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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Parity has returned, 2019-2020  (Read 4654 times)
ND6M
Member

Posts: 804




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: February 20, 2019, 05:52:20 PM »

...edit...

One always can argue that "effective" means that it allows to achieve 1500W of effective radiated power permitted by FCC license.



and you would be incorrect, there is no such regulation.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 500




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: February 20, 2019, 05:53:53 PM »


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.



If parties (homeowner and HOA) cannot agree on interpretation of terms, then court will decide that for them. If there are no terms written, then there is nothing to argue about.

I’m sure you are familiar with the saying “Be careful what you wish for”
Logged
KF0QS
Member

Posts: 72




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: February 20, 2019, 10:23:05 PM »





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:

Quote
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.”
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 500




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: February 21, 2019, 04:36:00 AM »


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.


All I can say in response is I was the guy sitting on the Bench to whom you were pleading your case and in my opinion, your argument(s) lack clear or convincing merit.

You previously admitted the antenna (s) you currently enjoy are effective but are unsatisfactory indicating you possess the right to unilaterally  determine efficacy. Further, you imply statutory authority exists in the failed ARPA language requiring HOAs to determine efficacy. Pick one!
« Last Edit: February 21, 2019, 04:41:22 AM by K1VSK » Logged
KF0QS
Member

Posts: 72




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2019, 10:16:23 AM »


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.


All I can say in response is I was the guy sitting on the Bench to whom you were pleading your case and in my opinion, your argument(s) lack clear or convincing merit.

You previously admitted the antenna (s) you currently enjoy are effective but are unsatisfactory indicating you possess the right to unilaterally  determine efficacy. Further, you imply statutory authority exists in the failed ARPA language requiring HOAs to determine efficacy. Pick one!

Your use of "clear and convincing merit" is an unusual use of that term.  Were you really a judge???

You also fail to accurately characterize my statements repeatedly.  It's an old trick to take an opponent's statements and twist them to try and make it sound like they say something completely different, i.e., something that's easier to refute.  An obvious example is your statement that I think I have the unilateral right to determine efficacy.  That's nonsensical in light of my prior comments.

Finally, I looked you up on QRZ.com.  It must be nice to make arguments against the passage of legislation to allow amateurs to have effective outdoor antennas when you had "the 80 ft tower with monobanders".  Must be nice.

I am trying not to be snarky (probably unsuccessfully).  But I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access.  You've never really stated the reason you are so against this proposal.  Forget the back and forth and just tell us the source of your objection to the statute.  If it's the principle of abrogating covenants that run with the land (i.e., HOA restrictions), say that.  If it's a failure in drafting (i.e., the proposal is too vague), then please accept my invitation to come up with a reasonable alternative.  I just want to understand where you are coming from.
Logged
ND6M
Member

Posts: 804




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2019, 11:04:40 AM »

... edit...I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access....

"...the rest of us who don't have such access...."  Now that statement confuses me, don't you have multiple YAGI antennas on your residence?
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 500




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2019, 12:54:04 PM »






.

I am trying not to be snarky (probably unsuccessfully).  But I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access.  You've never really stated the reason you are so against this proposal.  Forget the back and forth and just tell us the source of your objection to the statute.  If it's the principle of abrogating covenants that run with the land (i.e., HOA restrictions), say that.  If it's a failure in drafting (i.e., the proposal is too vague), then please accept my invitation to come up with a reasonable alternative.  I just want to understand where you are coming from.

I can’t help noting your apparent act of commission by not explaining the inconsistency between your statements I described earlier. To reiterate, given your admission your antennas are effective in your HOA, what prompts you to think you rather than your HOA should decide or alter the community standard?

As to your question about my motive, it’s quite simple. People who don’t live in my community should have no influence on my community. We neither want nor need such ‘help’ ( read - interference). If someone chooses to live here, as we now do, don’t expect us to change our community to fit your hobby desires. There are always other venues despite the unsupportable claim to which we are sometimes treated that everyplace “suitable” is an HOA, typically ironically voiced the loudest by those who dislike HOA rules.

Logged
KF0QS
Member

Posts: 72




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2019, 01:24:26 PM »






.

