Call Search
     

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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Fargo's new rule  (Read 927 times)
KB0LIV
Member

Posts: 10




Ignore
« on: April 03, 2002, 10:13:39 PM »

This is in Fargo, North Dakota (though I go to college in Moorhead, MN)
I was reading the local paper, specifically an article about a proposed apartment complex....blah blah.  Then I noticed this blurb

"In other business Monday, commissioners:
Amended the city's Land Development Code to limit amateur radio enthusiasts to one tower per property.  It also limits the height of the towers - and the antennas on top of them - to 80 feet in most areas of the city.  
Radio operators wanting to erect more than one tower on their land - or one higher than 80 feet - could apply for a special permit, which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission but could be denied."
Taken verbatim (more or less) from the April 2, 2002 edition of the Fargo Foolem, er Fargo Forum., pages A1 and A8.

Comments?
Logged
KL7IPV
Member

Posts: 984




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2002, 01:53:53 AM »

Isn't this action just a few years after the bad floods they had and the hams helped out? Short memories I guess. Maybe someone ought to read PRB-1 to them.
73
Frank
KL7IPV
Logged
KB0LIV
Member

Posts: 10




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2002, 02:39:41 AM »

Yep, though I wasn't here for that.  I did work a radio in the volunteer coordination center.  Classmates kept telling me "You didn't do anything!" to which I responded, "I sandbagged, as did you.  However, as a licensed amateur, I also responded to a need for trained operators and helped take incoming requests and information and pass them to the coordinators.  I've worked a five hour shift, I'm tired and hoarse and worried about each person whose information I heard come in over the air or status reports called in."

   As for towers 80 feet is pretty danged nice.  For me, at this point in my life, that's plenty of tower I'd think.  But then again, we all have different needs.  Your mileage may vary.
Logged
AB9EH
Member

Posts: 29




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2002, 09:08:57 AM »

PRB-1 requires "reasonable accommodation" to an amateur's needs.  I think 80 feet as a gimme, plus a mechanism to ask for more, is pretty nice and complies with the law.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20603




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2002, 12:28:40 PM »

Seems reasonable, and I don't know much about Fargo other than evidently it's under several feet of snow all winter (per the movie!), but I wonder why they would limit hams to "one" tower, when some may have sufficient property to support many more than one.

Seems arbitrary to me.  Most big-gun DXers or contesters have several towers, often on residential lots, and have no problems.

WB2WIK/6
Logged
KD5OWO
Member

Posts: 440


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2002, 05:47:38 PM »

Thats just what we all need more 'non hams' telling us how many towers we can and can not have.  Here in texas the law below is one of the only effects on towers, besides other laws past in certain areas.

The New Law in texas: HB 1492: would require that all towers between 50 and 200 feet be marked by painting and lighting. It would put essentially the same regulations on towers between 50 and 200 feet as are already on towers above 200 feet. There would be no exemption for amateur radio towers.

-http://www.hotarc.org/news.html

73
Steve,KD5OWO






Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!