|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
from
koco.com
on
November 6, 2009
Website:
http://www.koco.com/news/21525855/detail.html
View comments about this article!
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
See the full story here:
LINK
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Did anyone bother to point out to this city council that it's not within their powers to regulate radio transmitters, that is the FCC's job?
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's see, Mustang City Council wants to regulate transmitters. Does that include:
Car remote door locks
Baby Monitors
WiFi
Wireless Alarm Systems
Wireless Weather Stations
Wireless Intercoms
Wireless Doorbells
Cell Phones
Wireless Phones
Remote Control Toys
Remote Reading Utility Meters
FRS Radios
MURS Radios
GMRS Radios
CB Radios
.... and the list goes on and on
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by AB4D on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just went through a somewhat similar situation where I live. I applied to erect a 55 foot crank up tower, which would have required a conditional use permit ($500.00), and I would have to pay the same fees and follow the same requirements as a commercial installation (yearly inspections by an engineer and a bunch of other requirements which would be cost prohibitive for the average ham).
Thankfully, I was informed yesterday after my application had been reviewed (I also included some background information about amateur radio and the potential for amateurs to support coms during emergencies), my county attorney concluded that ham radio towers are preempted by federal law (PRB1). It's been implied that they are going to write a new ordinance just to cover ham radio towers and eliminate the conditional use permit process for hams.
Oddly, the planning director for my county said they have never received a tower application from a ham, and just did not know how to proceed in this situation, and she really had no information about amateur radio. We sat down and had a very productive meeting, which I believe really became a factor in obtaining a favorable outcome in this case. I also brought along copies of documents pertaining to amateur radio from the FCC to add some credence to my explanation, I believe that helped too.
Obviously, the hams in Mustang are beyond that stage of consideration. I hope it works out for them. But for other individuals, who may be facing a similar situation, sometimes just setting down with the folks in your local planning/zoning department and actually explaining what is ham radio, and what it is that we do, sometimes can make all the difference.
I basically approached the county and said this is what I want to do, how do I make this happen without having to conform to all of the requirments as a commercial installation, which are cost prohibitive to me.
My advice is to always remain cordial, and don’t act overly aggressive, spouting off that it is your right to have a tower or a station and that federal law over rules anything they want to say or do is not going to help. Also don’t throw in deadlines either, saying I need this done by such and such date, this will not work in your favor either. Sometimes, it is better to let them think that it is their idea or at least they had equal participation in the process. Most folks who work for local counties and towns want to be helpful, let them help you, nobody likes to be bullied.
73 AB4D
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by N5TGL on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The city council has ZERO jurisdiction in this case. Sounds to me like a case of power-itis combined with ignorance.
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by W4CCV on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looking at the article, I don't believe this is an antenna issue. Apparently, a ham can have towers or other antennas. They just can't transmit...
I don't usually register to reply to newspaper articles, but I had to with this one. It is just so over the top.
If he uses his radios, and they fine him, or throw him in jail, I wonder what recourse he would have against the jurisdiction when it came to trial? You would think someone out there would wake up and apologize very fast to these amateur operators before the city gets sued.
Norm - W4CCV
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by AB4D on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Looking at the article, I don't believe this is an antenna issue. Apparently, a ham can have towers or other antennas. They just can't transmit...
I don't usually register to reply to newspaper articles, but I had to with this one. It is just so over the top.
If he uses his radios, and they fine him, or throw him in jail, I wonder what recourse he would have against the jurisdiction when it came to trial? You would think someone out there would wake up and apologize very fast to these amateur operators before the city gets sued.
Norm - W4CCV"
Norm,
I agree it is not an antenna issue, however restrictions against amateurs may just simply be an issue of not knowing the difference between hams and other radio hobbists, like those who operate CB radios with illegal high powered amplifiers, or those who run lowfer stations. I bet if you were to research this issue and find out the original basis of this ordinance, there probably was a valid reason behind it at the time.
If I lived in Mustang, I would start with trying to find out why this hit the books in the first place. Perhaps someone on the town Council back in the 70's had a CBer living next door, who knows.
73
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by WB8WOR on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not sure the case is so simple.
The city isn't saying ham radio operators can't transmit...They're saying they can't put up towers to transmit with.
I suppose a wire dipole would be fine.
I agree the city is overstepping the bounds of logic and probably science, and I hope they end up having to back down.
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by AA4PB on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Honest - I only receive with that Yagi antenna up on top of that 70 foot tower. I always transmit with this here 10-foot high wire dipole. Honest!
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by AE5MW on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A simple case of a pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure.
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by EIRIKR1 on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
interesting that no one backed up the city and said the ham could just move to a city that allows it. I notice that when a ham complains about HOA's prohibiting an antenna, at least one poster will advise shutting the hell up and moving out....