I am trying not to be snarky (probably unsuccessfully).  But I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access.  You've never really stated the reason you are so against this proposal.  Forget the back and forth and just tell us the source of your objection to the statute.  If it's the principle of abrogating covenants that run with the land (i.e., HOA restrictions), say that.  If it's a failure in drafting (i.e., the proposal is too vague), then please accept my invitation to come up with a reasonable alternative.  I just want to understand where you are coming from.

I can’t help noting your apparent act of commission by not explaining the inconsistency between your statements I described earlier. To reiterate, given your admission your antennas are effective in your HOA, what prompts you to think you rather than your HOA should decide or alter the community standard?

As to your question about my motive, it’s quite simple. People who don’t live in my community should have no influence on my community. We neither want nor need such ‘help’ ( read - interference). If someone chooses to live here, as we now do, don’t expect us to change our community to fit your hobby desires. There are always other venues despite the unsupportable claim to which we are sometimes treated that everyplace “suitable” is an HOA, typically ironically voiced the loudest by those who dislike HOA rules.



Thanks for answering my question about your motive.  It's, at least, an understandable motive, though I can't agree with it.  And, it explains why you don't want to accept my invitation to draft alternative language.

I feel empathy for my fellow hams who live in similar areas where it's difficult to find a place where you can erect antennas.  My wife and I looked for over a year, and finally found my current home where the covenants do allow antennas, as long as they are not more than 6 feet above roof line.  That places my yagi only 24 feet off the ground which is a sub-optimal height.  My guess is that my HOA's current rules would not be affected by passage of the statute as currently drafted.

I worry that my HOA could decide to change the rules to eliminate my ability to have any outside antennas (they have changed the rules on another issue since I have lived here).  Since I'm the only ham in the neighborhood, and to the best of my knowledge I get along with my immediate neighbors, I'm guessing that changing the rules on antennas isn't a big issue.  But what happens if more hams move in?  Although that puts more people on my side, it may also antagonize more people to start pushing for a change.

To respond to your first point, I indicated that I make plenty of contacts with my current antennas.  Their effectiveness is compromised by my need to follow the HOA rules.  This doesn't denigrate my central point that, as a matter of public policy, it's a bad idea to completely eliminate outdoor antennas for the homes of amateur radio operators.  My other point is that, for the benefit of my fellow hams, I'd like to see all of them have a reasonable opportunity to erect an outdoor antenna.  Although your old QTH in New England may have allowed an 80 foot tower, places that would allow even a 40 foot tower are more and more difficult to find.

Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: February 21, 2019, 01:40:29 PM »






.

I am trying not to be snarky (probably unsuccessfully).  But I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access.  You've never really stated the reason you are so against this proposal.  Forget the back and forth and just tell us the source of your objection to the statute.  If it's the principle of abrogating covenants that run with the land (i.e., HOA restrictions), say that.  If it's a failure in drafting (i.e., the proposal is too vague), then please accept my invitation to come up with a reasonable alternative.  I just want to understand where you are coming from.

I can’t help noting your apparent act of commission by not explaining the inconsistency between your statements I described earlier. To reiterate, given your admission your antennas are effective in your HOA, what prompts you to think you rather than your HOA should decide or alter the community standard?

As to your question about my motive, it’s quite simple. People who don’t live in my community should have no influence on my community. We neither want nor need such ‘help’ ( read - interference). If someone chooses to live here, as we now do, don’t expect us to change our community to fit your hobby desires. There are always other venues despite the unsupportable claim to which we are sometimes treated that everyplace “suitable” is an HOA, typically ironically voiced the loudest by those who dislike HOA rules.



Thanks for answering my question about your motive.  It's, at least, an understandable motive, though I can't agree with it.  And, it explains why you don't want to accept my invitation to draft alternative language.

I feel empathy for my fellow hams who live in similar areas where it's difficult to find a place where you can erect antennas.  My wife and I looked for over a year, and finally found my current home where the covenants do allow antennas, as long as they are not more than 6 feet above roof line.  That places my yagi only 24 feet off the ground which is a sub-optimal height.  My guess is that my HOA's current rules would not be affected by passage of the statute as currently drafted.

