|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
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
|
Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
from
mustangnews.info
on
November 27, 2009
Website:
http://www.mustangnews.info/CatIndex.aspx?pageType=1&id=3773
View comments about this article!
Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
See the full story here:
LINK
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by K0MU on November 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://noblecountyarc.org/pdf/Ordinance%20Mustang.pdf
http://noblecountyarc.org/pdf/C&D_Letter.pdf
http://noblecountyarc.org/pdf/Letter_to_City_of_Mustang.pdf
Links from:
http://www.arrl.org/sections/OK.html
|
| |
|
Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by K0RGR on November 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well done, ARRL - hopefully, the city will figure out that they can't control everything in their environment.
|
| |
|
Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by KC0NIB on November 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can see this now beginning to multiply. As more and more government "offices" begin to open with the expansion of government in our lives, and the "take-over" beginning to emerge, your rights and freedoms will begin to be eroded. If you are not willing to fight this to the core and make those who seek to restrict or limit your constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, you deserve to loose them.
I applaud the folks involved here attempting to put the squelch on the rogue city council members. You can tell from the story lines that this appears to be a very personal issue with them for some reason. I can't believe we still have "backwards" folk like this but I suppose anything is possible.
|
| |
|
Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by KC2WI on November 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As far as the radio frequency interefernce, that is also under the jusrisdiction of the FCC and also what these techno-boobs don't understand is that any RFI problem is most likely due to cheap or faulty TV's telephones, etc. and not improper operation of amaterur radio transmitting equipment.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by W6EM on November 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You cats always miss the important stuff. Imlay's persiflage has been superceded by the comments of none other than Laura "muni-buddy" Smith at the FCC.
If not, then why would her name and phone number be cited at the end of the city's letter to the ham?
Historically, she is correct as far as hamdom is concerned. The resolution is not some FCC process but a lawsuit in federal court. At least up until now. And, those cost in the range of $30-50K. And, does ARRL provide free counsel for same or pursue the lawsuit on behalf of amateurs? Nope. Do they kick in money to reimburse the ham for his costs? Nope.
The FCC does have a Declaratory Ruling process, but from what I've seen and read, unless its specifically permitted, as in the case of over the air TV and satellite dish regulations in 47CFR1.4000, its not available.
Most importantly, Ms. Smith is apparently telling her muni-buddies its OK to issue such rubbish. Thanks to her father's old chief of police hat, I suppose. So, just when the enfarcement bureau is supposed to be tough on a violator, she apparently says, essentially, "there's nothing we can or will do about the ordinance."
In any case, I sure hope I'm wrong, but why else would her name be on the bottom of the city's initial letter of demand on the ham?
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by W6EM on November 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I will, however, give credit to ARRL and Imlay for developing a file of correspondence that will likely make the federal trial short and to the point.
What I seem to remember in the last three or four of these I've read about, the ham usually prevails. But, the federal court hasn't awarded court costs and made the cities pay. Perhaps, with the good deal of forewarning Imlay's letter represents, court costs might be imposed on a respondent/defendant that doesn't choose to rescind the ordinance after some accurate advice before the lawsuit is ever filed.
|
| |
|
Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by W6ZPC on November 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I believe the wording of the FCC letter addresses only the narrow issue of zoning laws, not a city ordinance against transmitting from towers.
|
| |
|
RE: Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by KF7CG on November 30, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am sure that the zoning people wouldn't be interested in the data that shows that the tower antenna has less signal level at the locations claimed to be interferred with than an antenna in the attic or other non-external location.
I doubt that they have a desire to see facts. Who knows? I may be wrong.
I firmly believe that the ordinance as assembled is just an attempt to get around restrictions. Give all the antenna you want but make it not worth the effort. Who, except for the few diehard SW DXers is going to put up a large tower with large antennas if they can't transmit.
Another idea if you are devious. Put up the tower etc, and also install an inside antenna. Scrupulously use only the indoor antenna for transmitting. When the Cease and Desist Order comes, switch to the tower antenna. If your rig is like mine, antenna switching is a push button affair.
KF7CG
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by AK4AV on December 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
@W6EM: "The FCC does have a Declaratory Ruling process, but from what I've seen and read, unless its specifically permitted, as in the case of over the air TV and satellite dish regulations in 47CFR1.4000, its not available."
OM, have you heard of PRB-1? It is the basis for 97.15(b), a hard-won statement of FCC policy on state/local regulation of amateur antenna structures.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=prb-1&id=amateur&page=1
There, the FCC said: "State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur communications in their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted." (MO&O FCC 85-506 at 24).
Well, PRB-1 is a Declaratory Ruling.
With regard to the mention of the FCC's Ms. Smith in that letter from the city, who knows if she personally had a conversation with a city official.
As ARRL's attorney wrote, "Essentially, nothing about this letter [from the city] is accurate."
@W6EM: "why else would her name be on the bottom of the city's initial letter of demand on the ham?"
It could be that the FCC staff member the city spoke to, gave the city official Ms. Smith's contact information and it was simply appended to the letter.
