Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[Towertalk] Fwd: Last Ditch Effort Needed on Tower Bill - June 28, 2002

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [Towertalk] Fwd: Last Ditch Effort Needed on Tower Bill - June 28, 2002
From: alwilliams@olywa.net (Al Williams)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 10:54:12 -0700
----- Original Message -----

> I live in NY (upstate, semi-rural) and although I had no problem getting
two
> (140-foot and 120-foot) towers approved by my town,  I dutifully wrote and
> called several NY state representatives last year and again earlier this
year.

>(which resulted in squat,  zip, nada)

I live out west--please interpret !


>  But...I have to wonder about these
> bills that stipulate a specific height.  Maybe some feel there *needs* to
be
> one to make the bill workable, but I think it's a bad precedent to set:
> essentially declaring 95 feet as some kind of magic height - one at which
> hams should be happy and shut up.

When I inquired at about 25 towns for what their tower height restrictions
were, by far the most was 35 feet.  It appears to be true that a precedent
was set (actually, planners just copied what others before them have
done), I don't agree at all that 95 feet  is "essentially declaring 95 feet
as some kind of magic height ...."


> I know, I know, there are plenty of hams who would kill for a 95-foot
tower,
> but anyone looking for a 100 foot tower is potentially going to have to
work
> harder to justify it, if this passes.

but not as hard as if the 35-foot tower regulation is in place?


> My guess is it'll do more good than
> harm (for we hams), but it still bothers me at some level.

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".

73 k7puc
.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>