Follow-up message from a "frisky dog"

[smlondon at lucent.com]

On Aug 7,  1:30am, WOVERBECK at ccvax.fullerton.edu wrote:

N6NB, in his infinite wisdom, says ...

>
> Also, as a former communications
> attorney I seriously question the suggestion that these
> rules will cause angry neighbors to file a bunch of lawsuits.
> No sane lawyer is going to take such a case on a contingent
> fee, and darned few neighbors can afford most lawyers' hourly
> rates.  Besides, our neighbors don't even know about this:
> it's been virtually ignored by the popular press.

1)  I'll bet more than a few of us have neighbors who are lawyers.  For those
lawyer-neighbors, the incremental cost of sueing the neighbor-ham is next to
nothing !   All they have to do is a search in their NEXIS/LEXIS legal database
on "Amateur Radio" and the new RF exposure limits will present themselves.

2)  Wayne, you are incredibly naive to use non-ham neighbor ignorance as a
reason why we shouldn't worry about lawsuits.  My neighbors may currently be
ignorant about these RF exposure limits, but they certainly aren't stupid !
 All it takes is one informed neighbor (perhaps the neighbor-lawyer) to educate
the rest of the non-ham neighbors, and the neighborhood hams will be in BIG
legal trouble.

Wayne, maybe you should try a year or two of high-profile amateur radio
operation from suburbia before you present yourself as an expert in ham
radio-neighbor relations.

Steve London, N2IC/0
smlondon at lucent.com

>From k6km at mail2.quiknet.com (cncnet - Bill Snider)  Thu Aug  8 14:36:17 1996
From: k6km at mail2.quiknet.com (cncnet - Bill Snider) (cncnet - Bill Snider)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 06:36:17 -0700
Subject: Lawyerphobia? You Bet!
Message-ID: <19960808133614.AAA4531 at LOCALNAME>

At 10:33 PM 8/7/96 -0800, Wayne Overbeck wrote a message entitled
"Lawyerphobia."

Lawyerphobia? Fear of lawyers? You bet I fear lawyers. Both attack
lawyers and rabid skunks can cause in individual extreme damage if
not avoided. Unfortunately by the time you know that you are dealing
with an attack lawyer, you're already in deep doo-doo. The rabid 
skunk can be evaded or shot. Shooting the lawyer will bring on a
whole new set of problems, and he'll just be replaced anyway. 

As so many others have said, U. S. amateur radio has just entered
an era of limitless civil liability. We are constantly at risk. We
have no way to prove whether or not we're "legal," to ourselves or
to our rightfully concerned neighbors. We can't show anyone a mean-
ingful meter or spread sheet to prove that we're in compliance 
with the regs. If we can't prove we're right, some neighbors will
recognize the opportunity to take our houses, cars, bank accounts
and radios the moment Grannie develops a tumor. 

This stuff happens, Wayne. It WILL happen. 

Count on it. 

Bill, K6KM


>From thompson at mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)  Thu Aug  8 13:57:29 1996
From: thompson at mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 08:57:29 -0400
Subject: Local Government does get carried away!
Message-ID: <199608081346.JAA24835 at answerman.mindspring.com>

Following the thread of the Rf Exposure Limits I know that local government
does follow rulings and notices such as the Rf Exposure limit very closely
especially if it makes them look good to homeowners.

Gwinnett County Georgia took the FAA ruling about height from airports and
according to Attorney W4BTZ(Al) got carried away with their "police" powers.
In the early 70's the County took the FAA notice and made "every" ham get
FAA approval for towers over 50'.   Al helped me get my 70 foot crank up
approved by pointing out several "errors" in the ordinance.  He also slipped
in a part that I could "add to" my tower (Thank you Lou Tristao for your
add-a-section design) on the accepted permit forever!

Two years ago the County decided that towers over 50' were better regulated
if the permit became a "special use" permit which means a zoning hearing
that allows the neighbors abutting the property TO COMMENT.   Seems they are
always looking for the edge in keeping us regulated.   Jim, N4UCK, famous
for his work in Fulton and Dekalb County Georgia, looked into this after the
ordinance passed and found they were not interested in his model ordinance
as they "had" what they want.

I am "grandfathered" in with add on rights, but Bill AA4LR and others are
stuck unless they take the chance to ignore the law or try to fully argue
PRB-1.   Now you can bet (aided by the growing controversy over cellular
towers) that an ordinance on RF Limits is coming.   My Commissioner is was
the local "Civic Association" President and her appointed Planning
Commissioners were both active in "Homeowners" Associations.  She was
elected to lend more support to homeowners in battles with commercial
interests over growth and to try and protect the "value" of our homes.   The
tie in will be to get Rf Exposure and lowering the value of homes in the
same ordinance.

ITS NOT A QUESTION OF IF BUT WHEN!!!!!    I found in the tower battles that
N4UCK won that the government no longer listens to our record of public
service, but only to clear definitions of the law.  PRB-1 is a clear
definition of the law (they only argue about what level of clear).  So was
the FAA Notice and so will be the RF Exposure Notice!

Dave K4JRB