[NCC] PRB-1 Expansion

[Jim K8MR via NCC]

The goal is not to nullify all existing restrictions, but rather to 
require reasonable accommodation for amateur antennas. That is the 
language under the current PRB-1.

There is a major difference on what is reasonable on a tiny lot, and 
what is reasonable on five acres.

Requiring safe design and installation is reasonable.

That the current record number of amateurs are allowed HT's or remote 
stations does not constitute reasonable accommodation.


73  -  Jim  K8MR



-----Original Message-----
From: John S Comella <jscomella at gmail.com>
To: North Coast Contesters <ncc at contesting.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 9:04 am
Subject: Re: [NCC] PRB-1 Expansion

Ray, good points and nicely stated.

I agree!

John, N8AA


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 8:59 AM, ray.fallen <ray.fallen at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> Dear Ms. Craigie:
>
> I watched with great interest your appeal to the ham radio community
> regarding support for the extension of the PRB-1 reasonable 
accommodation
> rules the FCC established over 30 years ago.  While I find that rule 
to be
> reasonable and justified, I cannot in good conscience support 
extending the
> provisions of PRB-1 to deed restricted areas.
>
> First and foremost, every ham living in an antenna restricted area 
was made
> aware of those restrictions when he or she purchased their property.
> Nobody held a gun to their head and made them sign that contract.  I 
own
> property in The Villages, Florida.  Restrictions against outside 
antennas
> and other restrictions established to preserve the value of my 
investment
> were made abundantly clear to me, when I purchased the property.  I 
rely on
> those restrictions and the sanctity of that contract, as do my 
neighbors.
>
> It is no more fair or reasonable to ask Congress to nullify those
> restrictions through legislation than it would be to ask Congress to
> nullify deed restrictions or homeowner's association rules concerning
> property maintenance, the establishment of an in-home business or for 
that
> matter, raising pigs in the front yard.
>
> It is obvious that these deed restrictions do NOT pose a great threat 
to
> the hobby.  If, as you say, there are more and more areas covered by 
deed
> restrictions, how can it be that there are more amateur licenses in 
the
> United States than at any other time in the history of the sport?
> Bloviation of this sort, while it stirs up the faithful, does not 
support
> your wobbly case.
>
> Your problem is this: antennas and towers are ugly and if improperly
> installed, potentially dangerous.  If I weren't a ham, I really 
wouldn't
> want to live next to a neighbor with an 80 foot tower in his front
> yard...especially if I have a significant investment in my home and
> property.  All that being said, I do have a 50 foot crank up tower 
and quad
> at my non-deed restricted home in Ohio.  But it's in the rear of the
> property and made intentionally difficult to see from the front of the
> house.  Not all hams are that considerate of their neighbors.
>
> Asking Congress to trample on the rights of property owners (and yes, 
they
> have rights, too), is just plain bad PR for the hobby.  While I don't
> expect you to agree with any of the above, just be aware of the 
hornet's
> nest you are poking.  Just about everybody's largest single 
investment is
> their home.  You just don't want to mess with that, now, do you?
>
> Sincerely,
> Ray Fallen - ND8L
> DXCC Honor Roll-Mixed
> 5BDXCC