From kenw8ek at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 15:43:26 2015 From: kenw8ek at gmail.com (Ken, W8EK) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:43:26 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Gonset and MC Jones items FS Message-ID: <55C115DE.2050809@gmail.com> Gonset 2 meter Communicator IV and M C Jones MM-1 For Sale: Gonset 2 meter Communicator IV: This vintage unit is in extremely nice condition. I brought it up slow on a variac, and all is well. No hum evident! The receiver works as it should. I listened to a local net using a dummy load. The transmitter puts out just under 15 watts. Cosmetically, the unit is extremely nice. No major defects, although I will guarantee you will find some dust. This one includes the 120 V AC power cord, paper work, and a spare final tube (remember when we all kept a spare final "just in case"?). Only $125. Pick up near Ocala FL would be great, but it can be shipped if needed, which is obviously not included for $125. M C Jones "Micro Match" MM-1: The "Micro Match" is one of the very, very early SWR bridges. It is made by M C Jones Electronics of Bristol, Conn. I do not know the exact vintage, but would guess in the 1940's or 50's. The MM-1 is certainly related to the more common Model 261, 262, and 263 units. Paper work from them is included, since they are similar. This unit has both SO-239 and BNC connectors on each side, in parallel, so that either can be used. A toggle switch is on top (for forward/reflected power, I assume), with a range switch on the left, and SWR adjust control on the right, and the meter in the middle. Own this vintage piece of equipment for only $25 plus shipping from Florida. I also have many other accessories available such as many different types of microphones, HTs, HF, VHF and UHF rigs, HF and VHF/UHF antennas, etc. Just too many to list here. Please e-mail your requests. Thanks. 73, Ken, W8EK Ken Simpson E-mail to W8EK at FLHam.net or W8EK at arrl.net Voice Phone (352) 732-8400 From kenw8ek at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 18:02:44 2015 From: kenw8ek at gmail.com (Ken, W8EK) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:02:44 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Microphones FS Message-ID: <55CA7104.40605@gmail.com> Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, DTMF Touch Tone, Speaker Microphones, etc. For Sale: Icom Microphones: Heil Microphone and Cable: Heil HM-I Microphone for use on Icom rigs. This mic is a beautiful gold/bronze color. It has BOTH the wide (designed for rag chewing and full fidelity) and the narrow (designed for maximum "punch", especially for DX pileup penetration) elements. It also has a PTT switch on the mic, which has a 4 pin XLR connector. This one works great, and looks great as well. $85 Cable for use with Icom rigs Has 4 pin XLR connector to mate with the above mic, with a very nice rubber covered cord, and a round 8 pin connector wired for Icom on the other end, along with a 1/4 jack that can be used with an external PTT switch, if desired. $25 Buy both of the above for $100. Cable sells only with or after the mic. Icom HM-133 V Remote Control DTMF Microphone: This mic has a DTMF Touch Tone pad on it, but also offers full remote control including VFO select, Up-Down tuning and memory select. It also has keypad back lighting. It has an 8 pin modular plug and is used with the IC-2100, IC-2200, IC-2300, IC-2725, IC-V8000, and others. This one appears to be new, unused, still in its original plastic bag. With paper work for $40. Kenwood Hand Microphones: Kenwood MC-44 DM, DTMF Touch Tone Mic Used on many Kenwood rigs with round 8 pin mic plug. Includes up/down switches, and lock switch, along with the 16 digit DTMF pad. Excellent condition. $40 Hand Microphone with round 8 pin plug for Kenwood, Alinco, etc. This hand mic works great on most Kenwood rigs with the round 8 pin connector, such as the TS-430, TS-440, TM-241, TM-2530, TW-4000, and others, including Alinco and ADI. It says "Electret Condenser Mic" on the back, and "Kenwood" on the front, with no model number. Basically, this mic functions like an MC-43, with a couple more features. It has the mic and PTT switch; it also has up/down switches on the top. There are four "extra" buttons labeled Call, VFO, MR, and PF. What these four buttons do depends on the rig. There is also a "Lock" switch on the back. Regardless if you use the four extra buttons or not, you still have a mic that works like an MC-43. This mic works fine, and looks like new. I am guessing it came with a rig, and was immediately put in the drawer, and never used. $30 Yaesu Hand Microphones: Yaesu MH-15 DTMF Touch Tone Mic: The MH-15 c6 is a hand microphone that features a 16 digit DTMF Touch Tone Pad on the back, along with a lock/unlock switch. The top has up/down buttons. Of course the PTT is on the side. This one has the round 6 pin connector. It works fine and looks close to new. $40 Yaesu YM-17 hand mic: The YM-17 is a hand microphone with up/down switches on the top corner. It has the round 6 pin connector. This one works fine and looks really great. $30 Yaesu YM-31 hand mic: The Yaesu YM-31 is a hand mic with a round 6 pin connector. Apparently it is either similar or the same as the MH-25A6j (not the MH-25 with the 8 pin connector). It is a 600 ohm impedance hand microphone, and has a Monitor on-off switch on the back. It looks very similar to the Yaesu MH-1. This one works fine and looks extremely nice. $25 DTMF Touch Tone Microphones For Sale: Kenwood MC-44 DM, DTMF Touch Tone Mic Used on many Kenwood rigs with round 8 pin mic plug. Includes up/down switches, and lock switch, along with the 16 digit DTMF pad. Excellent condition. $40 Yaesu MH-15 DTMF Touch Tone Mic The MH-15 c6 is a hand microphone with a 16 digit DTMF Touch Tone Pad on the back, along with a lock/unlock switch. The top has up/down buttons. This one presently has the round 6 pin connector, which can be changed of course. It works fine and looks close to new. $40 Johnson 250-0761-010 / CES 655 L DTMF Mic It has a 12 digit pad on the front, and is a rugged mic. Presently with 4 pin connector. It looks to be unused. $38 HT Speaker Microphones: Both of these speaker mics have the 3.5 mm and 2.5 mm two conductor plugs that are spaced about 3/8 inch apart, and are molded into a single connector. They are used on Icom, Yaesu, Radio Shack, Maxon, Ritron, Vertex and many other radios. Premier SPM-100 It is a lightweight and compact unit, featuring a powerful speaker as well as a high-quality condenser-style microphone element that produces excellent transmitted audio clarity. The microphone may be secured to the user's lapel or shoulder. It also features a built-in 3.5mm jack for using an external earphone. $17 DM-100 Appears to be the same as the SPM-100 above, but just with a different label. $17 I also have many other accessories available such as many different types of microphones, HTs, HF, VHF and UHF rigs, HF and VHF/UHF antennas, etc. Just too many to list here. Please e-mail your requests. Prices do not include shipping from Florida. Thanks. 73, Ken, W8EK Ken Simpson E-mail to W8EK at FLHam.net or W8EK at arrl.net Voice Phone (352) 732-8400 From w5jo at brightok.net Wed Aug 19 15:33:45 2015 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:33:45 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 Message-ID: <3C9C11CA836E4300ACCD0F4072F737C9@JimPC> I received this from Don, K4KYV today and is of interest to everyone on this list. While not specific to AM Radio, it does affect the ability to transmit and I know several AM operators who are impacted. So I support this action and urge you to do as Don suggests and send a note of support to your representatives and senators in the US government. Jim W5JO Moderator -----Original Message----- From: Donald Chester Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:03 PM To: Al W1VTP ; Dr John ; Gary ; Gerry Moersdorf ; Grant W4BVT ; Jim W5JO ; K4TAX ; Mike CVY ; Paul Spurlock ; Steve Cloutier ; timtron at hotmail.com ; VJB ; w4fre at bellsouth.net ; w6pss at aol.com ; Rob UJ Subject: HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 HOAs are organising a letter-writing campaign to members, urging them to flood legislators with requests to oppose H.R. 1301. http://www.capwiz.com/advocacycenter/home/ Here's the "Take Action" page. I plan to send a version to my representatives, after appropriately EDITING! http://www.capwiz.com/advocacycenter/issues/alert/?alertid=64272626&type=CO Don k4kyv = From manualman at juno.com Wed Aug 19 15:43:23 2015 From: manualman at juno.com (manualman at juno.com) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:43:23 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 Message-ID: You might want to read this too: http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act Pete, wa2cwa On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:33:45 -0500 writes: > I received this from Don, K4KYV today and is of interest to everyone > on this > list. While not specific to AM Radio, it does affect the ability to > > transmit and I know several AM operators who are impacted. > > So I support this action and urge you to do as Don suggests and send > a note > of support to your representatives and senators in the US > government. > > Jim > W5JO > Moderator > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Donald Chester > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:03 PM > To: Al W1VTP ; Dr John ; Gary ; Gerry Moersdorf ; Grant W4BVT ; Jim > W5JO ; > K4TAX ; Mike CVY ; Paul Spurlock ; Steve Cloutier ; > timtron at hotmail.com ; > VJB ; w4fre at bellsouth.net ; w6pss at aol.com ; Rob UJ > Subject: HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 > > HOAs are organising a letter-writing campaign to members, urging > them to > flood legislators with requests to oppose H.R. 1301. > > http://www.capwiz.com/advocacycenter/home/ > > > Here's the "Take Action" page. I plan to send a version to my > representatives, after appropriately EDITING! > > http://www.capwiz.com/advocacycenter/issues/alert/?alertid=64272626&type= CO > > > Don k4kyv From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 19:21:07 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:21:07 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The canned letter that group wants its members to send to Congressional representatives has many distortions. I hope ARRL has been made aware of it. The HOA lobby have a right to petition Congress like anyone else, but they don't have the right to have their own made up set of fake facts on which to base things. 