[TowerTalk] A Sad Precedent

[Gerald D'Entremont]

Dave Jordan wrote:
>If I got the story right GTE was the target of the suit rather than the
>city that leased the
>building site...I'd be very interested in knowing if the city was also
>included or excluded
>in the suit and why.
<SNIP>
>Another consideration is that amateurs could
>be the next victims...
<snip>

    For those who would like to read the entire text in it's unexpurgated
detail, browser goes to:

http://www.chron.com/content/story.html/metropolitan/200590

I made the dubious decision to save bandwidth to the reflector to synopsize
somewhat and present only those points which were most directly pertinent
and place significant points IN CAPS...I somewhat regret this now, as the
facts of the matter as presented in the story speak quite clearly for
themselves.

To answer a couple of points for those who don't wish to take the time to
read the entire article...yes, of course GTE will appeal and yes, "the city
was originally included in the suit but it settled for a confidential amount
with the couple in October 1998 and agreed to abide by the judge's
decision...".

While we're at it, I'd like to make a polite request to put an immediate QRT
on any 'barrister-bashing' as none was intended or implied in my original
post.  To paraphrase the old saw: some of my best friends (and most avid
contesters and DX'ers that I know) are attorneys.  Indeed, the only
opportunity that I may have to be able to erect the TOWER that has lain
horizontal in the weeds next to my house for the past several years is if I
can find a legal remedy that will allow me to prevail against the local
"Architectural Control Committee".  I'll not bore long-time TT (and Ham-Law)
reflectees with the tired details but, to synopsize on this: 1) No mention
of towers, antennas (other than satellite) etc. in the Deed Restrictions to
suggest prohibition of same and 2) pre-existence of multi-element
tri-banders, stacked VHF/UHF arrays, etc. within 2 block radius of same
sub-division would seem to imply that my politely written request to the
Committee to put my TOWER up should not be denied.
    It's one thing for the ACC to shoot down my 55-ft crankup and
tri-bander...it's quite another for a jury to award a third of a million to
someone for 'mental anguish' over a tower that has been legally permitted
and is located on city property. YMMV...Res Ipsa Loquitor.

 73 es gud (wire antenna) DX, Gerald  W5BA  w5ba@csi.com




--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm