|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
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
|
|
1-10 of 20 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by NN4RH on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Did anyone bother to point out to this city council that it's not within their powers to regulate radio transmitters, that is the FCC's job?
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by KG4RUL on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's see, Mustang City Council wants to regulate transmitters. Does that include:
Car remote door locks
Baby Monitors
WiFi
Wireless Alarm Systems
Wireless Weather Stations
Wireless Intercoms
Wireless Doorbells
Cell Phones
Wireless Phones
Remote Control Toys
Remote Reading Utility Meters
FRS Radios
MURS Radios
GMRS Radios
CB Radios
.... and the list goes on and on
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by AB4D on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just went through a somewhat similar situation where I live. I applied to erect a 55 foot crank up tower, which would have required a conditional use permit ($500.00), and I would have to pay the same fees and follow the same requirements as a commercial installation (yearly inspections by an engineer and a bunch of other requirements which would be cost prohibitive for the average ham).
Thankfully, I was informed yesterday after my application had been reviewed (I also included some background information about amateur radio and the potential for amateurs to support coms during emergencies), my county attorney concluded that ham radio towers are preempted by federal law (PRB1). It's been implied that they are going to write a new ordinance just to cover ham radio towers and eliminate the conditional use permit process for hams.
Oddly, the planning director for my county said they have never received a tower application from a ham, and just did not know how to proceed in this situation, and she really had no information about amateur radio. We sat down and had a very productive meeting, which I believe really became a factor in obtaining a favorable outcome in this case. I also brought along copies of documents pertaining to amateur radio from the FCC to add some credence to my explanation, I believe that helped too.
Obviously, the hams in Mustang are beyond that stage of consideration. I hope it works out for them. But for other individuals, who may be facing a similar situation, sometimes just setting down with the folks in your local planning/zoning department and actually explaining what is ham radio, and what it is that we do, sometimes can make all the difference.
I basically approached the county and said this is what I want to do, how do I make this happen without having to conform to all of the requirments as a commercial installation, which are cost prohibitive to me.
My advice is to always remain cordial, and don’t act overly aggressive, spouting off that it is your right to have a tower or a station and that federal law over rules anything they want to say or do is not going to help. Also don’t throw in deadlines either, saying I need this done by such and such date, this will not work in your favor either. Sometimes, it is better to let them think that it is their idea or at least they had equal participation in the process. Most folks who work for local counties and towns want to be helpful, let them help you, nobody likes to be bullied.
73 AB4D
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by N5TGL on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The city council has ZERO jurisdiction in this case. Sounds to me like a case of power-itis combined with ignorance.
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by W4CCV on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looking at the article, I don't believe this is an antenna issue. Apparently, a ham can have towers or other antennas. They just can't transmit...
I don't usually register to reply to newspaper articles, but I had to with this one. It is just so over the top.
If he uses his radios, and they fine him, or throw him in jail, I wonder what recourse he would have against the jurisdiction when it came to trial? You would think someone out there would wake up and apologize very fast to these amateur operators before the city gets sued.
Norm - W4CCV
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by AB4D on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Looking at the article, I don't believe this is an antenna issue. Apparently, a ham can have towers or other antennas. They just can't transmit...
I don't usually register to reply to newspaper articles, but I had to with this one. It is just so over the top.
If he uses his radios, and they fine him, or throw him in jail, I wonder what recourse he would have against the jurisdiction when it came to trial? You would think someone out there would wake up and apologize very fast to these amateur operators before the city gets sued.
Norm - W4CCV"
Norm,
I agree it is not an antenna issue, however restrictions against amateurs may just simply be an issue of not knowing the difference between hams and other radio hobbists, like those who operate CB radios with illegal high powered amplifiers, or those who run lowfer stations. I bet if you were to research this issue and find out the original basis of this ordinance, there probably was a valid reason behind it at the time.
If I lived in Mustang, I would start with trying to find out why this hit the books in the first place. Perhaps someone on the town Council back in the 70's had a CBer living next door, who knows.
73
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by WB8WOR on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not sure the case is so simple.
The city isn't saying ham radio operators can't transmit...They're saying they can't put up towers to transmit with.
I suppose a wire dipole would be fine.
I agree the city is overstepping the bounds of logic and probably science, and I hope they end up having to back down.
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by AA4PB on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Honest - I only receive with that Yagi antenna up on top of that 70 foot tower. I always transmit with this here 10-foot high wire dipole. Honest!
|
| |
|
Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by AE5MW on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A simple case of a pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure.
|
| |
|
RE: Mustang Ham Operators Await Tower Ruling:
|
Reply
|
|
by EIRIKR1 on November 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
interesting that no one backed up the city and said the ham could just move to a city that allows it. I notice that when a ham complains about HOA's prohibiting an antenna, at least one poster will advise shutting the hell up and moving out....
|
| |
|
This Topic is Linked
This discussion is regarding an item in the
Articles area
of eHam.net.
View the item being discussed
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forum, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forum Manager.
|
|
|
