And your point is?
Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
> And we should also remember that the average IQ is defined to be 100.
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, WA2BPE wrote:
>
> > Kindly go to <http://www.hudson.arrl.org/> , scroll down, click on and
> > everyone please read the proposed bill. It *does* say 95' -
> > (paraphrasing) "...not less than...". There is indeed the issue of
> > setback regulations, however, I personally would not want a tower to
> > (potentially) fall on a neighbor's house/property - regulations or not.
> > Only the lawyers would get rich on that one. If it were not for clueless
> > and arrogant govt. bodies, no legislation would be needed as PRB-1 (in
> > this country) preempts local law. Unfortunately, some are like a mule;
> > you have to hit them over the head with a 2x4 to get their attention!
> >
> > You are correct that less government is best - then reality sets in. It
> > is unfortunate that majority of people choose to be ignorant of what takes
> > place in government and the generation of laws. They are usually the ones
> > who complain the most when "their ox is gored". As we approach July 4th,
> > we need to remember what Democracy is all about and become a part of the
> > system, not a whimpering bystander.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Tom - WA2BPE
> >
> >
> > n4kg@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > > I especially do NOT like limitations on "antenna support structures".
> > >
> > > Literal interpretation of such laws can prevent one from putting up
> > > a push up pole to support dipoles or VHF antennas if a tower
> > > already exists. People with large lots can come under overly
> > > restrictive limitations based on typical city lot dimensions.
> > >
> > > That government which governs least governs BEST.
> > >
> > > Tom N4KG
> > >
> > > On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 WA2BPE <wa2bpe@infoblvd.net> writes:
> > > > While 95' would be "acceptable" by most, there are for many people
> > > > and
> > > > circumstances where it is certainly much too low. In New York
> > > > State, depending
> > > > on where you are, there can be serious problems with 20' or no
> > > > problems with 200.
> > > >
> > > > The proposed legislation, NYS Assembly, A.1565, states: "...2. NO
> > > > LOCAL
> > > > ORDINANCE, BY-LAW, RULE OR REGULATION, OR OTHER LOCAL LAW SHALL: (A)
> > > > RESTRICT
> > > > AMATEUR RADIO SUPPORT STRUCTURE HEIGHT TO LESS THAN NINETY-FIVE FEET
> > > > ABOVE
> > > > GROUND LEVEL; OR (B) RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF ANTENNA SUPPORT
> > > > STRUCTURES."
> > > >
> > > > My apologies for the caps, but it is a direct quote from a proposed
> > > > legal
> > > > document.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, it does NOT **limit** structures to 95' maximum; in fact,
> > > > exactly the
> > > > opposite - the key word is LESS!! It is always possible to gain
> > > > variances *if*
> > > > you do your homework to have individual merits considered. The real
> > > > problem is
> > > > the large number of ignorant (not stupid) zoning boards/local
> > > > legislatures who
> > > > know nothing of the Federal preemption of PRB-1 issued 17 years ago.
> > > > There also
> > > > exists the "home rule" advocates and Association of Towns that feel
> > > > that their
> > > > power to control and the "balancing of interests" is being usurped;
> > > > they have
> > > > failed to come to grips with the FCC preemption. The purpose of
> > > > this bill is
> > > > simply to put into place legislation at the state level in concert
> > > > with PRB-1.
> > > > In this manner, hopefully common sense *will* prevail and
> > > > acrimonious and costly
> > > > lawsuits will become a thing of the past. It is unfortunate that
> > > > more laws be
> > > > added to the books, but classically, government makes laws, not
> > > > solutions. The
> > > > successful will learn to understand, work with, and even participate
> > > > in the
> > > > writing of "common sense" regulations.
> > > >
> > > > I, personally, have become involved in helping mold the rewriting of
> > > > zoning in
> > > > my township; several local townships are in the process of rewriting
> > > > their
> > > > Master Plans. I intend to do all I can to assure that zoning re:
> > > > towers/antennas is reasonable. Indeed, one local village's zoning
> > > > specifically
> > > > (and wisely) yields to Federal statutes relative to Amateur antenna
> > > > structures.
> > > > One task on my list is to educate those that will listen that the
> > > > laws of
> > > > Physics shall not be denied - you want cell phones? - you want TV/FM
> > > > reception
> > > > (and you don't have cable available)? - you live in an area of rough
> > > > terrain? -
> > > > height *does* count!
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully,
> > > >
> > > > Tom - WA2BPE
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > mcduffie@actcom.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 10:54:12 -0700, Al Williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > At our clubs bi-weekly meeting the president conducting the
> > > > meeting
> > > > > > always speaks a phrase containing "... for the good of the
> > > > order..."
> > > > > > I seems to me that a 95-foot regulation would definitely be
> > > > > > overwhelmingly for the "good of the order".
> > > > >
> > > > > There shouldn't be a specified limit. Each case should be
> > > > considered on its
> > > > > own merit. Placing a 95 foot limit in one area and then having
> > > > that copied
> > > > > in another doesn't judge each on its own. That would be like the
> > > > city near
> > > > > me adapting a 55' limit and then the county doing the same thing,
> > > > just
> > > > > because. I can put a tower up several hundred feet tall. The
> > > > county
> > > > > doesn't care. Common sense should rule, but I know some areas
> > > > have just
> > > > > plain ran out of such a thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gary
> > > > >
> > > > > a g 0 n at a r r l dot n e t
> > > > > http colon slash slash mcduffie dot ws
> > > > > --
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Towertalk mailing list
> > > > > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Towertalk mailing list
> > > > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Towertalk mailing list
> > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
>
> --
> Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd@twofifty.com
> BSEE (6/86) + BSChem (3/95) + BAEnglish (8/95) + $2.50 = mocha latte
>
> _______________________________________________
> Towertalk mailing list
> Towertalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|