73 Rob K5UJ > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:33:45 -0500 writes: >> I received this from Don, K4KYV today and is of interest to everyone >> on this >> list. While not specific to AM Radio, it does affect the ability to >> >> transmit and I know several AM operators who are impacted. >> >> So I support this action and urge you to do as Don suggests and send >> a note >> of support to your representatives and senators in the US >> government. >> >> Jim >> W5JO >> Moderator >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Donald Chester >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:03 PM >> To: Al W1VTP ; Dr John ; Gary ; Gerry Moersdorf ; Grant W4BVT ; Jim >> W5JO ; >> K4TAX ; Mike CVY ; Paul Spurlock ; Steve Cloutier ; >> timtron at hotmail.com ; >> VJB ; w4fre at bellsouth.net ; w6pss at aol.com ; Rob UJ >> Subject: HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 >> >> HOAs are organising a letter-writing campaign to members, urging >> them to >> flood legislators with requests to oppose H.R. 1301. >> >> http://www.capwiz.com/advocacycenter/home/ >> >> >> Here's the "Take Action" page. I plan to send a version to my >> representatives, after appropriately EDITING! >> >> > http://www.capwiz.com/advocacycenter/issues/alert/?alertid=64272626&type= > CO >> >> >> Don k4kyv From ka1kaq at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 10:30:07 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:30:07 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: <3C9C11CA836E4300ACCD0F4072F737C9@JimPC> References: <3C9C11CA836E4300ACCD0F4072F737C9@JimPC> Message-ID: Another tempest in a teapot. Simple solution: don't sign any contract that restricts rights that you don't want restricted. AKA Common Sense, lacking more and more these days. We've become a country of whiners and crybabies who expect the government to solve all of our problems. And it's hard to buy the argument that 'some people have no choice in their area'. Somehow I don't think any HOA made the decisions for them that brought them to that area or whatever else. I like HOAs because they create a place for people to freely go who might otherwise be out bothering the rest of us who choose not to be in one. It would be a much different matter if the area you lived in suddenly tried to add restrictions you didn't agree to when you bought your property. But in today's world you have people who willingly sign on the dotted line for convenience of location, to please the wife, or whatever reason, agree to the restrictions, then once they're in suddenly don't want to follow the rules they agreed to. Pathetic, but all to real. Next they'll be asking "where's my trophy??". ~ Todd, KA1KAQ/4 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:33 PM, wrote: > I received this from Don, K4KYV today and is of interest to everyone on > this list. While not specific to AM Radio, it does affect the ability to > transmit and I know several AM operators who are impacted. > > So I support this action and urge you to do as Don suggests and send a > note of support to your representatives and senators in the US government. > > Jim > W5JO > Moderator > From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 12:34:08 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: References: <3C9C11CA836E4300ACCD0F4072F737C9@JimPC> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Todd, KA1KAQ wrote: > Another tempest in a teapot. Simple solution: don't sign any contract that > restricts rights that you don't want restricted. AKA Common Sense, lacking > more and more these days. > Thanks for sharing your subjective opinions but they won't change the fact that most hams consider this a serious and significant issue and are doing something about it. Have a nice day & 73 Rob K5UJ From ka1kaq at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 13:25:38 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:25:38 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: <14f4bf02572-172d-5b61@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> References: <14f4bf02572-172d-5b61@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:27 PM, wrote: > Not so fast.... > If I don't want to live in the country, a poor economic area, or in town, > or a older home.....AND I want a retirement area that offers lots of nice > things to do as well as nice NEW homes...where do I go. > NOWHERE as ALL new home areas are restricted in EXACTLY the same way. > That's the issue...why should I be FORCED to go live somewhere I don't want > to? > You answered your own question, Lee - "...AND I want a retirement area that offers a lot of nice things to do as well as nice NEW homes....". You're not being "FORCED" to do anything, you're choosing what you want. We all make choices, you choose to live in an area with restrictions. You already know that clearly before signing. You've laid out in your description what means more to you. I'm not disagreeing, just saying don't expect everyone else who already moved there who *isn't* a ham (99.999%) to give up one of the things they moved there to avoid just to accommodate you, me, any other ham. The area of NC near where we live (called the Research Triangle) is the fastest growing area in the country right now. There are plenty of 'convenient, new' homes in HOAs surrounding my wife's school. We chose to sacrifice a little convenience for privacy and property rights. Not to move into a restricted development where we're told what we're allowed to do with our property, or tell others to change to suit us. The trade off for a 26 mile drive is 3 acres, less traffic, and virtually no restrictions. Not for everyone, I agree. That was our choice. Your choice, your preference is to move into an area you already know ahead of time restricts at least one of your interests. The good thing is, no one is holding a gun to your head. You're free to choose otherwise, based on what means the most to you. We did the same. Here's a pretty clear test of whether this 'initiative' makes sense. Say you, me, Rob, and 50 other hams move to a development with large building lots and a HOA set up specifically for ham radio use. We love our towers and wires. Things are great. Then someone from Berkley CA moves in. They decide they don't like the looks of those ugly metal things and instead want unobstructed views of the sky, horizon, trees and clouds. They file suit to have all of us remove our aerials to suit their wishes. What would you say - "Are you $&*@ crazy?? Didn't you read the the contract? This area is set up for hams!" or would you say "Yes, good point - we should accommodate you."? That's the common sense part I made reference to. Seems people can always find an exception when it suits their situation. The 'I want my cake and eat it too, make it so, Government' syndrome. That seems to be the case with this attempt at further government intervention. I like being out a ways where I can play with my radios, work on my vehicles, and shoot my guns. City folks prefer the convenience of the city/community setting and its amenities. We just have to decide what means more to us. There are trade offs with both. Good luck with whatever you decide. ~ Todd/KAQ From nq5t at tx.rr.com Thu Aug 20 13:29:10 2015 From: nq5t at tx.rr.com (GRANT YOUNGMAN) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:29:10 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: References: <3C9C11CA836E4300ACCD0F4072F737C9@JimPC> Message-ID: <60FE1195-A751-4C61-9EF3-BC3A5E65DEE0@tx.rr.com> Almost 25 years ago, my wife and I moved to the Dallas area. Every place we looked, the first thing I did was to ask to see was the covenants. Invariably, they blocked ALL outside antennas and many banned ANY radio transmissions of any kind. I had one realtor tell me to just put my antenna on SOMEONE ELSE?s property (directly behind the backyard fence) where they allowed that sort of "unsightly thing?. That was SOMEONE ELSE?s property she was pushing. Oh, that would have worked out well. My arguments about garage door openers, phones, and other ?radio transmitters? in common household use fell on very deaf ears. The noses went up, and I was informed that a cellphone was a phone and NOT a radio ? (they clearly weren?t scientists, or even educated). I finally found a house my wife and I could both agree on in an area that had NO covenants ? just zoning rules. It let me be a ham as long as I didn?t put up anything over 30?. I went to almost 40? and never got bothered by any little old lady or other dimwit control freak grumbling about the color of the flower pot on my front porch. Even the town inspector was in my yard on several occasions and never gave my antenna farm a glance. I?m getting ready to relocate. My lovely spouse says that it?s HER turn to pick. I can only imagine how much worse it?s gotten in the past 25 years. I don?t even want to think about it :( There?s a HUGE difference between the ?freedom? to do, and someone else?s ?freedom? to ban ?those kind of people with unsightly stuff? from their little rows of McMansion tricky tacky. The latter has so far prevailed .. Grant NQ5T > On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Todd, KA1KAQ wrote: >> Another tempest in a teapot. Simple solution: don't sign any contract that >> restricts rights that you don't want restricted. AKA Common Sense, lacking >> more and more these days. >> > > Thanks for sharing your subjective opinions but they won't change the > fact that most hams consider this a serious and significant issue and > are doing something about it. > > Have a nice day & 73 > > Rob > K5UJ > ______________________________________________________________ From ka1kaq at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 13:38:34 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:38:34 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: References: <3C9C11CA836E4300ACCD0F4072F737C9@JimPC> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > Thanks for sharing your subjective opinions but they won't change the > fact that most hams consider this a serious and significant issue and > are doing something about it. > > You are most welcome, Rob. I haven't seen the numbers, though - can you post how many actually support it? With over 700K licensed hams +/- 10%, I'd say 400K or more would represent 'most'. I doubt that most support it, though clearly some do. > Have a nice day & 73 > Backatcha! From amradio at mailman.qth.net Thu Aug 20 17:58:41 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (KC9CDT via AMRadio) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:58:41 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <14f4d1eff2a-172d-72c6@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Everyone...please call/write to support this. Even if you hate HOA's , would never live in one (never say never) or think we that do or may want to are not smart....help the rest of us out...it is quick and simple! Fact is.... Just because I am a ham should not force me to choose between a nice home in a nice community vs out in the country, or in a old area that has no HOA's. Yes, if I want to restore cars, make noise have a rock band etc...different story, don't go to HOA....but ham radio is not disturbing to others (or if there is a issue...it is fixable) and supports our nations emergency communications capability....just ask residents of areas hit hard...where hams helped out and they will tell a good story. We are all different and want different things. Maybe some hams want to live in a older neighborhood or in town or way out of town with no restrictions...that's OK and I live there now (no HOA's) but things change and if you someday want to go to a newer community..THEY ALL have basically the same restrictions as they (the lawyers/developers)all just copy each others. To run into these CCR's it does not even have to be a new addition...this has been going on for decades. So a ham really is stuck in most cases to older areas, towns or country. 73, Lee -----Original Message----- From: Todd, KA1KAQ To: Rob Atkinson ; Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service Sent: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > Thanks for sharing your subjective opinions but they won't change the > fact that most hams consider this a serious and significant issue and > are doing something about it. > > You are most welcome, Rob. I haven't seen the numbers, though - can you post how many actually support it? With over 700K licensed hams +/- 10%, I'd say 400K or more would represent 'most'. I doubt that most support it, though clearly some do. > Have a nice day & 73 > Backatcha! ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to kc9cdt at aol.com From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 19:37:47 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:37:47 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: References: <3C9C11CA836E4300ACCD0F4072F737C9@JimPC> Message-ID: Firstly, that 700K number doesn't really reflect the number of serious active hams out there. Won't waste any more time on that. More important, is how sad, very sad it is that folks, not hams only mind you, but people in general, willingly and freely sign away their rights, rights men fought in wars to give us, to some association committee, who will rule over them as to what color they can paint their homes, whether or not they can have a trailer in the driveway and any number of other closed sphincter hand wringing obsessions. I've even heard news stories about these HOA committees telling folks they can't fly the US flag out in their front yards. That kind of thing is clearly and dramatically not what men signed the Declaration of Independence for. 73 Rob K5UJ > You are most welcome, Rob. I haven't seen the numbers, though - can you post > how many actually support it? With over 700K licensed hams +/- 10%, I'd say > 400K or more would represent 'most'. I doubt that most support it, though > clearly some do. From amradio at mailman.qth.net Thu Aug 20 20:00:07 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (KC9CDT via AMRadio) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:00:07 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <14f4d8e2d5e-172d-77d1@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Yep...and if NOBODY would go there we would not have a problem.. BUT....thousands go to those places a year. The villages in FL are closing on over 200 homes /MONTH....yes...a MONTH. I guess one would surmise they want to be there AND...AND they like the rules! Not everyone is the same. 73, Lee -----Original Message----- From: Rob Atkinson To: Todd, KA1KAQ Cc: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service Sent: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 7:39 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 Firstly, that 700K number doesn't really reflect the number of serious active hams out there. Won't waste any more time on that. More important, is how sad, very sad it is that folks, not hams only mind you, but people in general, willingly and freely sign away their rights, rights men fought in wars to give us, to some association committee, who will rule over them as to what color they can paint their homes, whether or not they can have a trailer in the driveway and any number of other closed sphincter hand wringing obsessions. I've even heard news stories about these HOA committees telling folks they can't fly the US flag out in their front yards. That kind of thing is clearly and dramatically not what men signed the Declaration of Independence for. 73 Rob K5UJ > You are most welcome, Rob. I haven't seen the numbers, though - can you post > how many actually support it? With over 700K licensed hams +/- 10%, I'd say > 400K or more would represent 'most'. I doubt that most support it, though > clearly some do. ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to kc9cdt at aol.com From ka1kaq at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 22:08:10 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:08:10 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: <14f4d8e2d5e-172d-77d1@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> References: <14f4d8e2d5e-172d-77d1@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:00 PM, wrote: Yep...and if NOBODY would go there we would not have a problem.. > BUT....thousands go to those places a year. > The villages in FL are closing on over 200 homes /MONTH....yes...a MONTH. > > I guess one would surmise they want to be there AND...AND they like the > rules! > > Not everyone is the same. > Precisely the point. Not only are we not the same, amateur radio has never represented a large portion of the population, but a tiny sliver. A sliver that is shrinking more each day. So basically the argument is - you millions of people change what you want and what you signed, agreed, and moved into a HOA-protected development for - give up what you want so that a few hundred or thousand of us who disagree can have what we want. Change the rules to suit us. Pretty pathetic. The 'me me, my way' mentality that is eating up what's left of this country. Don't move somewhere where you can enjoy your hobby, sign a contract then expect the other parties to let you violate it so that you can have what you want. It certainly explains the current political administration and prevailing mentality in the country far better than I ever could. ~ Todd/KAQ From ka1kaq at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 22:43:20 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:43:20 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: References: <3C9C11CA836E4300ACCD0F4072F737C9@JimPC> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > Firstly, that 700K number doesn't really reflect the number of serious > active hams out there. Won't waste any more time on that. > Probably a good choice, as it removes the need to clarify what your use of the word 'most' actually means. It's a lot like say 'most' support the ARRL. In disagreeing with the latter, I'd bet it's okay to use the 700K figure, though. (o: > More important, is how sad, very sad it is that folks, not hams only > mind you, but people in general, willingly and freely sign away their > rights, rights men fought in wars to give us, to some association > committee, who will rule over them as to what color they can paint > their homes, whether or not they can have a trailer in the driveway > and any number of other closed sphincter hand wringing obsessions. > I've even heard news stories about these HOA committees telling folks > they can't fly the US flag out in their front yards. That kind of > thing is clearly and dramatically not what men signed the Declaration > of Independence for. > Couldn't agree more, Rob. It's ironic that you mention that. I thought that very thing today and wondered - where was all the outrage among hams as American citizens, when veterans weren't allowed to fly a simple flag in their yard? Why didn't the League or anyone else mount a defense or offense then, using the same basic arguments they're using now? But on the other hand, I suspect 'most' of the folks who join these HOAs are happy to do so. As Lee so clearly pointed out, they offer the lifestyle, the amenities, the comforts that many city folk and older retirees want. They could care less about amateur radio and in fact most think towers and a bunch of aluminum in the air is ugly. So while your description above makes it sound more like masses of innocent, unsuspecting people being marched off to gulags somewhere against their will and being forced to give up their freedoms, the reality is much, much different. That's what makes it possible for some place like the Villages to sell 200 new homes in a month. We just need to recognize not only the reality of it, but the hypocrisy of this entire nonsense. Those who want to live in gated communities with rules should be free to do so without being told they have to allow one of the very things they moved there to escape. And the rest of us should be able to live in the outside world without being told that we have to live like them. Freedom of choice. What a concept. Just remember - asking the government to step in and take away someone else's rights on your behalf is an invitation for them to do the same to you, at any time. But I guess it fits the selfish nature of the current climate not to think beyond the instant gratification of getting one's way. Fortunately it's going to be a hard sell convincing even congress that the many should be forced to change their legally binding contracts to suit the few who want to have their cake and eat it too - at everyone else's expense. Television antennae were one thing; you can't deny someone basic access to information. But making such a huge exception for a hobby involving so few? Don't hold your breath. Or better still - pray it doesn't happen. It won't bode well for the future. Just look at the recent interpretation of Eminent Domain if you need proof. ~ Todd/KAQ From jayw5jay at cox.net Fri Aug 21 00:32:35 2015 From: jayw5jay at cox.net (Jay Bromley) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:32:35 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: <79yu1r00545oxQM019yvuB> References: <79yu1r00545oxQM019yvuB> Message-ID: <014201d0dbca$674c1320$35e43960$@cox.net> Hi guys, Here is my take on this. Sadly county laws are now expanding to antenna regulations at a rapid pace. So even if you have a north 40 today and feel safe from antenna regulations, eventually you might get to experience what a typical HOA ham goes through. I have never understood why some in our own ranks think a few wires or towers are ugly. Like most things, they come and go over time! At the same time these HOA folks never gripe about cell towers, power poles feeding their community or street lights they love to sprinkle everywhere, screwing up the night sky! Currently my family has nearly 3 acres at the new location. Washington County I live in says I can go up to 80 feet. I guess they never heard of a 160m 1/4 vertical. There are NO trees here either for me to string wires to. We looked for 5 years for a nice home, one that is 20 minute commute to work, and one we could also put a tower or antennas up in the trees. I am not sure this is a great location either, but we just got tired of looking in the end. I nearly quit the hobby over this whole antenna deal. We have land in other counties and states, but my wife is not ready to retire yet. So those are not options in this point in time. By the time she is ready to retire, I will probably so stoved up it will not matter where we are. So I want to enjoy this hobby while I still can! While some of you guys may not have signed your rights away and if this sort of junk doesn't stop, you might find you have NO one to talk to in the end. We need to stick together on this. Several studies have been made and not one time I know of has a home been devalued due to a ham radio antenna, an American Flag, flower pot, etc! 73 de w5jay/jay.. From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Fri Aug 21 05:54:21 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:54:21 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: <014201d0dbca$674c1320$35e43960$@cox.net> References: <014201d0dbca$674c1320$35e43960$@cox.net> Message-ID: Agreed Jay; And the NIMBYs, RF causes cancer whackos and others who have made it almost impossible for any new broadcast plant to get built could be on the way to getting municipalities to become just as intolerant of antennas or more so. It's important to remember that PRB-1 is a "reasonable accomodation" and HOAs still get to say what that is. They are the ones freaking out now and claiming some ham will put up a 200 foot tower in the middle of their charmed (and oddly uniform looking) development. That's not what this is about; it's about letting a ham have some minimal antenna, maybe a Ringo for 2 meter operation so they can do some SkyWarn activity. Any ham who wants to pursue the hobby in any kind of traditional way, meaning average HF antennas, would still have to find a non-HOA dwelling place. 73 Rob K5UJ From amradio at mailman.qth.net Fri Aug 21 06:29:27 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (KC9CDT via AMRadio) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:29:27 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <14f4fce5740-172d-8709@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Simply put these rules should never have been this strict & they need to change...just like the current political adm. -----Original Message----- From: Todd, KA1KAQ To: kc9cdt Cc: Rob Atkinson ; Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service Sent: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 10:08 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:00 PM, wrote: Yep...and if NOBODY would go there we would not have a problem.. BUT....thousands go to those places a year. The villages in FL are closing on over 200 homes /MONTH....yes...a MONTH. I guess one would surmise they want to be there AND...AND they like the rules! Not everyone is the same. Precisely the point. Not only are we not the same, amateur radio has never represented a large portion of the population, but a tiny sliver. A sliver that is shrinking more each day. So basically the argument is - you millions of people change what you want and what you signed, agreed, and moved into a HOA-protected development for - give up what you want so that a few hundred or thousand of us who disagree can have what we want. Change the rules to suit us. Pretty pathetic. The 'me me, my way' mentality that is eating up what's left of this country. Don't move somewhere where you can enjoy your hobby, sign a contract then expect the other parties to let you violate it so that you can have what you want. It certainly explains the current political administration and prevailing mentality in the country far better than I ever could. ~ Todd/KAQ From w3slk at verizon.net Fri Aug 21 06:40:35 2015 From: w3slk at verizon.net (Mike Sawyer) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:40:35 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: References: <014201d0dbca$674c1320$35e43960$@cox.net> Message-ID: <000601d0dbfd$d367d2f0$7a3778d0$@verizon.net> Are you kidding me?? I wouldn't support HOA's with a worn out jockstrap! Talk about a group of indignant people?? These people think they are judge, jury and executioner rolled into one! One only has to look at the recent struggle where people painted their children's swing set purple, (or is it mauve?), in Texas(?). There are city ordinances designed to prevent run-down homes and property. If I drop $500K on a property, the last thing I want is to go before a board and ask permission(!) to paint my house. This