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: Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: H.R. 4969 would extend PRB-1 to CC&Rs  (Read 25841 times)
K7JQ
Member

Posts: 300




Ignore
« Reply #195 on: July 17, 2014, 11:01:10 AM »

 

So all of you claiming "private contract" are as wrong as could be.  

Until then any argument that they are just private contracts and the government can not be involved is false.

I don't know? Are you an attorney or something? Your analysis seems like you know what you're talking about, but please explain this to us "laymen"...quoted from PRB-1:

"The Commission noted that its decision in PRB-1 to exclude CC&Rs from its preemption policy was premised upon the fundamental difference between state and local regulations, with which an Amateur Radio operator must comply, and CC&Rs, which are contractual terms to which the purchaser of a property voluntarily subjects him- or herself."

Now, I don't know about you, but to me (a layman) the above quote seems to be a cut-and-dried explanation by the FCC (a government agency) why they excluded CC&Rs from PRB-1. Are you saying that the FCC, which I assume has some high-powered attorneys reviewing the legislation before it's passed, is completely wrong in their premise?

Maybe I'm missing something?

 
Logged
W6FEI
Member

Posts: 9




Ignore
« Reply #196 on: July 17, 2014, 12:38:01 PM »

I don't see any difference between our rights to put up a reasonable antenna (subject to interpretation) and the forced right for these HOA's to allow the satellite TV antennas. Yes more HOA residents would like those, but the basic premise that these private agreements can't be changed by the government is obviously not accurate.  Congress passed a bill that allowed that to occur over the HOA associations objections.  This occurred due to the large financial interest of the satellite companies, and lots of lobbying and campaign contributions you can bet.  We don't have that kind of clout, so our case would be much harder to prove. Unless the Ham Equipment Manufactures who have a large financial interest in keeping Hams on the air, and potentially will be losing a lot of customers as time goes by  put their resources into the bill's passage. The thousands of us that are in these developments and they are getting to be a larger part of all new housing construction, still is a very small number versus the general public. Hence the need for bigger players on our side.

W6FEI
Logged
N5PZJ
Member

Posts: 10




Ignore
« Reply #197 on: July 17, 2014, 01:10:42 PM »

I've been away from this thread for a few days, but I've had a little time to read all of the responses.  Some of them are very well presented, regardless whether they support, oppose or are neutral on H.R.4969.  Others are . . . well they are presented differently.

Chas.


Sounds like an HOA Association Shill?     WELL IN TEXAS, sorry bub, but there 49 Other states, 7 Territories and the District of Columbia, each jurisdiction is different and the problems with HOAs need to researched, in summation, look at the FCC Filings on the HOA problems a few years back, looks like a whitewash!!!!   Read the filings and articles, sorry this bill will probably not pass this year, but then who knows what the political climate will be down the road?  Meanwhile in Texas?

A shill for an HOA Association?  That's funny, I have nothing to do with HOA's other than happily living in a neighborhood with a great HOA.  I won't represent them because they they can't afford standard billing rates charged by experienced Houston area trial attorneys.

You obviously agree with me on the issue of different rules in different states.  That's a strong argument against a one-size-fits-all federal law that would apply to every neighborhood in the country.  I spoke primarily about Texas because I live here and can comment accurately about what goes on here.  I can't do the same for other states, nor can you.  You claim every state, 7 territories and D.C. have different problems.   You have no way of knowing if any problems exist in all 50 states, 7 territories and D.C.  You're just making broad brush unfounded statements.  In my view, the only problem I see is a small number of folks like you who want to shove your hobby down the throats of residents who enjoy their HOA communities.  HOA's exist because the people who live in HOA neighborhoods want them to exist. 

I've tried to be respectful both of other people and differing opinions.  In 34 years as a legislative and political activist, it's been my experience that garnering support for one's position on an issue requires a statesmanlike approach.  It's also simply the right thing to do.  You and a few others on the other hand have resorted to insults, false allegations and snide comments toward anyone with whom you disagree.  Don't misunderstand my comment; I couldn't care less what you think of me and I cannot be insulted by the likes of you.  My point is that you could not pick a worse approach for supporting H.R.4969.  I've never seen anyone drawn to a cause by insults, false allegations and snide comments.  It's fine with me if you keep it up, because I don't want H.R.4969 to pass anyway. 

Chas.,


Your thread is almost a classic disinformation piece, sorry Chas., but you seem to be HR4969 biased against.   Sorry you are offended, no offense meant, but HR 6949 is a step but not to be adopted this year, too late in the season for meaningful traction!    Whether or not affording legal services is another matter, if an HOA can not afford top notch legal adviser, too bad.   A lawyer's time is his stock in Trade.-Abraham Lincoln.

