[TowerTalk] Neighbors "rights"

[Joe Giacobello]

"We're getting a bit emotional here by using the word "stomp", but the
majority does indeed have the right to overrule a minority, provided
they do not conflict with an even higher authority."

That higher authority is called the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.  Its specified purpose was the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.


73, Joe



Bill Turner wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 07:57:47 -0400, Jerry Muller <k0tv at adelphia.net>
>wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I think you're still missing the point Bill. Rest assured that I was 
>>there on the day they talked about majority rule and one of the points 
>>that has been stressed ever since day 1 is that majority rule doesn't 
>>give the majority the right to stomp on any minority.
>>    
>>
>
>We're getting a bit emotional here by using the word "stomp", but the
>majority does indeed have the right to overrule a minority, provided
>they do not conflict with an even higher authority.  This is why for
>example, a city can not pass a racially discriminatory law (overruled
>by the federal government) but they can indeed pass laws where the
>higher authority has no interest.  For example, if the city passes a
>law forbidding horses in peoples backyards, the "rights" of the horse
>owners will be "stomped" on but that's just too bad.
>
>Fortunately we hams have PRB-1 which comes from the federal level.
>Without that, we could indeed be "stomped" on quite easily.  And even
>with PRB-1, it's so vague it worries me.  As I said previously, a
>35-foot tower may be regarded by some zoning boards as quite
>reasonable and we would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.  I would
>hate a 35-foot limit, but from the zoning boards point of view, it is
>NOT an outright ban, and it would allow me to pursue my hobby.  I can
>forsee lots of money being spent to fight this in coming years.  
>
>
>  
>
>>Some minorities 
>>are even specially protected (women, minorities, and in some situations 
>>gays and lesbians for example).
>>    
>>
>
>Women and minorities are protected at the federal level.  Gays and
>lesbians have some protection in some circumstances, but at a much
>lower level.  There are some actions which would be legal against gays
>and lesbians but would not be legal against women and minorities.  
>
>I haven't kept up with labor law lately, but it used to be that an
>employer could refuse to hire gays or lesbians.  Are gay and lesbian
>rights being "stomped" on?  Yes.  Is it (or was it) legal?  Yes.  If I
>am wrong on this I will stand corrected, but there are countless other
>examples.
>
>
>  
>
>>The majority can say "we want to run all 
>>the Jews out of town" (I'm Jewish), but that doesn't mean that they can.
>>    
>>
>
>Religion is protected at the federal level.  Too bad ham radio isn't a
>religion.  
>
>
>  
>
>>The majority does get a lot of rights, but one thing they DON'T get is 
>>the right to stomp on the rights of minorities. In this case we're the 
>>minority and the rights we have that the majority CAN'T stomp on are 
>>spelled out in PRB-1. We MUST HAVE REASONABLE ACCOMODATION. The majority 
>>CAN'T decide that they don't like towers and ban them.
>>    
>>
>
>PRB-1 is a big help.  I just wish it were more specific, especially in
>the matter of tower height.
>
>  
>