goes further than ham radio. Aint no way!!!! Just my grid-leaks worth. Mod-U-Lator, Mike(y)/W3SLK From amradio at mailman.qth.net Fri Aug 21 06:44:58 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (KC9CDT via AMRadio) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:44:58 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <14f4fdc8d65-172d-89c2@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> You guys sure are not supportive of the Ham group in general...OK...that's fine. You don't think there are things needing changing? It's OK for all hams to have to live in a old, non-CCR area or town or in the country....even when you get older and want to have a nice area with amenities? What if you own a home in a CCR and then get interested in ham radio...sell the house. Why not support an effort to change something that would help the group? Maybe the ham group I used to know (I have been a ham since 1966) is gone? Ones that support each other. If any of you guys in the future still want to be a ham and want to move to a nice new addition (I DON'T MEAN JUST GATED COMMUNITIES EITHER) you will see why this is wrong and needs fixing. It probably won't pass and you guys will be happy that people that chose those places get what they have coming/ Well....I have talked to LOT's of fellow hams about this and fortunately you don't represent the majority. Lee -----Original Message----- From: Todd, KA1KAQ To: Rob Atkinson Cc: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service Sent: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 10:44 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > Firstly, that 700K number doesn't really reflect the number of serious > active hams out there. Won't waste any more time on that. > Probably a good choice, as it removes the need to clarify what your use of the word 'most' actually means. It's a lot like say 'most' support the ARRL. In disagreeing with the latter, I'd bet it's okay to use the 700K figure, though. (o: > More important, is how sad, very sad it is that folks, not hams only > mind you, but people in general, willingly and freely sign away their > rights, rights men fought in wars to give us, to some association > committee, who will rule over them as to what color they can paint > their homes, whether or not they can have a trailer in the driveway > and any number of other closed sphincter hand wringing obsessions. > I've even heard news stories about these HOA committees telling folks > they can't fly the US flag out in their front yards. That kind of > thing is clearly and dramatically not what men signed the Declaration > of Independence for. > Couldn't agree more, Rob. It's ironic that you mention that. I thought that very thing today and wondered - where was all the outrage among hams as American citizens, when veterans weren't allowed to fly a simple flag in their yard? Why didn't the League or anyone else mount a defense or offense then, using the same basic arguments they're using now? But on the other hand, I suspect 'most' of the folks who join these HOAs are happy to do so. As Lee so clearly pointed out, they offer the lifestyle, the amenities, the comforts that many city folk and older retirees want. They could care less about amateur radio and in fact most think towers and a bunch of aluminum in the air is ugly. So while your description above makes it sound more like masses of innocent, unsuspecting people being marched off to gulags somewhere against their will and being forced to give up their freedoms, the reality is much, much different. That's what makes it possible for some place like the Villages to sell 200 new homes in a month. We just need to recognize not only the reality of it, but the hypocrisy of this entire nonsense. Those who want to live in gated communities with rules should be free to do so without being told they have to allow one of the very things they moved there to escape. And the rest of us should be able to live in the outside world without being told that we have to live like them. Freedom of choice. What a concept. Just remember - asking the government to step in and take away someone else's rights on your behalf is an invitation for them to do the same to you, at any time. But I guess it fits the selfish nature of the current climate not to think beyond the instant gratification of getting one's way. Fortunately it's going to be a hard sell convincing even congress that the many should be forced to change their legally binding contracts to suit the few who want to have their cake and eat it too - at everyone else's expense. Television antennae were one thing; you can't deny someone basic access to information. But making such a huge exception for a hobby involving so few? Don't hold your breath. Or better still - pray it doesn't happen. It won't bode well for the future. Just look at the recent interpretation of Eminent Domain if you need proof. ~ Todd/KAQ ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to kc9cdt at aol.com From k4kyv at charter.net Fri Aug 21 16:05:16 2015 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:05:16 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. Message-ID: <002201d0dc4c$b2dd09c0$18971d40$@charter.net> > From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" > Precisely the point. Not only are we not the same, amateur radio has never represented a large portion of the population, but a tiny sliver. A sliver that is > shrinking more each day. > So basically the argument is - you millions of people change what you want and what you signed, agreed, and moved into a HOA-protected development for > - give up what you want so that a few hundred or thousand of us who disagree can have what we want. Change the rules to suit us. So please explain how my putting up an unobtrusive antenna, such as a dipole strung between trees in the back yard of my own property, in any way injures or violates the "rights" of other residents living down the street? I'm not talking about putting up a 100 ft tower with full size 80m yagi in a postage-stamp size city lot, and that's not what the Amateur Radio Parity Act is all about. The Parity bill would only force HOAs to word their restrictions in such a way as to allow "reasonable accommodation" for effective outdoor antennas, just as PRB-1 did with city ordinances and zoning laws. Zoning laws governing tower and antenna installations didn't suddenly disappear once the FCC enacted PRB-1. So we only have whatever "rights" that the vast majority goes along with? Isn't that, by definition, mob rule? Before the 1960s, large swathes of the country had Jim Crowe laws that restricted the rights of certain minorities to live and work in certain neighbourhoods, and the majority of residents in those localities supported those laws, even to the point of committing violence in an attempt to preserve them. It took federal intervention to strike down, to change the laws to "suit" those whose rights were being violated. One of the reasons HOAs and CC&Rs came into existence in the first place was to keep "those people" (whatever creed or ethnic group you prefer to hate) out of neighbourhoods. I recall reading about a deed restriction that was struck down in the Pacific Northwest, don't remember if it was in Portland or Seattle, that said to the effect that the property could not be transferred to or used by those of "Hebrew", Asian or "Ethiopian" origin. > Pretty pathetic... >It certainly explains the current political administration and prevailing mentality in the country far better than I ever could. If that were actually the case, I would say thank God said mentality is beginning to prevail. Just my personal opinion; it's "pretty pathetic" that a licensed amateur radio operator would oppose a very small step towards allowing fellow hams to enjoy their hobby in a reasonable manner on a piece of property they bought, paid for and pay taxes on. "I've got mine and therefore don't give a damn about anybody else." I keep hearing that same old broken record from the pro-HOA ilk, proclaiming that the Parity Act is just another piece of "liberal legislation" that would allow the big bad "gub'ment" one more means to violate the sanctity of private contracts, but if you think about it, the ongoing HOA take-over of American property rights and petty suppression of liberty in one's own home has to be one of the closest things we've ever had in this country to Soviet style communism. Don k4kyv --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nq5t at tx.rr.com Fri Aug 21 16:27:20 2015 From: nq5t at tx.rr.com (GRANT YOUNGMAN) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:27:20 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <002201d0dc4c$b2dd09c0$18971d40$@charter.net> References: <002201d0dc4c$b2dd09c0$18971d40$@charter.net> Message-ID: <39C687BF-DC88-4F92-839B-EBDEFFB1EB69@tx.rr.com> I?ll just throw in my 2 cents ? Well said, Don! Grant NQ5T > On Aug 21, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Donald Chester wrote: > >> From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" > > >> Precisely the point. Not only are we not the same, amateur radio has never > represented a large portion of the population, but a tiny sliver. A sliver > that is >> shrinking more each day. > >> So basically the argument is - you millions of people change what you want > and what you signed, agreed, and moved into a HOA-protected development for >> - give up what you want so that a few hundred or thousand of us who > disagree can have what we want. Change the rules to suit us. > > > So please explain how my putting up an unobtrusive antenna, such as a dipole > strung between trees in the back yard of my own property, in any way > injures or violates the "rights" of other residents living down the street? > I'm not talking about putting up a 100 ft tower with full size 80m yagi in a > postage-stamp size city lot, and that's not what the Amateur Radio Parity > Act is all about. The Parity bill would only force HOAs to word their > restrictions in such a way as to allow "reasonable accommodation" for > effective outdoor antennas, just as PRB-1 did with city ordinances and > zoning laws. Zoning laws governing tower and antenna installations didn't > suddenly disappear once the FCC enacted PRB-1. > > So we only have whatever "rights" that the vast majority goes along with? > Isn't that, by definition, mob rule? Before the 1960s, large swathes of the > country had Jim Crowe laws that restricted the rights of certain minorities > to live and work in certain neighbourhoods, and the majority of residents in > those localities supported those laws, even to the point of committing > violence in an attempt to preserve them. It took federal intervention to > strike down, to change the laws to "suit" those whose rights were being > violated. One of the reasons HOAs and CC&Rs came into existence in the > first place was to keep "those people" (whatever creed or ethnic group you > prefer to hate) out of neighbourhoods. I recall reading about a deed > restriction that was struck down in the Pacific Northwest, don't remember if > it was in Portland or Seattle, that said to the effect that the property > could not be transferred to or used by those of "Hebrew", Asian or > "Ethiopian" origin. > >> Pretty pathetic... >> It certainly explains the current political administration and prevailing > mentality in the country far better than I ever could. > > If that were actually the case, I would say thank God said mentality is > beginning to prevail. > > Just my personal opinion; it's "pretty pathetic" that a licensed amateur > radio operator would oppose a very small step towards allowing fellow hams > to enjoy their hobby in a reasonable manner on a piece of property they > bought, paid for and pay taxes on. "I've got mine and therefore don't give > a damn about anybody else." > > I keep hearing that same old broken record from the pro-HOA ilk, proclaiming > that the Parity Act is just another piece of "liberal legislation" that > would allow the big bad "gub'ment" one more means to violate the sanctity of > private contracts, but if you think about it, the ongoing HOA take-over of > American property rights and petty suppression of liberty in one's own home > has to be one of the closest things we've ever had in this country to Soviet > style communism. > > Don k4kyv > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ______________________________________________________________ > Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net > AMRadio mailing list > Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ > List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html > List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net > To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with > the word unsubscribe in the message body. > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to nq5t at tx.rr.com From w3slk at verizon.net Fri Aug 21 17:22:31 2015 From: w3slk at verizon.net (Mike Sawyer) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:22:31 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <39C687BF-DC88-4F92-839B-EBDEFFB1EB69@tx.rr.com> References: <002201d0dc4c$b2dd09c0$18971d40$@charter.net> <39C687BF-DC88-4F92-839B-EBDEFFB1EB69@tx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01d0dc57$7dd98fe0$798cafa0$@verizon.net> Ditto!!! Mod-U-Lator, Mike(y)/W3SLK -----Original Message----- From: AMRadio [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of GRANT YOUNGMAN Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 4:27 PM To: Donald Chester; AM Radio List Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. I?ll just throw in my 2 cents ? Well said, Don! Grant NQ5T > On Aug 21, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Donald Chester wrote: > >> From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" > > >> Precisely the point. Not only are we not the same, amateur radio has >> never > represented a large portion of the population, but a tiny sliver. A > sliver that is >> shrinking more each day. > >> So basically the argument is - you millions of people change what you >> want > and what you signed, agreed, and moved into a HOA-protected > development for >> - give up what you want so that a few hundred or thousand of us who > disagree can have what we want. Change the rules to suit us. > > > So please explain how my putting up an unobtrusive antenna, such as a > dipole strung between trees in the back yard of my own property, in > any way injures or violates the "rights" of other residents living down the street? > I'm not talking about putting up a 100 ft tower with full size 80m > yagi in a postage-stamp size city lot, and that's not what the Amateur > Radio Parity Act is all about. The Parity bill would only force HOAs > to word their restrictions in such a way as to allow "reasonable > accommodation" for effective outdoor antennas, just as PRB-1 did with > city ordinances and zoning laws. Zoning laws governing tower and > antenna installations didn't suddenly disappear once the FCC enacted PRB-1. > > So we only have whatever "rights" that the vast majority goes along with? > Isn't that, by definition, mob rule? Before the 1960s, large swathes > of the country had Jim Crowe laws that restricted the rights of > certain minorities to live and work in certain neighbourhoods, and the > majority of residents in those localities supported those laws, even > to the point of committing violence in an attempt to preserve them. > It took federal intervention to strike down, to change the laws to > "suit" those whose rights were being violated. One of the reasons > HOAs and CC&Rs came into existence in the first place was to keep > "those people" (whatever creed or ethnic group you prefer to hate) out > of neighbourhoods. I recall reading about a deed restriction that was > struck down in the Pacific Northwest, don't remember if it was in > Portland or Seattle, that said to the effect that the property could > not be transferred to or used by those of "Hebrew", Asian or "Ethiopian" origin. > >> Pretty pathetic... >> It certainly explains the current political administration and >> prevailing > mentality in the country far better than I ever could. > > If that were actually the case, I would say thank God said mentality > is beginning to prevail. > > Just my personal opinion; it's "pretty pathetic" that a licensed > amateur radio operator would oppose a very small step towards allowing > fellow hams to enjoy their hobby in a reasonable manner on a piece of > property they bought, paid for and pay taxes on. "I've got mine and > therefore don't give a damn about anybody else." > > I keep hearing that same old broken record from the pro-HOA ilk, > proclaiming that the Parity Act is just another piece of "liberal > legislation" that would allow the big bad "gub'ment" one more means to > violate the sanctity of private contracts, but if you think about it, > the ongoing HOA take-over of American property rights and petty > suppression of liberty in one's own home has to be one of the closest > things we've ever had in this country to Soviet style communism. > > Don k4kyv > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ______________________________________________________________ > Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list > Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ > List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net > To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with > the word unsubscribe in the message body. > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email > list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to > nq5t at tx.rr.com ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to w3slk at verizon.net From ka1kaq at gmail.com Fri Aug 21 20:08:14 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:08:14 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <002201d0dc4c$b2dd09c0$18971d40$@charter.net> References: <002201d0dc4c$b2dd09c0$18971d40$@charter.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Donald Chester wrote: > > So please explain how my putting up an unobtrusive antenna, such as a > dipole > strung between trees in the back yard of my own property, in any way > injures or violates the "rights" of other residents living down the > street? > In the typical situation like you or I have, it doesn't. But HOAs aren't typical, and once they open the door to 'reasonable accommodation' they might as well have nothing. What about the guy who wants to operate on 160? Height and size of the aerial vary just a bit from a 2 meter Jpole. Zoning laws governing tower and antenna installations didn't > suddenly disappear once the FCC enacted PRB-1. > Agreed. But if you buy a piece of property and sign a contract not to do something, you are bound by it. That's what contracts are for. They govern specific situations, just like zoning laws do. It's amazing how people can so conveniently forget this part when it involves something they want. > So we only have whatever "rights" that the vast majority goes along with? > Isn't that, by definition, mob rule? Before the 1960s, large swathes of the > country had Jim Crowe laws > Apples and oranges, Don. But I understand. It's easier to ignore or forget the facts when they don't support your argument. Such is the case here. You're leaving out the one most obvious and important fact of all: no one is being forced to sign a contract or live there, and it's not some crime being perpetrated on existing residents who were in place before the HOA was conceived. In this case, buying a home in an area controlled by a HOA is *purely voluntary*. You choose to ignore this and instead compare it to racial discrimination forced on others, etc etc etc. That's quite a leap, even for you. (o: > Just my personal opinion; it's "pretty pathetic" that a licensed amateur > radio operator would oppose a very small step towards allowing fellow hams > to enjoy their hobby in a reasonable manner on a piece of property they > bought, paid for and pay taxes on. "I've got mine and therefore don't give > a damn about anybody else." > Yes, that's exactly it, Don. I want no one else to enjoy amateur radio. It's more fun to talk to myself. Once more you ignore the facts as well as what I've said previously. It goes more like "If I can figure it out(aka I've got mine), so can you(have yours). Don't join a HOA if you want to enjoy ham radio(because you sign away your rights and they don't give a damn)". I *encourage* others to do as most of us do: don't forfeit your rights for the sake of convenience, appearances, and whatever else these HOAs with their "NEW" homes and other amenities offer. There are new homes being built outside HOAs daily. HOAs suck, pure and simple. But at least they're voluntary. Unless your wife requires it. But you still get to choose - stay married or live elsewhere. Yep, life is full of choices and sacrifices. Your argument is based on a false premise: that someone bought property then had this nonsense forced on them. Not true. These people willingly chose location, age of home, convenience, wife's opinion etc over the freedom to erect a tower, aerials, or anything else excluded in the contract they *freely and willingly signed*. > American property rights and petty suppression of liberty in one's own home > has to be one of the closest things we've ever had in this country to > Soviet > style communism. > Except for the fact that 98+% of the people who sign seem astute enough to read and understand what they're signing and are perfectly content to live with their decision. These folks are the ones HOAs are built for, not those who want old junk in their yard, towers around, or a firing range in their backyard. Hence the 'agreement' or contract. Then again - your approach encourages suppression of rights by abdicating them to the government in favor of some immediate gratification. Much more Soviet-esque. We already have the liberty you're claiming has been taken so long as we don't foolishly sign it away. Or get the government involved. Something else to keep in mind: this mess has the potential to do considerable future damage to the amateur community when we're seen as a bunch of sniveling crybabies who sign on the dotted line, then whine to the government to intervene on our behalf when we decide we don't want to follow the contract we agreed to. We're not talking about local elected governments suppressing their citizens' rights, we're talking about private homeowners associations that individuals willingly join. My argument here isn't against hams enjoying their hobby, Don. My argument is about the personal freedom to choose, and those few who would invite the government in to interfere on their behalf and encroach on the the rights of all others, to satisfy their desires. That scares me. It's not about discrimination, Jim Crowe, or any of the other attempts at misdirection. My argument is the one for personal freedoms and personal rights. Simple as that. Your argument here is based on property rights after the fact. I think in the real world that's referred to as Buyers Remorse. Yes - by free choice, I've 'got mine' as far as having a home to live in that isn't restricted. So do you. Lee and anyone else has that same opportunity based on what they want to choose. He's made it clear he wants all the benefits offered by the HOA community first and foremost - he just doesn't want to be subjected to the agreement he signs aka hold up his side of the bargain. Remember - no one is making anyone sign anything here. So yes, it really is as simple as basic contract law, and you clearly support the 'big government control' position, choosing to wrap it up as a case of 'supporting your fellow ham'. As if anyone who doesn't agree must be anti-ham, or against amateur radio. Reminds me a lot of the old ARRL argument that if you're not a member, you must be against supporting amateur radio, or more recently the political argument that if you disagree with the president it's because you're a racist. Thanks, I'll pass and hang onto my personal rights and freedoms as well as my license. Those who agree with your position are free to sign away their liberty in exchange for living in a shiny new HOA, then run to the government to come save them from the choice they've made. After all, the nanny state mentality has worked wonders for this country for the last 7 years. Self-responsibility? Accountability? They're out getting drunk with Common Sense, traits no longer needed in the brave, new world. No hard feelings, Don - we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You like your position, I like mine, and for the time being, at least, we're still free to do so. And it's as good a time as any to consider the old addage 'Never argue with a fool.....'