[NCC] PRB-1 Expansion

[R.T.Liddy]

MY opinion is that there needs to be an accommodation for
Ham antennas versus an outright BAN on anything whatsoever.
I'm not talking about 100 foot towers and stacked monobanders
or roof towers with multiple beams and dipoles (like my house).

Every neighborhood is different and what is reasonable one place
would not be somewhere else. A Ham should be able to present
their plan to an open-minded Committee and have a discussion
about what would be acceptable. But, an outright ban? NO!

The ground rules should be that the outcome results in the Ham
having an effective antenna installation and it not be an eyesore
greatly affecting the area. There MUST be something that would
meet this criteria. In some places without trees, it might end up
being only a ground-mounted vertical painted to eliminate shining.

Personally, I'd never live in a place that had antenna restrictions since
I'm not one who'd be told what I can do on MY property. I've read too
many stories about Associations suing Veterans for having a flag in
a flowerpot on their porch or telling people what color drapes they
can have or if they can park a car in their driveway overnight.

In summation, I'm against total bans on antennas and against Hams
being able to put up outrageous junkyards in the sky in neighborhoods
that have restrictions. Association Committees and Hams both need 
to be open-minded and accommodating.

73 & GL to All,      Bob K8BL


________________________________
 From: Ray Fallen <ray.fallen.caom at statefarm.com>
To: 'North Coast Contesters' <ncc at contesting.com> 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [NCC] PRB-1 Expansion
 

Thanks John...

-----Original Message-----
From: NCC [mailto:ncc-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of John S Comella
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:04 AM
To: North Coast Contesters
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



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