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by WA6ITF on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Just tried to locate either a John or Richarly Ridley to get a call so as to interview him for Newsline. Guess what -- nobody by either name listed with a ham call. Either both the TV report or Newspaper got it wrong -- one says John the other Richard -- or hes identified incorrectly completely as I cannot find a "Ridley" anywhere in Oklahoma by either first name.
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by AB4D on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by EIRIKR1 on November 6, 2009
"interesting that no one backed up the city and said the ham could just move to a city that allows it. I notice that when a ham complains about HOA's prohibiting an antenna, at least one poster will advise shutting the hell up and moving out...."
Because there is a significant difference between HOA covenants and a County ordinance.
When agreeing to move into an HOA controlled area, it is a private agreement for which you are bound when you agreed to purchase property with convenants. You have no valid argument if you agree to the covenants and then try to circumvent such by violating the rules. When it says no antennas shall be erected upon any lot, that is exactly what it means. No need compaining about it after you have agreed to the rules when you purchased the property.
On the other hand, in this case, it is government regulation we are talking about, which is always in a state of flux. Building and zoning rules change often, and ultimately, they are subject to modification or review. Usually, this occurs when someone finds they are prohibited from building something they want, or believe the local rules are inconsistent with State or Federal law. The first level of redress is usully with the folks who work in planning or zoning, then onto your Town or County board. If you canot obtain an agreeable outcome through the County or Town. Then it is time to consider commencing a Civil action.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on November 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
by WA6ITF on November 6, 2009 Mail this to a friend!
Just tried to locate either a John or Richarly Ridley to get a call so as to interview him for Newsline. Guess what -- nobody by either name listed with a ham call. Either both the TV report or Newspaper got it wrong -- one says John the other Richard -- or hes identified incorrectly completely as I cannot find a "Ridley" anywhere in Oklahoma by either first name. <<<
For a supposed journalist, you seem pretty helpless in finding information.
http://www.mustangnews.info/CatIndex.aspx?pageType=1&id=3658
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by N2EY on November 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB8WOR writes: "The city isn't saying ham radio operators can't transmit...They're saying they can't put up towers to transmit with."
Not exactly.
They're saying can put up towers, but you can't use them to transmit.
At least that's what the story says:
Quote from the story: "City leaders said that residents can build radio towers but they can't use them to transmit signals. They said it interferes with radios, televisions and phones."
How they can tell what a tower is being used for is another story.
WB8WOR: "I suppose a wire dipole would be fine."
Maybe - until the city council finds out what it does.
I suppose one could argue that the *tower* doesn't transmit - the antenna on top of it does. The tower just holds up the antenna.
WB8WOR: "I agree the city is overstepping the bounds of logic and probably science, and I hope they end up having to back down."
They're actually overstepping the bounds of their regulatory authority. The issue of local and state regulation of radio was settled way back in the 1920s. Federal preemption.
In fact the city council has it backwards: they have the authority to regulate towers (in the interest of public safety) but not what they're used for!
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by KE5WRC on November 8, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: Just tried to locate either a John or Richarly Ridley to get a call so as to interview him for Newsline. Guess what -- nobody by either name listed with a ham call. Either both the TV report or Newspaper got it wrong -- one says John the other Richard -- or hes identified incorrectly completely as I cannot find a "Ridley" anywhere in Oklahoma by either first name.--
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2504888
Here you go :-)
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by NJSIDEBANDER on November 8, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the MUSTANG NEWS
by CAROLYN COLE AND BRETT JONES
A proposed city ordinance that some Mustang amateur radio enthusiasts fear could take their hobby off the air was tabled Tuesday night by City Council members.
Ward 6 Councilwoman Katherine Callahan said the city could not vote on the measure in good conscience because city staff had promised to meet with amateur radio enthusiasts last summer to work out a compromise ordinance, but the city had never followed through.
The proposed law would impose requirements on those wishing to construct an amateur radio tower on their property including a new $150 permit fee, a site plan to be filed with the city, construction of a 6-foot-tall fence around the structure, demonstration the radio will not interfere with neighboring electronics and the amateur radio towers must be installed on the land so the distance from all property lines is at least 125 percent of the tower's height.
Ham radio enthusiast Ray Ireton said after agreeing to help the city draft a new ordinance last summer, he was “exceedingly disappointed” that the meetings never occurred and that the same proposed ordinance, which had been a bone of contention before, was back before the Council.
“It looks like state law is being kind of circumvented here as well as federal law,” Ireton said.
Under the code of federal regulations and state law, he said the proposed ordinance places “very excessive restrictions” on the community including the $150 permit fee for the tower when a housing permit is only $90.