. I'm sure it can be seen as not position-specific in this case. ~ Todd/KAQ From w5jo at brightok.net Fri Aug 21 20:20:11 2015 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:20:11 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <002201d0dc4c$b2dd09c0$18971d40$@charter.net> Message-ID: <480FB7975D0445D69744CDBDF225DC69@JimPC> This is beginning to border on hurt feelings. Please remember to be respectful in your comments, keeping them addressed to a broad audience. This subject is something that matters to all who have a license and we have diverse views. Jim W5JO Moderator From amradio at mailman.qth.net Fri Aug 21 21:42:06 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (scott via AMRadio) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:42:06 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <002201d0dc4c$b2dd09c0$18971d40$@charter.net> Message-ID: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> There's yet another way to look at this, tho. Lots of folks deal with HOAs and get permission for modest(maybe not reasonable, but modest) accommodations from the HOAs and their neighbors. Not all the covenants say no, many say you need permission. And not everyone that lives in an HOA impacted area moved there because they hate antennas or want everything painted the same way. So often, it's a negotiation. If it's established that an HOA needs to be reasonable in this regard because the Federal law preempts to some extent the ability of a private group to legislate about exclusively federal matters like communication,it makes that negotiation easier. Ask lots of folks about how PRB1 helped them. Not perfect, but definitely positive. So reasonably supporting a bill that provides for reasonable accommodation doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. Laws change that impact what you can do with property without grandfathering sometimes, and that's the way the law works, and it's why there is a process. So as much as I appreciate the sanctity of contract, if there's a legal process with a valid basis to modify the existing covenants, go for it. That's the way things work. And if your contract happens to be modified a bit after you fought hard to prevent it, well, it happens sometimes, especially if you tried to contract for something that wasn't yours to control. And if it goes through, and you're the guy getting the break, maybe don't go nuts and try to make the neighborhood look like an NSA site. The sad part is that the case will be argued like everything else these days, from the extremes, no antennas versus huge towers, instead of what the much more likely scenarios will be for most folks, a fighting chance for a modest antenna to enjoy a potentially helpful hobby, that they'd otherwise be denied, without wrecking the character of the neighborhood. I'm writing my guys, with a reasonable story like that. Ymmv. Scott ka9p Sent from my iPad > On Aug 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, "Todd, KA1KAQ" wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Donald Chester wrote: >> >> >> So please explain how my putting up an unobtrusive antenna, such as a >> dipole >> strung between trees in the back yard of my own property, in any way >> injures or violates the "rights" of other residents living down the >> street? > > In the typical situation like you or I have, it doesn't. But HOAs aren't > typical, and once they open the door to 'reasonable accommodation' they > might as well have nothing. What about the guy who wants to operate on 160? > Height and size of the aerial vary just a bit from a 2 meter Jpole. > > Zoning laws governing tower and antenna installations didn't >> suddenly disappear once the FCC enacted PRB-1. > > Agreed. But if you buy a piece of property and sign a contract not to do > something, you are bound by it. That's what contracts are for. They govern > specific situations, just like zoning laws do. It's amazing how people can > so conveniently forget this part when it involves something they want. > > >> So we only have whatever "rights" that the vast majority goes along with? >> Isn't that, by definition, mob rule? Before the 1960s, large swathes of the >> country had Jim Crowe laws > > > Apples and oranges, Don. But I understand. It's easier to ignore or forget > the facts when they don't support your argument. Such is the case here. > > You're leaving out the one most obvious and important fact of all: no one > is being forced to sign a contract or live there, and it's not some crime > being perpetrated on existing residents who were in place before the HOA > was conceived. > > In this case, buying a home in an area controlled by a HOA is *purely > voluntary*. You choose to ignore this and instead compare it to racial > discrimination forced on others, etc etc etc. That's quite a leap, even for > you. (o: > > >> Just my personal opinion; it's "pretty pathetic" that a licensed amateur >> radio operator would oppose a very small step towards allowing fellow hams >> to enjoy their hobby in a reasonable manner on a piece of property they >> bought, paid for and pay taxes on. "I've got mine and therefore don't give >> a damn about anybody else." > > Yes, that's exactly it, Don. I want no one else to enjoy amateur radio. > It's more fun to talk to myself. > > Once more you ignore the facts as well as what I've said previously. It > goes more like "If I can figure it out(aka I've got mine), so can you(have > yours). Don't join a HOA if you want to enjoy ham radio(because you sign > away your rights and they don't give a damn)". I *encourage* others to do > as most of us do: don't forfeit your rights for the sake of convenience, > appearances, and whatever else these HOAs with their "NEW" homes and other > amenities offer. There are new homes being built outside HOAs daily. HOAs > suck, pure and simple. But at least they're voluntary. Unless your wife > requires it. But you still get to choose - stay married or live elsewhere. > Yep, life is full of choices and sacrifices. > > Your argument is based on a false premise: that someone bought property > then had this nonsense forced on them. Not true. These people willingly > chose location, age of home, convenience, wife's opinion etc over the > freedom to erect a tower, aerials, or anything else excluded in the > contract they *freely and willingly signed*. > > >> American property rights and petty suppression of liberty in one's own home >> has to be one of the closest things we've ever had in this country to >> Soviet >> style communism. > > Except for the fact that 98+% of the people who sign seem astute enough to > read and understand what they're signing and are perfectly content to live > with their decision. These folks are the ones HOAs are built for, not those > who want old junk in their yard, towers around, or a firing range in their > backyard. Hence the 'agreement' or contract. > > Then again - your approach encourages suppression of rights by abdicating > them to the government in favor of some immediate gratification. Much more > Soviet-esque. We already have the liberty you're claiming has been taken so > long as we don't foolishly sign it away. Or get the government involved. > > Something else to keep in mind: this mess has the potential to do > considerable future damage to the amateur community when we're seen as a > bunch of sniveling crybabies who sign on the dotted line, then whine to the > government to intervene on our behalf when we decide we don't want to > follow the contract we agreed to. We're not talking about local elected > governments suppressing their citizens' rights, we're talking about private > homeowners associations that individuals willingly join. > > My argument here isn't against hams enjoying their hobby, Don. My argument > is about the personal freedom to choose, and those few who would invite the > government in to interfere on their behalf and encroach on the the rights > of all others, to satisfy their desires. That scares me. It's not about > discrimination, Jim Crowe, or any of the other attempts at misdirection. My > argument is the one for personal freedoms and personal rights. Simple as > that. > > Your argument here is based on property rights after the fact. I think in > the real world that's referred to as Buyers Remorse. Yes - by free choice, > I've 'got mine' as far as having a home to live in that isn't restricted. > So do you. Lee and anyone else has that same opportunity based on what they > want to choose. He's made it clear he wants all the benefits offered by the > HOA community first and foremost - he just doesn't want to be subjected to > the agreement he signs aka hold up his side of the bargain. Remember - no > one is making anyone sign anything here. > > So yes, it really is as simple as basic contract law, and you clearly > support the 'big government control' position, choosing to wrap it up as a > case of 'supporting your fellow ham'. As if anyone who doesn't agree must > be anti-ham, or against amateur radio. Reminds me a lot of the old ARRL > argument that if you're not a member, you must be against supporting > amateur radio, or more recently the political argument that if you disagree > with the president it's because you're a racist. > > Thanks, I'll pass and hang onto my personal rights and freedoms as well as > my license. Those who agree with your position are free to sign away their > liberty in exchange for living in a shiny new HOA, then run to the > government to come save them from the choice they've made. After all, the > nanny state mentality has worked wonders for this country for the last 7 > years. Self-responsibility? Accountability? They're out getting drunk with > Common Sense, traits no longer needed in the brave, new world. > > No hard feelings, Don - we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. > You like your position, I like mine, and for the time being, at least, > we're still free to do so. And it's as good a time as any to consider the > old addage 'Never argue with a fool.....'. I'm sure it can be seen as not > position-specific in this case. > > ~ Todd/KAQ > ______________________________________________________________ > Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net > AMRadio mailing list > Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ > List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html > List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net > To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with > the word unsubscribe in the message body. > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to ka9p at aol.com From qedconsultants at embarqmail.com Fri Aug 21 23:19:25 2015 From: qedconsultants at embarqmail.com (Bernie Doran) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:19:25 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <480FB7975D0445D69744CDBDF225DC69@JimPC> References: <002201d0dc4c$b2dd09c0$18971d40$@charter.net> <480FB7975D0445D69744CDBDF225DC69@JimPC> Message-ID: This entire thing has come done to, appearing to me, to be a bunch of whiners!! you bought the property now live with it, move or shut up. Perhaps you could run out and burn cars and riot in the streets, that seems to get a lot of attention lately. I suppose when the neighbors JD returns home at midnight playing his 2,000 watts of rap, the others should just accept that as his "right". This why I live out in the boonies and we still have zoning, I helped write some of it, no junk yards, minimum size lot for a home ( acres) no trailers, ETC. I could put up anything but do not want a steel tower with large beams on the top, they are just plain ugly. Bernie W8RPW From amradio at mailman.qth.net Sat Aug 22 07:10:44 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (KC9CDT via AMRadio) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:10:44 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> Message-ID: <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Scott, Well said.... Why would any ham NOT support all of us other hams that need help in reasonable accommodations?? I would hope all hams would support fellow hams. This NOT to support a HOA, it is the opposite...it is to support fellow hams. 73, Lee Lee Simmonds Summit DCS LLC 260-799-4077 Office 260-403-6936 Cell -----Original Message----- From: scott via AMRadio To: Todd, KA1KAQ Cc: Donald Chester ; Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. There's yet another way to look at this, tho. Lots of folks deal with HOAs and get permission for modest(maybe not reasonable, but modest) accommodations from the HOAs and their neighbors. Not all the covenants