[BVARC] Fwd: Re: [tdxs-list] FW: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[n5xz via BVARC]

Important information.  Please post on other reflectors.

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

 Original message 
From: Kirk Kridner  
Date: 1/28/17  4:51 PM  (GMT-06:00) 
To: 'TDXS Reflector' , "'webmas...@tdxs.net'" 
, K5HM  
Subject: Re: [tdxs-list] FW: [BVARC] Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as 
last year's version 


Ron
I totally agree with you on all points. There is nothing in this legislation 
that gives hams any real hope of a reasonable compromise with the local 
homeowner associations (HOA) on ham radio antennas. I have been reviewing the 
issues between the HOAs and ham radio operators for years and in my opinion 
this latest legislation will result in the HOAs taking action against existing 
ham stations in the HOA neighborhoods as well as denying new ones. 
As has been noted, there are about 730,000 licensed hams in the U.S., while 
while over 65 million people in the U.S. live in communities controlled by HOAs 
& the HOA number is growing annually. One of the most interesting statistics I 
have noted is that while the novice/technician class licenses were ~20% in 
1985, the technician class licenses are ~50% today. In my opinion the reason 
for that is that many new hams are in antenna restricted communities/locations 
and as a consequence do not feel there is any benefit to upgrading their 
licenses.
The issue here is whether the new legislation will help the ham radio community 
and this is going to depend upon the cooperation and good faith negotiation of 
the HOAs. One of the primary national HOA associations is the Community 
Associations Institute (cai.org) & I encourage everyone to check them out as 
they are not friends of ham radio and they are taking aggressive positions in 
both their lobbying at the Federal and State levels as well providing providing 
resources and information to local HOAs to prohibit any type of external 
antennas. I have also seen many reports where HOAs are pursuing attempts to 
prevent any type of ham radio operation in HOA neighborhoods by restricting ham 
antennas on vehicles in the neighborhoods and requiring the removal of any type 
of stealth antennas that come to the HOA's attention. Accordingly, I feel that 
requiring that hams provide information to the HOAs will only serve to hurt 
hams that are successfully operating stealth antennas today (to the extent that 
a ham operates a stealth antenna without detection is testimony that the HOA 
efforts to shut them down is related solely to use restrictions related to the 
activity (and is an issue in the jurisdiction of the FCC) rather than having 
anything to do with the appearance of the antennas. To get a better insight to 
the position of the CAI, I recommend reading the following white paper 
explaining CAI position on ham radio that was written by a CAI executive and 
legislative action director, who also has a ham radio license: 
https://www.caionline.org/Advocacy/FederalAdvocacy/PriorityIssues/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Advocacy/FederalAdvocacy/PriorityIssues/Documents/Ham%20Radio%20and%20the%20Community%20Association%20-%20Final.pdf=default
My point is that the current legislation will place the decisions as to what 
constitutes a "reasonable accommodation" for a ham radio antenna on the HOAs, 
and most HOAs are going to follow the positions taken by the CAI. Can we as 
hams prevail and get approvals from the HOAs under the new legislation if it is 
passed? Possibly, but we can expect significant resistance and many hams will 
be forced to resort filing lawsuits in court against their HOAs to force 
compliance with the law. More importantly, even when the HOAs do negotiate with 
us, the decision of what is a reasonable antenna will be up to the HOA and it 
is a virtual certainty that we will most always be in disagreement with what 
the HOA ultimately determines to be a "reasonable antenna". 
As to your points about the positions by the League, there are other issues 
that are taking place involving what types of operations are eligible for ARRL 
awards, contests, etc., and the lack of many hams to participate due to antenna 
restrictions has given rise to non-owned remote stations accessed via the 
internet. Some of these operations offer premium radios and towers that charge 
either membership and/or usage fees, and there is considerable objection by 
hams with their own 'super stations' to allowing other hams to be eligible to 
obtain awards or win contests by the use of a non-owned station accessed via 
the internet. I also note that there have been proposed revisions to the DXCC 
rules that would limit the use of non-owned remote stations in qualifying for 
DXCC contacts. In my discussions with League executives and board members 
regarding the controversy involving the use of such non-owned remote stations, 
they always change the subject to the HOA 

Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[John Chauvin via BVARC]

Rick,
I'll call you on this one. 
IZO

  From: Rick Hiller -- W5RH 
 To: Paul Easter ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB 
 
Cc: John Chauvin 
 Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 3:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE 
SAME as last year's version
   
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  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  
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 
 To: John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB 
 
Cc: TDXS List 
 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, 

Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[Rick Hiller -- W5RH via BVARC]

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 
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 
> 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 
>> *To:* John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <
>> bvarc@bvarc.org>
>> *Cc:* TDXS List 
>> *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 

Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[Paul Easter via BVARC]

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 
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 
> *To:* John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <
> bvarc@bvarc.org>
> *Cc:* TDXS List 
> *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 
> 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, 

Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[Rick Hiller -- W5RH via BVARC]

John,

My antenna is already "installed", so why would I have to contact the HOA
concerning the "installation" of an outside antenna?  Said half in jest.

Can you reference me to Tom Tamorinas K5RC commentsI have not read them.

Thanks!  Rick

Rick Hiller
*The Radio Hotel*  -- W5RH



On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 11:37 AM, John Chauvin via BVARC 
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 
> *To:* John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <
> bvarc@bvarc.org>
> *Cc:* TDXS List 
> *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 
> 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 

[BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[John Chauvin via BVARC]

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 
 To: John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB 
 
Cc: TDXS List 
 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  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   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 

Re: [BVARC] Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[JP Pritchard via BVARC]

One other point to be made. When a new law is passed, there is a period set 
aside for rule and regulations to be developed. I believe the agency charged 
with enforcement is required to take public comment. I believe this is when 
definitions and parameters are set and when at least some of our concerns can 
be addressed in an effective way. 

JP Pritchard
KG3JPP

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 28, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Rick Hiller -- W5RH via BVARC  
> wrote:
> 
> 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  
>> 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   
>> 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
>> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [BVARC] Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[Rick Hiller -- W5RH via BVARC]

>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 
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
>  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
>
>
___
BVARC mailing list
BVARC@bvarc.org
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org