Maybe the city talked to some well-meaning but uninformed person. Government people sometimes give on-the-spot advice not based on actual regulations, just to be helpful or perhaps to get the person off the phone.
Because this happens from time to time -- "We talked to the FCC and they said we're right" -- the Commission has always been clear that what it calls "informal staff interpretations" are not binding.
On the other hand, it could be that the city really did speak to Ms. Smith but selectively reported what she said as support for the city's position.
I think amateurs can expect her to support the principles in the ARRL's letter to the city, because they are settled law.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by W6EM on December 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Well, PRB-1 is a Declaratory Ruling. "
Really? Then ARRL is wasting a great deal of money on their mouthpiece spouting threats of filing a motion to beg the FCC to make yet another one.
"As ARRL's attorney wrote, "Essentially, nothing about this letter [from the city] is accurate."
That's amusing. So, the city of Mustang itself and the official who penned the letter don't exist? Those are at least two items in the letter besides Laura "Muni-buddy" Smith's phone number that are accurate.
"Maybe the city talked to some well-meaning but uninformed person."
Or, someone who believes local governments are sacrosanct and are immune from prosecution. Sounds like Ms. Smith to me.
"Government people sometimes give on-the-spot advice not based on actual regulations, just to be helpful or perhaps to get the person off the phone."
An excellent definition for a bureaucrat.
"I think amateurs can expect her to support the principles in the ARRL's letter to the city, because they are settled law."
Sure. Just like she did with the City of Indianapolis Police Department and the fify or so cops without licenses using the 2M band for a back channel. Shuffle it under the rug. "You boys have to stop that and get those radios out of the cars."
73.
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by N6WDR on December 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello to all,
I am Richard (N6WDR) to which this article is about, I just seen this article on eHam and thought I should reply.
What started this whole problem was I just retired out of the Navy and moved back to the city of Mustang OK after 20 years. I wanted to put my station back up after moving from San Diego, CA and contacted the city to see if there were any ordinances or permit fees to put a tower up. The city came back and said there were no permit fees but….. You can put a 70ft tower but you are not allowed to transmit from it.
I put my 50ft tower up and waited for the next City Council meeting to address the ordinance on transmitting. When I questioned the ordinance at the meeting the city admitted that they needed to change the ordinance to allow transmitting they found it foolish to spend all that money just to be able to receive. I left the meeting feeling like everything was going to be ok and awaited the city’s new proposed ordinance.
A month later my council woman came by on Saturday and said you are not going to like this new proposal they are going to vote it in on Tuesday. What the proposal was is they took out the 70ft tower and put in that a tower must be 125% contained on your property and that your guy cables must be 20ft back from your property line. I live in a typical rural neighbor hood so by there new ordinance I would have to take down my tower that I just put up in the air, and other Hams in the local area would have to do the same. I had my father contact some local hams and let them know about the new proposed ordinance and we all went to the city council meeting and explained what this ordinance would do to us and the city decided to table the ordinance and make a committee up of three city members and three Hams to come up with a proposed ordinance that we all could live with.
Three months went by and we contacted the city to find out what happened with the committee because we never heard from them and we were informed that they have been busy and that they would probably drop the ordinance.
Two weeks later I get a call from my council woman and she said that I needed to go to the next meeting due to there was a man that lived behind me that is complaining about my tower. So I go to the meeting and a gentleman starts describing my tower as a potential hazard and it doesn’t belong in a neighbor hood, but the real deal is that he doesn’t like to look out his back door and see my tower. I stepped up and disputed what the gentleman said and the city decided to look into the ordinance again.
During this whole waiting time I was transmitting from my station and one day I receive a certified letter from the city of Mustang telling me to stop transmitting which is on this thread. I forwarded the letter on to John WB5SYT of the ARRL and he took action on it.
Two weeks later the City tried again to sneak the ordinance in but my city council woman gave us an advanced copy and we contacted John WB5SYT and he went to the council meeting with us and the city once again tabled the ordinance.
That is were we stand now until January. The ARRL is drafting a proposal to the city and hopefully that will be there tomorrow or by early next week.
I want to say Thank You all for your support.
Richard N6WDR
|
| |
|
RE: Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by K9LJH on December 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've just got a couple of questions. Does the town of Mustang as yet understand they are violating federal law and both their proposals and C&D order are illegal? Have they as yet replied to the ARRL and is this how did the ARRL proposal is coming about?
|
| |
|
RE: Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by N6WDR on December 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Leeh,
The City of Mustang is aware that they are violating Federal Law. The city will change the no transmitt ordinanace when the final ordinance is put out in January.
The part we are fighting them on now is the proposed tower rules since it is not working with PRB-1, and I have not received anything yet from the ARRL on there draft for the city ordinance.
I hope this answered your questions.
Richard N6WDR
|
| |
|
RE: Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
|
|
|
by N6WDR on December 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Leeh,
I just noticed I missed one of you questions. No the city has not replied to the ARRL or to myself recalling back their letter.
Richard N6WDR
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
|
|
