It's a semantics game anyway. What some people see as "choice", others see as "requirements". e.g.: One guy sees it as a choice to live within 10 minutes of their work, other guy calls it a requirement. One guy sees it as a choice to live in a house less than 3 years old, the other guy requires the house be less than 3 years old. What they're missing is that those "requirements" involve making a choice.
And so on. Word games.
The problem with the "requirements" approach is that the problem becomes over specified:
I wanna house between 3 and 5 years old.
AND every room has a walk-in closet measuring 20x15 feet.
AND there must be 4 full bathrooms.
AND the lawn must be in perfect condition.
AND 10 to 15 minutes commute to my work.
AND 10 to 15 minutes commute to my wife's work.
AND 10 to 15 minutes away from the grade school.
AND 10 to 15 minutes away from the high school.
AND the high school must be within the top 10% in the state.
AND the grade school must be within the top 10% in the state.
AND it must cost between $250,000 and $300,000.
AND the HOA fees must be less than $100 a month.
AND every home in the neighborhood must be painted only with approved colors.
AND nobody is allowed to wash their car on the street.
AND no kids are allowed to play basketball in their driveways.
AND nobody is allowed to have a shed more than 10x10 feet.
AND only certain kinds of flowers are allowed.
AND … I must be allowed to put up a 65 foot tower and tri-band beam.
Oh dang. There are no houses left within 200 miles that meet my requirements!
Therefore the Federal Government must step in and override the HOA and gimmee everything I want regardless of any objections from any of the neighbors ... because I'm a HAM HERO and am required by the Federal Government to be prepared to save the world some day
And another dishonest post. HR 4969 would mandate only REASONABLE accommodations and you know it. Stop flailing around yelling towers, towers... ooohhhh nnnooooooooo...