“It's inexcusable,” Ireton said.
He said the proposed ordinance also does not include any grandfather clause meaning every ham radio antenna in the city will “probably have to come down.”
Coeta Morrell said the ham radio issue “touched her heart” because she had an experience where she had not heard from her brother in about a year while he was serving in Vietnam. One day, Morell said, she received a call from a ham radio operator who had her brother on the phone and she could talk to him.
“We had a very lengthy conversation,” she said. “I tell you right now, that is one of the most important calls of my life. I know what these ham operators do because I experienced it. I was so thankful.”
The Council voted 7-0 to table the proposed ordinance to the first Council meeting in December. Mayor Jeff Landrith, Ward 2 Councilwoman Kathleen Moon and Callahan, city staff and members of the radio community are expected to meet in the intervening time period to hammer out a compromise.
John Thomason, vice director of the West Gulf Division of the National Association for Amateur Radio, attended Tuesday's meeting and said he was pleased to hear the city was willing to talk.
He said conflicts between cities and radio enthusiasts are not new, and his association has been involved in resolving previous disputes. He said such conflicts rarely result into lawsuits, but his organization is poised to provide “resources” to amateur radio enthusiasts if they need it.
“We are all really here to benefit citizens of this community,” he said. “The City Council, city administrators and amateur radio is here to protect citizens of this town through natural disasters and hardships.”
Heights resident John Ripley called Mustang's efforts to regulate amateur radio coming close to banning towers in the city limits.
He and other ham operators believe the new ordinance goes too far. Attempts to contact the Federal Communications Commission about their concerns were not returned as of press time.
“It's a commercial ordinance that has been modified with the words amateur radio,” he said.
The Ripley family received a letter by certified mail Saturday from city officials, telling them to stop transmitting from their tower “immediately to avoid interfering with neighbors' electronic devices.”
“In our communications with the FCC, they have informed the city of Mustang that they have no mechanism for overriding municipal ordinances and that the zoning regulations of the local government must always be adhered to when erecting a tower,” wrote Melissa Helsel, the city's interim community development director.
“It tells me I have to cease and desist my operations ... what we would like to see are the people who are complaining,” Ripley said. “Because them complaining to the city is doing them no good or us because we have ways of fixing the problem with filters or something like that, but we have to know who the people are.”
Ripley's antenna
The whole situation surfaced last spring when Ripley's son Richard came home to Mustang after 20 years in the Marine Seabees and brought a 1960s-era amateur radio for his father.
Both hams were itching to try out the radio, but as they started rewiring the garage, Richard Ripley suggested they check city ordinances before installing the tower. Both figured there wouldn't be any problem since there used to be a working radio tower at the home in the 1980s.
Instead they found an ordinance that went into effect in 2000 allowing, “any tower, or antenna, not more than 70 feet in height, owned and operated by a federally licensed amateur radio station operator if it is used exclusively as a received only facility.” John Ripley said he believes the ordinance is in conflict with federal law, allowing amateur radio operators to receive licenses through the FCC.
They brought their concerns about the ordinance to the Council in the spring, but when a proposal surfaced that summer, Council members tabled it. City staff promised to meet with local hams to write a new proposed ordinance.
Ripley said those meetings never occurred. His family was contacted about scheduling a meeting, he said, and when they told officials anytime would work for them, the meeting was never held.
Ripley said he then called City Manager Mike Rutledge.
“He told me everybody was too busy schedule-wise to have a meeting, and they would take care of it,” he said.
Ripley's family erected a 55-foot tower in July and installed the antenna in September. Several neighbors attended Council meetings in October calling the tower an eyesore and a safety concern. Helsel wrote in her letter other neighbors complained of radio frequency interference with home phones, cell phones and computers.
Ripley said he tried to address officials' concerns regards to safety. The tower is anchored in 3-foot cube of rebar and concrete buried underground underground. It is connected to three guy wires, two of which are anchored in 4 feet of concrete buried underground. The third is attached to his home's roof, which has been reinforced to anchor the tower.
He said the structure should withstand 60 mph winds.
“I am more worried about that tree,” he said. “It's a big old cottonwood.”
Ripley said he's talked to several of his neighbors, and none have mentioned any concerns they have about the tower and antenna.
“Not a one,” he said. “As a matter of fact everybody I talk to over here, it doesn't bother them a bit.”
Proposed law
Helsel said the ordinance will not affect amateur radio antennas that are “receive only” — operating within the city's existing law. Other operators will have to meet the new ordinance requirements.
Radio operators must pay a $150 fee and seek a conditional use permit. They must also hold an amateur radio operator license.