say no, many say you need permission. And not everyone that lives in an HOA impacted area moved there because they hate antennas or want everything painted the same way. So often, it's a negotiation. If it's established that an HOA needs to be reasonable in this regard because the Federal law preempts to some extent the ability of a private group to legislate about exclusively federal matters like communication,it makes that negotiation easier. Ask lots of folks about how PRB1 helped them. Not perfect, but definitely positive. So reasonably supporting a bill that provides for reasonable accommodation doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. Laws change that impact what you can do with property without grandfathering sometimes, and that's the way the law works, and it's why there is a process. So as much as I appreciate the sanctity of contract, if there's a legal process with a valid basis to modify the existing covenants, go for it. That's the way things work. And if your contract happens to be modified a bit after you fought hard to prevent it, well, it happens sometimes, especially if you tried to contract for something that wasn't yours to control. And if it goes through, and you're the guy getting the break, maybe don't go nuts and try to make the neighborhood look like an NSA site. The sad part is that the case will be argued like everything else these days, from the extremes, no antennas versus huge towers, instead of what the much more likely scenarios will be for most folks, a fighting chance for a modest antenna to enjoy a potentially helpful hobby, that they'd otherwise be denied, without wrecking the character of the neighborhood. I'm writing my guys, with a reasonable story like that. Ymmv. Scott ka9p Sent from my iPad > On Aug 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, "Todd, KA1KAQ" wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Donald Chester wrote: >> >> >> So please explain how my putting up an unobtrusive antenna, such as a >> dipole >> strung between trees in the back yard of my own property, in any way >> injures or violates the "rights" of other residents living down the >> street? > > In the typical situation like you or I have, it doesn't. But HOAs aren't > typical, and once they open the door to 'reasonable accommodation' they > might as well have nothing. What about the guy who wants to operate on 160? > Height and size of the aerial vary just a bit from a 2 meter Jpole. > > Zoning laws governing tower and antenna installations didn't >> suddenly disappear once the FCC enacted PRB-1. > > Agreed. But if you buy a piece of property and sign a contract not to do > something, you are bound by it. That's what contracts are for. They govern > specific situations, just like zoning laws do. It's amazing how people can > so conveniently forget this part when it involves something they want. > > >> So we only have whatever "rights" that the vast majority goes along with? >> Isn't that, by definition, mob rule? Before the 1960s, large swathes of the >> country had Jim Crowe laws > > > Apples and oranges, Don. But I understand. It's easier to ignore or forget > the facts when they don't support your argument. Such is the case here. > > You're leaving out the one most obvious and important fact of all: no one > is being forced to sign a contract or live there, and it's not some crime > being perpetrated on existing residents who were in place before the HOA > was conceived. > > In this case, buying a home in an area controlled by a HOA is *purely > voluntary*. You choose to ignore this and instead compare it to racial > discrimination forced on others, etc etc etc. That's quite a leap, even for > you. (o: > > >> Just my personal opinion; it's "pretty pathetic" that a licensed amateur >> radio operator would oppose a very small step towards allowing fellow hams >> to enjoy their hobby in a reasonable manner on a piece of property they >> bought, paid for and pay taxes on. "I've got mine and therefore don't give >> a damn about anybody else." > > Yes, that's exactly it, Don. I want no one else to enjoy amateur radio. > It's more fun to talk to myself. > > Once more you ignore the facts as well as what I've said previously. It > goes more like "If I can figure it out(aka I've got mine), so can you(have > yours). Don't join a HOA if you want to enjoy ham radio(because you sign > away your rights and they don't give a damn)". I *encourage* others to do > as most of us do: don't forfeit your rights for the sake of convenience, > appearances, and whatever else these HOAs with their "NEW" homes and other > amenities offer. There are new homes being built outside HOAs daily. HOAs > suck, pure and simple. But at least they're voluntary. Unless your wife > requires it. But you still get to choose - stay married or live elsewhere. > Yep, life is full of choices and sacrifices. > > Your argument is based on a false premise: that someone bought property > then had this nonsense forced on them. Not true. These people willingly > chose location, age of home, convenience, wife's opinion etc over the > freedom to erect a tower, aerials, or anything else excluded in the > contract they *freely and willingly signed*. > > >> American property rights and petty suppression of liberty in one's own home >> has to be one of the closest things we've ever had in this country to >> Soviet >> style communism. > > Except for the fact that 98+% of the people who sign seem astute enough to > read and understand what they're signing and are perfectly content to live > with their decision. These folks are the ones HOAs are built for, not those > who want old junk in their yard, towers around, or a firing range in their > backyard. Hence the 'agreement' or contract. > > Then again - your approach encourages suppression of rights by abdicating > them to the government in favor of some immediate gratification. Much more > Soviet-esque. We already have the liberty you're claiming has been taken so > long as we don't foolishly sign it away. Or get the government involved. > > Something else to keep in mind: this mess has the potential to do > considerable future damage to the amateur community when we're seen as a > bunch of sniveling crybabies who sign on the dotted line, then whine to the > government to intervene on our behalf when we decide we don't want to > follow the contract we agreed to. We're not talking about local elected > governments suppressing their citizens' rights, we're talking about private > homeowners associations that individuals willingly join. > > My argument here isn't against hams enjoying their hobby, Don. My argument > is about the personal freedom to choose, and those few who would invite the > government in to interfere on their behalf and encroach on the the rights > of all others, to satisfy their desires. That scares me. It's not about > discrimination, Jim Crowe, or any of the other attempts at misdirection. My > argument is the one for personal freedoms and personal rights. Simple as > that. > > Your argument here is based on property rights after the fact. I think in > the real world that's referred to as Buyers Remorse. Yes - by free choice, > I've 'got mine' as far as having a home to live in that isn't restricted. > So do you. Lee and anyone else has that same opportunity based on what they > want to choose. He's made it clear he wants all the benefits offered by the > HOA community first and foremost - he just doesn't want to be subjected to > the agreement he signs aka hold up his side of the bargain. Remember - no > one is making anyone sign anything here. > > So yes, it really is as simple as basic contract law, and you clearly > support the 'big government control' position, choosing to wrap it up as a > case of 'supporting your fellow ham'. As if anyone who doesn't agree must > be anti-ham, or against amateur radio. Reminds me a lot of the old ARRL > argument that if you're not a member, you must be against supporting > amateur radio, or more recently the political argument that if you disagree > with the president it's because you're a racist. > > Thanks, I'll pass and hang onto my personal rights and freedoms as well as > my license. Those who agree with your position are free to sign away their > liberty in exchange for living in a shiny new HOA, then run to the > government to come save them from the choice they've made. After all, the > nanny state mentality has worked wonders for this country for the last 7 > years. Self-responsibility? Accountability? They're out getting drunk with > Common Sense, traits no longer needed in the brave, new world. > > No hard feelings, Don - we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. > You like your position, I like mine, and for the time being, at least, > we're still free to do so. And it's as good a time as any to consider the > old addage 'Never argue with a fool.....'. I'm sure it can be seen as not > position-specific in this case. > > ~ Todd/KAQ > ______________________________________________________________ > Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net > AMRadio mailing list > Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ > List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html > List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net > To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with > the word unsubscribe in the message body. > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to ka9p at aol.com ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to kc9cdt at aol.com From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 08:17:07 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:17:07 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:10 AM, KC9CDT via AMRadio wrote: > > Scott, > Well said.... I agree--well said. I bet most folks against this have never had to live in an HOA controlled development. They remind me of the hams who run plasma TVs and don't care if it makes another ham miserable. The same, I'm okay Jack and move if you don't like it mindset. And the whole intrusive government running my life thing--why don't y'all tear up your licenses and become pirates? Hey, the government can't tell me whether or not I can run a transmitter on my own property, right? I object to this tyranny a.k.a. democracy and Congress! Ha! Well, if this "majority" on AMradio reflector is anything to go by, the majority are in favor of it. 73 Rob K5UJ From amradio at mailman.qth.net Sat Aug 22 09:08:09 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (CL in NC via AMRadio) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 06:08:09 -0700 Subject: [AMRadio] HOA good guy Message-ID: <1440248889.92444.YahooMailBasic@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> A ham friend of mine, N4AK, developed a large piece of property in Travelers Rest, SC that is very exclusive with HOA's. But in his HOA, there is no antenna restrictions and he is perfectly happy with hams putting up what they need. Perhaps a thought is that whenever you see a development going in, contact the developer and give your case for leaving out antenna restrictions. It might not help you if you don't plan to move there, but it may help another ham and it might open up his base to more potential buyers. Charlie, W4MEC in NC From rbethman at comcast.net Sat Aug 22 09:40:46 2015 From: rbethman at comcast.net (rbethman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:40:46 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 Message-ID: <55D87BDE.6090007@comcast.net> Quoting another persons comments: >And it's hard to buy the argument that 'some people have no choice in their >area'. Somehow I don't think any HOA made the decisions for them that brought >them to that area or whatever else. Apparently those whom have served in the Military are some sort of "sub citizen". While one wears a Military Uniform, you get NO CHOICE where you get orders where you go next. Yet you can, (I Have!), be stationed on a particular duty station, while the Housing is OFF that duty station. Choice - ZERO, result - NO Amateur Radio operation where you are housed. Only option is to operate on the duty station while you are on it. That means while you are performing your duties. One did have the option of applying to operate of the duty station, go through all sort of hoops and inspections, give it over a year to year and a half, "maybe" get permission, "maybe" not. If allowed, you are subject to random inspection of your station