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: 10 Year Old Ham's Antenna Problems in Wisconsin  (Read 2671 times)
NA9N
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« on: April 21, 2010, 07:22:14 PM »

http://www.cbs58.com/index.php?aid=12014


Logged
K3ANG
Member

Posts: 177




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2010, 10:37:08 AM »

Must be a slow news day in Racine.
Logged
AD6KA
Member

Posts: 2237




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2010, 10:09:05 PM »

Much more info here: http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/04/20/village-tells-family-to-topple-tower/

excerpt:
"Two residents complained that the tower interferes with television or telephone reception, Logan Martin, community development coordinator for Mount Pleasant, said Monday.
**Village officials then determined the couple never received zoning approval to install it.**

The complaints confused Samm’s parents, who said all of their closest neighbors wrote in support of their tower. Jim Markstrom, a 35-year-old engineer and professor, said
**a contractor assured him the necessary permits had been acquired before putting it up in 2007.**

Moral of the story: Chose your tower contractor WELL and have
an atty review all the paperwork.


I didn't understand this part of the young man's
testimony to the council
(From the originally posted link)
"Legally we are allowed to go to 50 watts,
when in fact we are prepared to go to 10 watts".
The only power restriction like that would be for the 60m band.
Why would that be an issue in a building code dispute??



Logged
N3DF
Member

Posts: 252




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2010, 06:30:48 AM »

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.
Logged

Neil N3DF
AD6KA
Member

Posts: 2237




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2010, 03:13:57 PM »

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
council anyway.

This whole thing is said......like one TouTube guy called it:
"Jackassery of the highest order".
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!