey, don't forget to bring your rig and your mobile 50 ft tower
and beam." Suppose the hams told them to screw off? Would you
blame them?
No HF ham operation in the cities or towns means few new hams.
How did any of us get into ham radio? I bet most of us would say
that we met a ham and he got us interested. How many hams is a
kid going to get to know when the nearest neighbour to any ham is
a mile away? No new hams means that when you and I and the other
folks reading this are dead (I could get my pink slip from God at
any time, being an old fart) then ham radio as we know it will die
too. What a sad betrayal of the legacy left to us by those who
worked so hard to get and keep ham radio going.
We provide an extraordinarily valuable service using our own time
and money. The CC&R thing is a political problem and requires a
political solution. The ARRL and RAC are our representatives to
the political establishment. We, as individuals, are ham radio's
representative to our neighbours and to our individual elected
representatives. It is up to all of us to make sure that our
neighbours and our elected representatives understand the
importance and value of our contribution to the community.
So, what are the other choices besides the ones you spoke of?
Judging by what others have posted on this topic it's starting to
look like there may be no choices soon. i.e. no HF Ham Radio will
be possible in any county of the US. Someone wanting to buy a
home right now may indeed be faced with only the two alternatives
you suggested. What's really bothering me is that you seem to
think that that's OK and just a fact of life today. If I have
misread or misunderstood your intent, let me apologize right now.
I know that it's easy to fire off an e-mail that doesn't say quite
what one meant and even easier for someone else to pick it apart
and read into it things that are the complete opposite of what one
was trying to communicate. I've probably spent an hour on this
response so far because I want to get it right and I don't want it
to look like a personal attack. But it's really bugging me.
I guess my message is that if we don't do something about it then
your two choices may not even be possible. Some will say that
once a CC&R is in place it's too late. Well, here in Vancouver
many years ago there was an elite subdivision with restrictive
covenants. When you bought a place there you agreed that you
wouldn't sell it to the "wrong sort of person". In case you
didn't know how to tell it was spelled out for you. No chinese,
no -j-e-w-s, no blacks. (I'm going from memory here, so
maybe all 3 weren't there but at least one was. I'm least certain
of the
blacks.) Guess what, those covenants aren't there now.
Admittedly, this is Canada, but I bet you wouldn't have to look
very hard to find similar situations in the U.S. So, restrictive
covenants can be overturned. You just have to turn up the
political heat. To do that, you need an organization. We each
have one, ARRL for you and RAC for me. Thus, it is essential that
the ARRL should not only be involved, they should be pulling out
all the stops.
I'd better stop. I'm beginning to foam at the mouth.
If anyone reading this isn't a member of the ARRL or RAC I hope
that, regardless of your reason for not being a member at the
moment, you will lend your support by a) joining and b) getting
involved.
Anyway, Rick, your post has had the effect of crystallizing my
thoughts on the subject and caused me to add something to the
debate, something useful I hope. In the words of Laura Huxley,
"You are not the target."
Your comments regarding doing your homework before buying a place
are, of course, perfectly correct.
Happy New Year
73 de Jim Smith VE7FO
Rick Bullon wrote:
>
> Hello All
> I have been following this thread and I read the newsletter from the ARRL. I
> don't think this is an issue for the ARRL or the FCC. After all if you
> choose to buy a house in an area that has CC&R's then you know from the time
> you bought the house you couldn't put up a tower or outside antenna. If you
> buy a house without CC&R's then find out that the city has restrictions on
> towers or outside antennas then you can use PB-1 to fight it.
> It is up to the buyer to find out these things before you buy a house. You
> can make it part of the contract that there are no restrictions on towers or
> outside antennas. If it is revealed that there are restrictions then the
> contract is void.
> If you can't find an area where their are no CC&R's then you can buy land in
> the country and have plenty of room for towers and such. You have to decide
> which is more important to you and your family, no antennas or ham radio and
> a nice neighborhood close to schools malls and work or a country home (
> maybe not as nice as a city home) where you can have all the towers you want
> but have to drive farther to work, schools and the mall. You have choices it
> is not fair to impose our likes on our neighbors just because we are hams.
> Just my point of view on this
> 73
> Rick
> KC5AJX
> P.S. I live in the country. 20 min drive to the nearest town of any size and
> 45 min drive to the nearest big city.
>
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
|