I just pointed out the different Jurisdictions in USA Jurisprudence in regards to Real Estate and its applications.  I have seen problems in Louisiana, where I live and Texas, I own property there too along with Tennessee, Kentucky, Wyoming and Alabama so I am fairly versed in different property regimes.    To say any one is versed in all jurisdictions is a fool's errand yet the CC&Rs are common in each state and HOA problems bound by the reports seen and spoken about in the FCC report and from various Real Estate and  Trade reports, does that constitute experts. no Charles, that just indicates the problems which have been reported and highlighted.  To call that which has been reported in the FCC report as " broad brush unfounded statements" is like calling all the reports made as lies.

I am not drawn to a cause, you stated, "I don't want H.R.4969 to pass anyway."  So why be a hound before the oxen? So, to what purpose? So, the HOA folks and their vanities, the hams and their vanities, and Justice, who will prevail?

      
    

    
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12672




Ignore
« Reply #198 on: July 17, 2014, 01:30:23 PM »

What the FCC stated with PRB-1 is that they don't feel that THEY (the FCC) have the authority to require CC&Rs and HOAs to provide reasonable accommodation. They also stated that they would be perfectly willing to do that IF the Congress gives them the authority by directing them to do it. No where did the FCC state that they were opposed to applying PRB-1 to CC&Rs and HOAs.

Hey, maybe we can get the IRS to do it  Wink
Logged
N1DVJ
Member

Posts: 383




Ignore
« Reply #199 on: July 17, 2014, 01:48:13 PM »

I don't see any difference between our rights to put up a reasonable antenna (subject to interpretation) and the forced right for these HOA's to allow the satellite TV antennas.
THAT right there is the problem, and why this and any other similar bill will fail.

Pogo was right, we are our own worst enemy...
Logged
W4FLN
Member

Posts: 15




Ignore
« Reply #200 on: July 17, 2014, 02:03:16 PM »

"And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any other."

Jefferson Smith
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12672




Ignore
« Reply #201 on: July 17, 2014, 02:41:22 PM »

Yes but you would think that at least hams would support a bill that would permit hams to put up reasonable antennas - but no, we seem to have a bunch of hams opposed to it.  Huh Huh Huh

Perhaps it is like "If I had to pass a code test to get my license then you should have to as well". "If I had to make a lot of trade-offs in order to get a property where I can put up an antenna then you should have to as well". Shocked

Logged
KE4DRN
Member

Posts: 3714




Ignore
« Reply #202 on: July 17, 2014, 04:13:35 PM »

We all know that Congress forced the FCC to allow OTARD because of the big money involved
in broadcast and satellite systems.

When you need to communicate in a disaster or other emergency, that ability is PRICELESS.

Be sure to put that in the letters we all are sending to our Representatives for HR 4969 and
please email a signed copy to arrl for delivery.

73 james
Logged
KD5GR
Member

Posts: 90




Ignore
« Reply #203 on: July 17, 2014, 09:17:03 PM »

So, the HOA folks and their vanities, the hams and their vanities, and Justice, who will prevail?

Who prevails?  Well, that would be we who choose to live in HOA-protected neighborhoods, we who signed contacts protecting our property and lifestyle, we who keep our word and do not breach our agreements, we who enforce those agreements against people who think they are special and shouldn't have to show the same responsibility and courtesy to their neighbors.  H.R.4969 and similar bills will never pass.  You can't even get a majority of hams posting in this thread to support your bill.  Good luck with Congress and 319 million non-ham Americans.

I'll give you the last word in our exchange. 

Chas.

Logged
KD5GR
Member

Posts: 90




Ignore
« Reply #204 on: July 17, 2014, 09:31:08 PM »

 

So all of you claiming "private contract" are as wrong as could be.  

Until then any argument that they are just private contracts and the government can not be involved is false.

I don't know? Are you an attorney or something? Your analysis seems like you know what you're talking about, but please explain this to us "laymen"...quoted from PRB-1:
I'm anxiously awaiting an answer to your question also.

"The Commission noted that its decision in PRB-1 to exclude CC&Rs from its preemption policy was premised upon the fundamental difference between state and local regulations, with which an Amateur Radio operator must comply, and CC&Rs, which are contractual terms to which the purchaser of a property voluntarily subjects him- or herself."
Your point is well-taken.  The Commission's attorneys also understand that we are dealing with contracts.

Now, I don't know about you, but to me (a layman) the above quote seems to be a cut-and-dried explanation by the FCC (a government agency) why they excluded CC&Rs from PRB-1. Are you saying that the FCC, which I assume has some high-powered attorneys reviewing the legislation before it's passed, is completely wrong in their premise?

Maybe I'm missing something?

No, you're not missing anything.

Chas.
Logged
K7JQ
Member

Posts: 300




Ignore
« Reply #205 on: July 18, 2014, 09:08:04 AM »

 

So all of you claiming "private contract" are as wrong as could be.  

Until then any argument that they are just private contracts and the government can not be involved is false.

I don't know? Are you an attorney or something? Your analysis seems like you know what you're talking about, but please explain this to us "laymen"...quoted from PRB-1:
I'm anxiously awaiting an answer to your question also.

