Not quite sure why you think that we have a time limit but the HOA does not. Yes, I read what it says, but I also read what they are required to do. In either of the requirments list, I do not see the words "immediately" or 'in 10 days" or "by the next full moon", etc.
Also, again, not kidding this time..... "installation", as used in paragraph Sec 3 b 1, is a verb not a noun. To me, looks like grandfathering is applicable. Rick Hiller *The Radio Hotel* -- W5RH On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Paul Easter via BVARC <bvarc@bvarc.org> wrote: > Especially with this new chairman, we have an opportunity to tweak this > when it hits the FCC. > > I agree, the way it is written, it could cause trouble with some HOAs. > > Hopefully, people have better things to do than roam around looking for > stealth antennas. > > If they come into my back yard there will be hell to pay. > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 11:37 AM, John Chauvin via BVARC <bvarc@bvarc.org> > wrote: > >> Re Question 1 re HOA also must do something, yes it is true. HOWEVER (as >> Pete cites clearly in his October 2016 article), the HOAs have no time >> limit so they can drag it on forever, probably beyond some of our >> lifetimes. Who is going to sue them one at a time to act promptly? >> HOWEVER, those hams with existing non-approved antennas will be in >> IMMEDIATE violation of the federal laws. >> >> Re Question 2, therein lies the great paradox. This has been publically >> commented on by a knowledgeable attorney and he is not the one that created >> this legislation. We can all read. If you haven't already read Sec. 3, >> b (1) of the bill, here is what it says: >> ". . . require any licensee in an amateur radio service to notify and >> obtain prior approval from a community association concerning installation >> of an outdoor antenna;" >> That doesn't need a Doctorate of Law or a PhD in English to understand >> what it says. >> >> Re JP's comments about FCC comment period, such is generally true. Since >> this would be mandated by federal action however, they have to follow the >> letter of congress's mandate so though the effectiveness of such comments >> might influence some grammatically or similar wording, the FCC has no >> choice but to do what Congress says, not what we want nor even what the FCC >> wants. The FCC might even not have to have such a comment period as it is >> mandated by congress and it would not be a regulation that the FCC will >> have initiated. Remember, the House bill cites that within 120 days the >> FCC must change Part 97 so any and all of this comment period, etc., will >> be completed and it will be law (Part 97 revisions finalized) within 120 >> days of it being signed by Trump. >> >> Re Tom's, K5RC, comments, I love it. >> >> IZO >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Rick Hiller -- W5RH <wn3...@gmail.com> >> *To:* John Chauvin <k5...@yahoo.com>; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB < >> bvarc@bvarc.org> >> *Cc:* TDXS List <tdxs-l...@tdxs.net> >> *Sent:* Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:20 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [BVARC] Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last >> year's version >> >> From W5RH >> >> Question(s) 1 ......Would not this same law make it a federal offense if >> the HOA does NOT provide "resonable written rules" or does not "constitute >> (establish) the minimum practicible restrition". Wouldn't they be in >> violation of federal law if they continue to "preclude amateur radio on its >> face or as applied" ? (See constitutional law definition.) Would they not >> be in violation if they fail to permit licensee to "install and maintain an >> effective outdoor antenna on property under the exclusive use or control of >> the licensee"? >> >> There are statutes in this law that require the HOA to do certain things >> under the law. If they don't do these things, would this not make them in >> vilolation of federal law? >> >> Question 2.......why have we not heard from the legal minds within BVARC >> or TDXS or even ARRL? I know we have lawyers within each of the clubs. >> ARRL has a lawyer who stated that it is a good law and would be willing to >> have a phone conversation with ITT (I think). Did this ever happen? >> BVARC members have voiced opposition (me too) to the ARRL BOD members, etc. >> and have yet to receive any kind of response in return. These BOD folks >> are hams just like us, they belong to the same organization and they are >> volunteers, yes, but their division constituants deserve at least some type >> of "thanks for your comment" response. Even better would be a >> knowledgeable reply to our concerns. Has anyone received such? >> >> I have read Pete's expose and do not disagree, but then I read thru HR >> 555 and, using the Google'd laymen's terminology translations for the legal >> verbiage, tried to apply some untainted logic. See Question(s) 1 above. >> >> Yes, I agree that existing (and future) antennas would be in violation of >> this law if not approved by the HOA authority, but I also see that the HOA >> is under certain requirements of this law to provide their >> constituant/member/the Ham certain specific allowances. >> >> 73...Rick >> >> Rick Hiller >> *The Radio Hotel* -- W5RH >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:30 PM, John Chauvin via BVARC <bvarc@bvarc.org> >> wrote: >> >> There is some discussion that the current Amateur Radio Parity Act is not >> the same absurd legislation as the one that missed passage by 1 senate vote >> last year. THAT IS NOT SO. IT IS THE SAME LEGISLATION! It is indeed the >> REVISED version from May 2016; The original, which wasn't as absurd, was >> dated March 4, 2015. To see this for yourself, go to the Congress website >> at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/ 115th-congress/house-bill/555/ >> text?r=44 >> <https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/555/text?r=44> >> The ARRL website also cites that it is the same that almost passed last >> year. >> >> It keeps the infamous requirement cited in Sec. 3, b (1) that immediately >> makes it a federal crime for anyone that has a stealth, visible or any, >> antenna already erected (or erects such antenna) that hasn't been approved >> by the HOA. Count the people in TDXS and BVARC that you know that have >> this. This includes J-Poles, 10M wire dipoles or any other such minuscule >> antennas whether or not visible from the street. >> >> I won't even begin to touch on the other 11 points that Pete cited in his >> October 2016 BVARC Newsletter article, Page 3 available for viewing on >> BVARC.org That too speaks for itself. >> >> BVARC and TDXS should form Antenna tear-down parties once the law passes >> and Part 97 is changed. >> >> John, K5IZO >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> BVARC mailing list >> BVARC@bvarc.org >> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org >> <http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BVARC mailing list >> BVARC@bvarc.org >> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org >> >> > > > -- > Paul Easter > Technical Director SBE CPBE WW5PA > Houston Christian Broadcasters/KHCB networks > 2424 South Blvd. > Houston, TX 77098 > (713) 520-5200 > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > BVARC@bvarc.org > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > >
_______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list BVARC@bvarc.org http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