I worry that my HOA could decide to change the rules to eliminate my ability to have any outside antennas (they have changed the rules on another issue since I have lived here).  Since I'm the only ham in the neighborhood, and to the best of my knowledge I get along with my immediate neighbors, I'm guessing that changing the rules on antennas isn't a big issue.  But what happens if more hams move in?  Although that puts more people on my side, it may also antagonize more people to start pushing for a change.

To respond to your first point, I indicated that I make plenty of contacts with my current antennas.  Their effectiveness is compromised by my need to follow the HOA rules.  This doesn't denigrate my central point that, as a matter of public policy, it's a bad idea to completely eliminate outdoor antennas for the homes of amateur radio operators.  My other point is that, for the benefit of my fellow hams, I'd like to see all of them have a reasonable opportunity to erect an outdoor antenna.  Although your old QTH in New England may have allowed an 80 foot tower, places that would allow even a 40 foot tower are more and more difficult to find.

https://www




I don't care what VSK says or claims. I've seen the areas he has told me where  can install and outdoor antenna and sorry but they don't meet my standards for a home or a neighborhood which I'd like to spend the rest of my life.That's one of the reasons I have talked with my wife, who thankfully is very understanding and we will look for a place to spend our retirement years up here in the north east. I'd still like to see my fellow hams have the chance to use their licenses as THEY see fit. My wire antennas are 60 and 75 foot above ground and really perform well. I now ahve 298 entities confirmed and an 8 band, & 3 mode DXCC, all with 100 watts (and 35 watts digitally). Personally I am not interested nor do I want a swimming pool but that little amenity seems to come with many homes in Florida. I don't want to and wouldn't move into VSK's neighborhood and that is fine with me. I just want to have the choice so that if his neighborhood says no, another neighborhood (with newly built homes) in the same area would say yes. Maybe now that Nelson is out of office we'll have a chance. As an aside it is beyond me how someone could hold a ham license and yet show such disdain for such a crucial element of the hobby. It makes me wonder why he doesn't allow his license to lapse, although  I am certain he'll write about his maritime hame activities. That sounds very selfish to me, I got what I want and everyone else can go to h*ll.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 500




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2019, 01:55:41 PM »



I don't care what VSK says or claims. I've seen the areas he has told me where  can install and outdoor antenna and sorry but they don't meet my standards for a home or a neighborhood which I'd like to spend the rest of my life.That's one of the reasons I have talked with my wife, who thankfully is very understanding and we will look for a place to spend our retirement years up here in the north east. I'd still like to see my fellow hams have the chance to use their licenses as THEY see fit. My wire antennas are 60 and 75 foot above ground and really perform well. I now ahve 298 entities confirmed and an 8 band, & 3 mode DXCC, all with 100 watts (and 35 watts digitally). Personally I am not interested nor do I want a swimming pool but that little amenity seems to come with many homes in Florida. I don't want to and wouldn't move into VSK's neighborhood and that is fine with me. I just want to have the choice so that if his neighborhood says no, another neighborhood (with newly built homes) in the same area would say yes. Maybe now that Nelson is out of office we'll have a chance. As an aside it is beyond me how someone could hold a ham license and yet show such disdain for such a crucial element of the hobby. It makes me wonder why he doesn't allow his license to lapse, although  I am certain he'll write about his maritime hame activities. That sounds very selfish to me, I got what I want and everyone else can go to h*ll.
For the record, you previously admitted your home search in your preferred area consisted of a total of one day. Subsequently, you provided me with specifics in terms of price, age, number of BRs, BAs, lot size, square footage, etc.. claiming no unencumbered properties exist whereupon I gave you a list of 11 communities comprising  hundreds of home fitting your detailed desires.
Clearly, you don’t care what I have to say or perhaps more correctly, you prefer to displace responsibility on me.
Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2019, 03:32:28 PM »



