I ran across this on Facebook yesterday, but wanted to verify authenticity before passing it around.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, mark janzer via BVARC <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 5:52 PM, Marty Woll <[email protected] > ><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > Now that I am a former ARRL Vice Director, I am free to speak my mind on > this matter. As a long-time proponent of antenna rights, it is with great > disappointment that I say I do not favor passage of HR-555. I should add up > front, by way of disclaimer, that I am not an attorney. > > I was a big supporter of the original Amateur Radio Parity Act - the PRB-1 > version. The ability to put up outdoor antennas and the structures > necessary to support them on your property is crucial to being an active > Ham > for many licensees. Since 2010 I have visited the offices of numerous > elected officials, sent over a thousand e-mail messages, spent entire > convention weekends generating letters from Hams to their elected > representatives and spoken at countless club meetings to drum up support > for > this legislation. It's fair to say that I invested a major chunk of my time > in support of the original Parity Act, and I certainly respect ARRL > leadership for its persistence in seeking relief for all impacted Amateurs, > whether League members or not. However, in February of 2016 the language > that mirrored PRB-1 was removed from HR-1301 (now HR-555), and this is a > critique of the result, not of the intent or effort. > > Last year, ARRL found itself at odds with one senator over the bill and was > required to negotiate compromise language with CAI, a national trade > association of homeowner associations (HOAs) and similar groups. While I > had some major misgivings at the time, I did not object to the compromise > language because I believed it would help at least those Amateurs who live > in homes with developer-imposed deed restrictions not within the purview of > an active HOA. > > Since that time, however, some high-profile, competent and very > knowledgeable attorneys (all of them Hams but none associated with the ARRL > Board) have evaluated the compromise language and found that it may do more > harm than good. They have pointed out some serious shortcomings in HR-555 > that significantly restrict how many Hams may benefit from its passage and > that, if uncorrected, could actually diminish the rights of some Amateurs > and grant the right to regulate Amateur antennas to HOAs that do not now > have that right. > > What follows is an abbreviated description of the issues surrounding > HR-555, > the current version of the Parity Act. For those who want to dig deeper > into the matter, I have a version I can e-mail you separately that include > attachments containing (1) the original bill language, (2) the compromise > language in the current bill, and (3) an analysis prepared by former FCC > attorney and active Amateur Radio operator Jim Talens N3JT for the Potomac > Valley Radio Club. Many of the points in Jim's critique were also made by > Fred Hopengarten K1VR (author of Antenna Zoning for the Radio Amateur) at > his presentation to the Legal Forum at the May 2017 Dayton Hamvention. > Suffice it to say that the expert Ham-attorneys are NOT all lining up in > support of HR-555 in its current form. > > The original bill pretty much paralleled PRB-1, the Federal Preemption > Statute. It required the FCC to revise its regulations to prohibit private > deed restrictions that preclude or fail to reasonably accommodate Amateur > Radio communications or that do not constitute the minimum practicable > restriction on such communications to accomplish the legitimate purpose of > the private entity seeking to enforce such restriction. > > On the other hand, the compromise bill that CAI insisted on does the > following: > > 1) It grants HOAs the right to use aesthetics as a basis for antenna > decisions, even to those associations whose rules do not now have any > provisions concerning antennas. This grant of power to HOAs is > unprecedented in Federal law, and it adds a right - as a matter of Federal > law - for HOA's that has never been previously approved in Federal law. > That right cannot be undone by state law. > > 2) It requires a deed-restricted Amateur to notify and seek prior > permission from the HOA before installing any outdoor antenna, with no > grandfathering for those already installed. > > 3) It does not establish a time frame within which the HOA must render a > decision; an HOA can stall indefinitely and do so without adverse > consequence. > > 4) It does not grant or guarantee to an Amateur the right to operate on the > band(s) of his or her choice. > > 5) It permits but does not require the HOA to establish written rules > regarding antenna size, type and location. > > 6) It does not establish or require an HOA administrative process for > redress if an HOA denies a Ham's requested antenna. The decision of the HOA > is final. > > Under HR-555, if passed, Hams who have existing "stealth" antennas, even > with the concurrence of their immediate neighbors, would now be in > violation > of Federal law and FCC regulations. > > HOAs will be legally able to write their own rules with no objective > criteria and no standards, and they will have the unrestricted power of > Federal law to back them up. > > The band(s) on which the Amateur wishes to operate need not be a > consideration in any HOA decision; they could limit you to a small UHF whip > a few inches long on your gutter and say that have accommodated Amateur > Radio. > > An HOA that previously existed only to conduct limited activities, such as > maintaining roads, utilities and exterior landscaping, one that has never > held any power to regulate Amateur Radio, would be granted the power to > demand the removal of existing antennas and to demand that an Amateur seek > its approval to install any Amateur antennas or supports. Imagine having > moved into a neighborhood because the HOA had no regulatory power over > Amateur Radio antennas, only to have Federal law now grant the HOA that > power! > > The compromise bill expressly disconnects itself from PRB-1. Unfortunately, > that means that none of the Ham-friendly court decisions interpreting PRB-1 > would be binding on an HOA. > > It has been argued that the FCC, in writing the regulations required by > HR-555, could eliminate some of the above risks. However, the FCC has > opposed restricting the rights of HOAs for over thirty years, and I don't > think it is prudent to count on the Commission to reverse itself and > interpret the law in our favor. Neither can we count on CAI, having won the > rights it demanded, to sit by and make no attempt to influence the > post-enactment regulatory process in its favor. Wishful thinking to the > contrary is hardly a sound basis on which to make our decisions. > > Because of the aforementioned shortcomings of HR-555 and the likely adverse > consequences of its passage, I cannot support it any longer. There may be a > better path than the one the League is now pursuing; I don't know if we can > ever get there, but I certainly don't want us to make things worse for a > significant number of Amateurs or expose them to being found in violation > of > Federal law and FCC regulations. Please consider these points when you are > asked to write letters of support for HR-555 to your legislators. > > As an aside, I want to remind you that some licensees have been successful > in selling the advantages of Amateur Radio-based disaster communication > capability to their HOA boards. Offering benefits can be much easier and > less costly than demanding one's rights. > > 73, > > Marty N6VI > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list [email protected] http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to [email protected]
