[NCC] PRB-1 Expansion

Fri Jul 18 15:05:31 EDT 2014

One problem with your idea Bob is that inserting the language of aesthetics would then over ride PRB-1 totally. As is written in to
Ohio's law Aesthetics are not to be considered for an application to erect an antenna. Adding Aesthetics to one portion would add it
to all.

In a way I agree with Ray. You did sign an agreement or contract. It should be a binding contract. What I don’t agree with is that
antennas are banned for aesthetic reasons. But again, no one forces anyone else to live in certain areas. Now if the law banned
future CCNR's from disallowing antennas would be another story and could/should be done.

73,
Tim Herrick, KQ8M
kq8m at kq8m.com

-----Original Message-----
From: NCC [mailto:ncc-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of R.T.Liddy
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 2:49 PM
To: North Coast Contesters
Subject: Re: [NCC] PRB-1 Expansion

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