My point is that "effective" is not at all ambiguous once you consider how legislatures work, and how courts and the FCC would enforce the law.
Sigh...
We're discussing HOA implementation of imprecise language, not case law which, contrary to your opinion, is as precise as the proverbial 'barn door' when it comes to meaning. And in the case of the governing body, an HOA, such terminology is going to be interpreted by them, not you or me. Therefore, using such language adds nothing to the status quo which was what I was trying to impart here.
HOAs would determine what is reasonable, effective or acceptable (under all prior ARPA iterations). Congrats - we win nothing.
Actually, that's not true. If you read the language of the proposed statute (and I'm aware that the ARRL has asked the sponsors to hold back on it for now), HOA's are prohibited from taking action that precludes effective ham radio operation. The statute is clear that HOA's don't unilaterally get to determine "what is reasonable, effective or acceptable".
If the HOA and the amateur radio operator can't agree, then it'll end up in court. Eventually, the issue would get worked out to the point that people on both sides would know what to expect without court action.
By the way, if you're wondering on what I base my opinions regarding drafting legislation and enforcement of that legislation after passage, I practiced law for 38 years, and actually wrote several statutes and administrative regulations. I've worked with bill sponsors, the executives who run administrative agencies, and have testified before both the Colorado legislature and Colorado administrative agencies. I've also lobbied the U.S. Congress with regard to a number of legislative proposals, some of which passed.
I'm not saying the proposal is perfect, but as I stated earlier, if someone can come up with better language, I think we would all welcome that. At least passage of the Act would give us more of a leg up than we do now. And, indeed, the ARRL, despite their action in asking for a hiatus on pushing for passage of the Act, is still planning on trying to do something. Here's an excerpt from their announcement:
The Board wants to make clear to its members, and to those whose policies and conduct prevent or impair the right of US Amateur Radio operators to operate from their homes, that this pause is not, and should not be interpreted as an abandonment of its efforts to obtain relief from private land-use restrictions. The Board noted that its intent is “to renew, continue and strengthen the ARRL’s effort to achieve relief from such restrictions.”