[NCC] PRB-1 Expansion

[ray.fallen]

Jim...

I hear what you're saying...but you completely miss my point.  The goal of
the ARRL is to enact legislation that will nullify a specific portion of a
contract (deed restriction) that two parties (home buyer and developer)
entered into with their eyes wide open.  Reasonable accommodation has
nothing to do with a contractual deed restriction.  Reasonable
accommodation, in this instance, has nothing to do with the size of the lot.

It has everything to do with an unfair law or ordinance.

And who defines reasonable?

Our system of laws and courts provides for the challenging, repealing or
modification of legislation that is unfair, unjust or conflicts with public
policy.  PRB-1 does that.

Our system of laws does NOT provide for one party in a legally entered into
contract to change their mind later and whine about the
perceived unfairness of the contract.  This is especially true when other
people (other homeowners) are relying on the performance and enforcement of
the contract.  In other words, you can't sell me a car and five years later
come back and say you didn't charge me enough.

Sorry...this legislation is a non-starter.  I intend to write my
knucklehead Congressman and urge him to vote against the bill.  I don't see
how it can possibly withstand a court challenge and you can make book
there *will
*be a court challenge.  Hopefully it won't get that far.

It might get a few people to join the ARRL...and that's what keeps the
lights on.

73, Ray - ND8L




On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Jim K8MR via NCC <ncc at contesting.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCC mailing list
> NCC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ncc
>