While he said he was "legally entitled" to 50 watts but could go down to 10 watts, I think what he meant was that he had a VHF transceiver with a 50-watt maximum output.
Yeah, that makes sense. Still don't see how it is
relevant in a hearing over a building code dispute.
Unless the council is hung up on the "RFI complaints"
that brought the tower to their attention in the first place.
I think that the kid's "family attorney" should be going after
the tower contractor who "assured them the necessary permits
had been aquired" before the tower went up. At least the family
could get their attorney fees covered.
The article says that the city council took action after they received
two RFI complaints, whereupon they discovered the "lack of proper permits"
for the tower. I wonder if the RFI complaints had been first
directed to the kid and his parents? If so, how were they handled?
He seems pretty responsible, meaning he would've handled them quickly.
But some people can be pretty mean spirited and might have gone to the
This whole thing is said......like one TouTube guy called it:
"Jackassery of the highest order".