The applicant must include a site plan including a scaled drawing showing property boundaries, tower, existing and proposed structures, access roads, location, fences and existing land uses surrounding the site. The resident must also present evidence of their ownership of the location and a statement of the height of the proposed amateur radio tower from the ground and sea level.
Amateur radio towers must be installed on the land so the distance from all property lines is at least 125 percent of the tower's height. In other words, if the tower should fall, it would land on the operator's property.
Ripley said this bars residents living in the Heights and other densely populated neighborhoods from having a tower. He estimated his lot is about 55 feet wide, meaning his radio tower would be allowed to be about 20-feet tall, barely reaching the height of his home's roof.
Applicants would be required to show the radio tower will not cause interference with other equipment. Ripley said he's not sure how to prove that ahead of time. Also, if he isn't allowed to raise the antenna above 20 feet, he said it would be almost impossible to avoid interference with his neighbors' equipment. One of the reasons he wanted to install the taller antenna was to interfere with his neighbors as little as possible.
“The reason for going up is because if you are down, you are going to splatter more waves, radio signals,” he said.
The proposal requires towers to be locked behind a six-foot tall fence to prevent trespassers from climbing it. The tower must have “the least practical adverse visual effect on the environment,” and the ordinance requires a five-foot buffer of landscaping.
“You have to put a six-foot chain-link fence, and then you have to put flowers up or something,” Ripley said.
Then the planning commission or City Council can require the amateur radio hobbyist obtain a report from a licensed structural or electrical engineer.
Ripley said he is concerned the measure will have an adverse effect not only on local ham operators but on Mustang in cases of emergency. When catastrophes occur that damage phone lines and cell phone towers, emergency workers rely on amateur radio for communications. According to FCC records, there are 93 amateur radio licenses issued to people living in the 73064 zip code. There are 200 active licenses for residents in the 73099 zip code.
“I don't think the city knows what an amateur ham radio operator does in a disaster,” Ripley said.
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by N2EY on November 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In addition to what AB4D wrote, there's the fact that government power is constitutionally limited.
Local governments do not have the authority to regulate radio transmission; that's FCC's job. Saying a resident can put up a tower but cannot transmit with it exceeds the local government's authority. "It causes interference" is technically incorrect, as well, the cause of interference isn't necessarily or even usually the transmitter.
But the local government folks don't understand all that, and have to be approached diplomatically about all of it.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by MUSTANG01 on November 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As a councilmember, the history is interesting. The law was based (we think, it was a long time ago) on CB tech. No one really objects to the idea of being able to transmit. The issues and why it has not been changed yet is we are wanting to create law which will protect neighbors from poorly constructed towers and provide a process to advise neighbors should they encounter interference. In this case neighbors are complaining of issues with phones, internet (wireless), etc. We have referred them to FCC. So when we finally get the law worked out, we will have local group weigh in and the attorneys. And that folks is the rest of the story.
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by N2EY on November 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
MUSTANG01 writes: "As a councilmember, the history is interesting. The law was based (we think, it was a long time ago) on CB tech."
What is "CB tech"?
MUSTANG01: "No one really objects to the idea of being able to transmit."
Then repeal the law right now.
Mustang01: "The issues and why it has not been changed yet is we are wanting to create law which will protect neighbors from poorly constructed towers and provide a process to advise neighbors should they encounter interference."
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. If the current law does not do those things, there's no reason to keep it.
Structural safety is a building code issue. Does every utility pole and street light need a permit and inspection? What if one fell over?
MUSTANG01: "In this case neighbors are complaining of issues with phones, internet (wireless), etc. We have referred them to FCC."
That's good. That's the FCC's job.
It is important to understand that towers do not cause interference. Nor is it always or even usually the fault of the transmitting station.
MUSTANG01:"So when we finally get the law worked out, we will have local group weigh in and the attorneys. And that folks is the rest of the story."
There's no reason to keep the old law on the books, though. None whatsoever.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
|
|
by KA3NZR on November 13, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
in franklin county virginia we came up with a unique compromise. each tract of land, now matter what the size, has a prescribed set backs around its perimeter. if you will, imagine a picture frame as the set back area and the inside of the frame (the picture) as your parcel of land. as long as your tower, guy wires (if guyed), antenna, and the like are within the set backs you are good to go. it was a 14 month discussion with the county officials so it wasnt an easy settlement to arrive at. but in the end we developed a workable compromise. i know this doesnt help the mustang folks but it may be a fall back --- someday. my best wishes to all involved and hope the chips fall on your side of the table. harry, ka3nzr.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Propagation Forecast Bulletin #47 de K7RA:
Technology Enthusiast Boosts Skills with Amateur Radio:
Solar Radio Flux: Slow Upward Trend Since Summer:
This Week on the Radio:
End in Sight for 'Third Battle of Bull Run'?
|
|
|