"The Commission noted that its decision in PRB-1 to exclude CC&Rs from its preemption policy was premised upon the fundamental difference between state and local regulations, with which an Amateur Radio operator must comply, and CC&Rs, which are contractual terms to which the purchaser of a property voluntarily subjects him- or herself."
Your point is well-taken.  The Commission's attorneys also understand that we are dealing with contracts.

Now, I don't know about you, but to me (a layman) the above quote seems to be a cut-and-dried explanation by the FCC (a government agency) why they excluded CC&Rs from PRB-1. Are you saying that the FCC, which I assume has some high-powered attorneys reviewing the legislation before it's passed, is completely wrong in their premise?

Maybe I'm missing something?

No, you're not missing anything.

Chas.

Thanks for agreeing with me, Chas. Frankly, If more people had actually READ PRB-1 before posting comments, this thread wouldn't have reached 14 pages of assorted nonsense, and unwarranted, insulting personal attacks. Opinions are just that, and should be respected.

The FCC, in my opinion, made it perfectly clear why they excluded CC&Rs from PRB-1. I also realize that the "contractual veil" was seemingly pierced when the OTARD provision was enacted,
but apparently Congress perceived that making TV reception available to the total population was more important for national safety, security, and informational purposes than the interests of the amateur radio service (not to mention the influence of big money satellite TV and broadcast companies, but that's another discussion). Also, HOAs do have the authority to limit the size, placement, color, and visibility of OTARDs, as long as they have the minimum practicability to receive TV signals. You won't see them approving huge C-band satellite dishes, or TV broadcast antennas on towers so a resident can receive signals from out of the normal reception area.

Personally, as a ham for 55 years living in an HOA/CC&R community (voluntarily, and aware of the CC&Rs), and operating with stealth antennas, I'd love to see HR4969 passed, and be able to use logical, "reasonably accommodated" outdoor antennas (verticals, dipoles). I supported other similar bills in the past, but have little to no faith that this bill will make it...too many obstacles. There's the "contractual" thing (despite the OTARD rule), vague "reasonable accommodation" term that would create interpretation problems, the obvious fact the the ham population is a pimple on an elephants' butt compared to the masses, and the lack of financial lobbying clout.

Until such time that the bill is passed, I'll continue to operate stealth, and enjoy the living conditions that I chose.
Logged
N5PZJ
Member

Posts: 10




Ignore
« Reply #206 on: July 18, 2014, 10:48:59 AM »

So, the HOA folks and their vanities, the hams and their vanities, and Justice, who will prevail?

Who prevails?  Well, that would be we who choose to live in HOA-protected neighborhoods, we who signed contacts protecting our property and lifestyle, we who keep our word and do not breach our agreements, we who enforce those agreements against people who think they are special and shouldn't have to show the same responsibility and courtesy to their neighbors.  H.R.4969 and similar bills will never pass.  You can't even get a majority of hams posting in this thread to support your bill.  Good luck with Congress and 319 million non-ham Americans.

I'll give you the last word in our exchange. 

Chas.


Just an opinion, who said anything about word and agreements, Counselor, we all know CC&Rs are imposed on the property to run with the land, public policy has changed in the past, remember, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it wiped out some restrictions!  Was that breaking your word?   May you enjoy your HOA, may your lifestyle be enjoyable, I live among good neighbors, we enjoy our liberties and respect, do not need an HOA when living amongst honorable people, Good DX and be happy.
Logged
W6EM
Member

Posts: 710




Ignore
« Reply #207 on: July 19, 2014, 02:00:39 PM »

Only one other person on the thread seems interested that Greg Walden, W7EQI, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, has not signed onto this Bill as a cosponsor.  And, he didn't on two other similar Bills over the last several years.

ARRL surely must know why he hasn't.  And, it never seems to mention his place and position in all of this.

If one of our "fraternity" sits in a position to help or kill this Bill, why isn't something being said about his position on the subject of CC&R overrides?

Frankly, without his support, the Bill is doomed as have been all of the prior ones.  To make it to the floor, even for a vote, his committee has to allow that to happen.  So, without his committee's support for it, it is dead before it even gets started. (And, why I'm thoroughly convinced it's nothing more than an ARRL publicity stunt)
Logged
K6CPO
Member

Posts: 127




Ignore
« Reply #208 on: July 19, 2014, 05:29:13 PM »

It's a sad commentary that our system has degenerated to the point that one individual can decided whether a bill goes to a floor vote or not.  No one person should have that much power.
Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 570




Ignore
« Reply #209 on: July 19, 2014, 08:03:58 PM »

Hate to tell ya but those House rules have been around for a long long time. And all committees are like that, and even if it got out of committee, the Speaker can just not bring it to the House floor.

Not to mention the many other ways it can be tabled or killed. So it has a long road just to get through the house. Then comes basically the same thing in the Senate.

And then you need to convince the President so he will sign it.

So it isn't just 1 person. It just happens to be 1 person in 1 committee. But he can be overruled by a majority vote by the committee. But in this case, it is highly unlikely.

But on the other hand, that is the government we elect every 2 years in the House. So no one to blame, but rather all voters are to blame. That is how it works.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14]   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!