So, you ask, “What is the problem with H.R.1301?”

I am a retired engineer, not a lawyer. I have been on an HOA board, even
president. I have seen how these things work. My response is simply form
years dealing with people, how words have meanings other than your
interpretation, how people distort rules for their desired outcome.

First consider the following. If you have a legal issue with an HOA and it
goes to court, as it easily can, it will cost you; possible thousands of
dollars even if you prevail but certainly if you don’t. The HOA sees this
as a cost of doing business and proof that they are defending property
values and neighborhood esthetics. How do you see it?

Look at the official amendment at

Page 4 Line 1 “… notify and obtain prior approval …”:
This will require those who already have or intend to erect an outdoor
antenna, stealth or otherwise. Federal Law will require them to go through
the HOA “permitting” process, see below.

Page 5 Line 3: “… establish reasonable written rules …”:
The HOA permitting process will have the following results.

1) Unlike the 120 days requiring the FCC to modify CFR 47, there is no
requirement placed upon an HOA to modify its contract with you during your
lifetime. To modify a Coven of Deed Restriction often requires a large
percentage of property owner votes. This is often difficult for HOAs even
for officer elections.

2) The only possible good outcome will be where an HOA forbids all outdoor
antennas. An HOA will be required to allow something if only on paper. That
process will not be designed by anyone with any interest or understanding
of RF. It will be designed, codified, implemented, and administered by
those who are on the opposite side of any antenna disagreement from the
radio amateur. Their outlook is already on record. There is no provision
that the process be timely. It could be argued that to fully study the
impact of an antenna would take many months, would require professional
engineering studies, would require agreement from surrounding property
owners, would requirement agreement from electrical, telephone, and cable
distribution operators. It will go to private committee. The committee will
make a judgment based on the HOA objectives of preserving property values,
neighborhood esthetics, and above all minimizing complaints from HOA
members. Never will consideration of technical aspects like efficiency,
coupling into surrounding structures, take-off angle, gain, front-to-back
ratio, or DX effectiveness take place.

3) If an HOA already has some allowance for antennas, they obviously
already see that as reasonable. They will not easily relax those
restrictions but possibly tighten them.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Howard Bingham via BVARC <>

> From AustinHams group..
> Howard Bingham
> ==================================
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [austinhams] Amateur Radio Parity Act
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:52:37 -0500
> From: John Anderson [austinhams]
> <> <>
> Reply-To: John Anderson <> <>
> To:
> Someone explain to me why the final language in the hose bill is unacceptable?
> It changed the HOA "reasonable accommodation" to an absolute entitlement?
> I'm sure there are still holes in this law but it seems much better than the 
> status quo?
> <> 
> <>
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> BVARC mailing list

Pete (KD5QPX)
713-376-7277 Cell
281-980-3733 Hard Line
BVARC mailing list

Reply via email to