On 09/13/06 01:01 pm Jim Lux wrote:
> There IS definitely a trend towards regulation of antennas and tall
> structures in general, and ham towers just get caught in the
> flow. There IS an active anti-cellular tower movement, and since the
> anti tower folks can't use aesthetics (the real reason) or RFI as
> arguments, they're hammering on safety. The FCC has been quite clear
> that local agencies can't formulate antenna rules for satellite
> dishes, communications towers, etc., except for historical
> preservation and structural safety. They've preempted things like RFI
> and aesthetics.There's a case going on in La Canada-Flintridge about
> whether the tower consitutes a visual encroachement on a public
> right-of-way, creating a safety hazard.
Holland Charter Township (W. Michigan) has a whole section of
regulations relating to antennas and towers but at the very beginning of
that section says that none of this applies to antennas less than 70ft.
high and used only for radio or TV reception or used by an FCC-licensed
amateur radio operator. Several other municipalities in this area have
similar provisions, although the heights may vary.
Surely any other municipality could adopt similar wording if it wished.
Then ham towers would *not* "just get caught in the flow."
73
Alan NV8A
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|