I don't care what VSK says or claims. I've seen the areas he has told me where  can install and outdoor antenna and sorry but they don't meet my standards for a home or a neighborhood which I'd like to spend the rest of my life.That's one of the reasons I have talked with my wife, who thankfully is very understanding and we will look for a place to spend our retirement years up here in the north east. I'd still like to see my fellow hams have the chance to use their licenses as THEY see fit. My wire antennas are 60 and 75 foot above ground and really perform well. I now ahve 298 entities confirmed and an 8 band, & 3 mode DXCC, all with 100 watts (and 35 watts digitally). Personally I am not interested nor do I want a swimming pool but that little amenity seems to come with many homes in Florida. I don't want to and wouldn't move into VSK's neighborhood and that is fine with me. I just want to have the choice so that if his neighborhood says no, another neighborhood (with newly built homes) in the same area would say yes. Maybe now that Nelson is out of office we'll have a chance. As an aside it is beyond me how someone could hold a ham license and yet show such disdain for such a crucial element of the hobby. It makes me wonder why he doesn't allow his license to lapse, although  I am certain he'll write about his maritime hame activities. That sounds very selfish to me, I got what I want and everyone else can go to h*ll.
For the record, you previously admitted your home search in your preferred area consisted of a total of one day. Subsequently, you provided me with specifics in terms of price, age, number of BRs, BAs, lot size, square footage, etc.. claiming no unencumbered properties exist whereupon I gave you a list of 11 communities comprising  hundreds of home fitting your detailed desires.
Clearly, you don’t care what I have to say or perhaps more correctly, you prefer to displace responsibility on me.

For the record, I told you that the real estate offices I visited told me that none of the newer communities in Sarasota would allow me to install an external antenna. Secondly, I have friends who moved to Florida who are hams and none of them found acceptable homes that allowed an individual to install an outdoor antenna of any consequence. It all doesn't matter because for me as it turns out Florida is not a place I want to spend my retirement years. My parents neighborhood is great but travel 5 miles in any direction and it's swamps and humidity and compared with the NY metro area the supermarkets are limited to say the least (There is nothing like Fareway or Wegmans there not to mention Shop Rite). I live in a suburb of NYC where you can get and do everything. Not everyone likes this part of the country but, I love it and don't want to make the mistake of moving elsewhere. That works for me. Good thing we live in a country which is so varied that a person can make those choices. When I hear about friends moving to HOA neighborhoods in Florida with swimming pools and club houses, I say, suppose it's great for you but, it's not for me.
Logged
W8LV
Member

Posts: 311


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #56 on: April 08, 2019, 03:36:40 AM »

Oh Boy...Here we go again:
"As to your question about my motive, it’s quite simple. People who don’t live in my community should have no influence on my community. We neither want nor need such ‘help’ ( read - interference). If someone chooses to live here, as we now do, don’t expect us to change our community to fit your hobby desires. There are always other venues despite the unsupportable claim to which we are sometimes treated that everyplace “suitable” is an HOA, typically ironically voiced the loudest by those who dislike HOA rules."

K1VSK: That's All Fine And Dandy, but what if YOUR HOA didn't allow you to pursue YOUR Hobby Desires?
   
It's unhelpful to tell people to avoid HOAs and the like.

73 DE W8LV BILL


   

Logged
ND6M
Member

Posts: 804




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: April 08, 2019, 07:36:57 AM »

Oh Boy...Here we go again:... That's All Fine And Dandy, but what if YOUR HOA didn't allow you to pursue YOUR Hobby Desires?[/b]
   
 DE W8LV BILL


   


Then I would have made an adult decision concerning which was more important.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 500




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: April 08, 2019, 12:27:45 PM »

Oh Boy...Here we go again:... That's All Fine And Dandy, but what if YOUR HOA didn't allow you to pursue YOUR Hobby Desires?[/b]
   
 DE W8LV BILL


   


Then I would have made an adult decision concerning which was more important.
As would everyone else. It was just another typical troll post.
Logged
WA7PRC
Member

Posts: 2315


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #59 on: April 08, 2019, 04:58:00 PM »

Quote
what if YOUR HOA didn't allow you to pursue YOUR Hobby Desires?
The important words are "hobby" and "desires"; (there is no REQUIREMENT). The reasonable answer then, is "something else" or "give up". Changing the rules after buying a property affects tens of millions, so a few hams can get what they WANT. Right now, all hams have alternatives to erecting an outdoor antenna.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next   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!