on a 24/7 basis. Any perceived "violation", actual or not, - your entire station is confiscated with no chance to appeal nor have the equipment returned. Hmmmm, sounds like a Communist government methodology. Yet our government calls them Allies! On this basis, I will definitely be promoting H.R. 1301! I already have issues with City Zoning stating "If you erect a tower, YOU must ENSURE that should it fall, it falls on YOUR property only. These are sub acre lots. A 50 foot tower exceeds their statement. So you do the best you can under the conditions you are stuck with. BTW - This was NOT a covenant, there is NO HOA, you have to go to the City Zoning folks and inquire as to what if any restrictions there are. THEN they will tell you. Yet, they changed the noise statute for the city from no excess noise after 10PM, and before 8AM. (After having purchased the house and lived in it for over a decade!) Didn't even put it in the newspaper or any other form to allow input from the population! Now it only applies to Construction work. So some folks hold backyard parties that run into the wee hours of 2AM or 3AM, disrupt the sleep of those that have shift work, and others that have to get up and go to work around 4:30 AM or just a bit later. Some individuals do have a choice, some only find out later what they are allowed to do. City, County, State, and Federal regulations are already biting into the hobby! I definitely will do MY part to break this open! Regards, Bob - N0DGN From rbethman at comcast.net Sat Aug 22 09:58:44 2015 From: rbethman at comcast.net (rbethman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:58:44 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 Message-ID: <55D88014.5040204@comcast.net> I will also state very clearly! I believe Service to one's Country falls under the concept of "Duty, Honor, and Country"! It should still have a Draft System! Freedom is NOT free! It has been paid for in blood, pain, and the headstones in Arlington, and all the other National Cemeteries that are spread all over the USA! Now I get off my soapbox. Others can argue this issue with what they consider their view is. N0DGN From rbethman at comcast.net Sat Aug 22 10:07:33 2015 From: rbethman at comcast.net (rbethman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:07:33 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 Message-ID: <55D88225.6060607@comcast.net> While I may vehemently disagree with one's Free Speech, I WILL defend their right to do so with my life. Just as I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign or domestic, So help me God! United States of America, Retired Bob - N0DGN From rbethman at comcast.net Sat Aug 22 10:49:58 2015 From: rbethman at comcast.net (rbethman) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:49:58 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] I just took action! Message-ID: <55D88C16.8060600@comcast.net> I have edited and sent my E-mail message to: Regards, Bob - N0DGN Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) Representative Barbara Comstock (R-VA 10th) From ka1kaq at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 10:55:47 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:55:47 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > I bet most folks against this have never had to live in an HOA > controlled development. Good point, Rob. I agree - in fact, I bet 99.99999% of the people out there still don't have to live in a home controlled by a HOA unless they want to. Why? Freedom of choice. I'll agree that there will be the odd number here or there that get a job transfer on the spur of the moment and don't have time to look around, but they are the tiny exception. We had less than a month to find a place before moving to NC, yet managed to avoid the myriad of HOA-controlled developments simply by investing a little time and making a few choices. I understand now that by today's standards, doing such can make you a bad person for having something someone else chooses not to have, but it is what it is. > They remind me of the hams who run plasma TVs > and don't care if it makes another ham miserable. The same, I'm okay > Jack and move if you don't like it mindset. Or an equally-good comparison: the few who want to live in a HOA home and sign the contract, then expect the HOA to change the rules to suit them. The HOA could be compared to any number of private clubs out there, like the Men's clubs that used to exist in different cities. Then one day the feminist movement decided to cry discrimination and demand membership. In this instance it was an open and shut case based on gender, but they didn't want to be members anyway. They just didn't want someone else having something they didn't like. Bravo. > And the whole intrusive > government running my life thing--why don't y'all tear up your > licenses and become pirates? Hey, the government can't tell me > whether or not I can run a transmitter on my own property, right? Simple: certain things in a civilized society are classified as privileges due to your ability to negatively impact others with your actions. While you do have the right to apply and participate, you can lose that privilege by misusing or otherwise abusing it. A certain amount of regulation is necessary, like traffic lights in areas with traffic congestion. I'm sure many of us can think of at least one spot with a light that does nothing beyond burning electricity, aka over regulation. > I object to this tyranny a.k.a. democracy and Congress! Ha! Well, if > this "majority" on AMradio reflector is anything to go by, the > majority are in favor of it. > Wow, Rob. I hate to use the term 'simple majority' in this case as so far I've seen maybe half a dozen or so people respond favoring this approach. Along with one list reply I've received several private replies from members who just don't want to get involved in banging their heads against the wall in this discussion. I've had to stay close to the phone the last couple days waiting for a call from a trucking company, hence too much time online, tsk tsk. But if you want to think that, again - you're still free to do so. I do know Bernie Sanders would be proud of some of the arguments put forth here for government intervention. He eats that stuff up. And being from the Chicago area, I can understand why you'd see negative reactions to the status quo as objectionable. Another simple fact that is conveniently ignored is the fact that HOAs are not government entities, they are private groups like clubs, in which we are free *not* to participate. They are formed *specially* to control what is and isn't allowed in the group. Again, you need to invoke that Freedom of Choice thing, even make tough choices about what means more to you. Don't like the HOA rules? Don't join. Based on that alone, I can't see how this would get passed. Then again - you picked the perfect time and administration to present it to. Even if Congress says no, the magic pen can find a way. With that, I'm done. Not only is it clear that the 'not able to tell the difference' point has been reached in the discussion, Jim is right - the hard, blunt realities involved in a serious discussion like this are too much for some, and feelings can get hurt. And we don't want that, not in today's world. I just want to stress that, though I disagree with some, it ends there. My observations and opinions are just that. Aside from Common Sense telling me it's okay to disagree and move on, it's really not worth the effort to take or make it personal. Very little in this life is. Todd/KAQ (o: From w5jo at brightok.net Sat Aug 22 11:22:46 2015 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:22:46 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com><14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: Pardon me Todd for quoting you but I want to urge everyone to participate in the public discussion. Many times very good information or opinions are not stated publically and I would like to read them and I feel a lot of others would too. They may provide the foundation for a comment to be filed with the leaders in government. That statement includes both sides of this and other issues. I try to assure everyone they will not be singled out for ridicule nor insults. If I see things going that way, I try to remind everyone that the issue is open to discussion among all of us and I hope no one feels they will be out of place stating their opinions. Remember the written word is cold, lacking the emotion that can be conveyed personally by facial or hand expressions. Try to read everything you write for everyone's understanding of the issue you wish to address. Should you be, truly, offended I will address the situation. Simply send me a message and tell me. I try to be fair to everyone. Remember to stay within the boundaries of the issue and leave personal feelings toward others out. This board is for discussion about how we can further our hobby, especially the AM mode and by extension CW. That does not mean that "only" the AM mode will be discussed. I view the exchanges here as the same as a QSO on the air. Have fun and live it up! Jim W5JO Moderator Todd, KA1KAQ wrote "Along with one list reply I've received several private replies from members who just don't want to get involved in banging their heads against the wall in this discussion. " From wz5q at wz5q.net Sat Aug 22 12:11:32 2015 From: wz5q at wz5q.net (Mike - WZ5Q) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 11:11:32 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: <55D89F34.9010302@wz5q.net> Since everyone is weighing in on this subject, I decided to add my comments. There are allot of good points in this discussion, so many that I will not comment on them all, I will just give my opinions on the matter. HOA's are just that, a Home Owners Association. To live there you have to give up your rights and turn them over to the association. They will tell you what you can or cannot do to your personal property. You must be the good little sheep and follow their mandates as it is written in the bylaws or in their verdicts when judged. It's the price you must pay to reap the benefits they offer. It is a contract that you have to sign and your bound by it. I would never live in a place like that if I have a choice in the matter. I will never give away my freedom to choose and decide what I can or can't do to my personal property bought and paid for. To many people have died to protect that right. I have just recently moved my QTH. When I was looking for the new location, one of the prerequisites was that it did not have any type of HOA, Zoning, or neighborhood restrictions that would impede, prevent, or interfere with whatever I wanted to do to it. I finally found it and am living there now. Of course it is out in the country where such things are normal, as I do not like city life or the people therein. Just a personal preference. I made 2 major mistakes in my life, I married my first wife, then let her talk me into moving into the city. That was the most miserable I have ever been in my life. I got rid of that 1st mistake and the second took care of itself when I moved back to the country. That's good advice for the people that are hams when they are looking for a place to live, but what about the people that are already living in a HOA when they became new hams? This could help them get a fair shake whenever they bring up the issue of antennas to the HOA board, instead of automatically being denied due to bias, megalomania or socialistic attitudes. I am definitely not one for new Government laws to dictate what you can and can't do in this country. I will have to think about if I agree with this proposal or not then make a decision to comment. If it were me, I would put up a hidden dipole till caught. I have found it is usually easier to ask forgiveness then for permission. 73 Mike WZ5Q From garyschafer at largeriver.net Sat Aug 22 12:12:40 2015 From: garyschafer at largeriver.net (Gary Schafer) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 11:12:40 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com><14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: A couple of points that are forgotten here: What about the people that move into one of those places and later decide they would like to become a ham. Should they then be required to move to a non HOA residence? This may be keeping many new potential hams away. Nice real estate is becoming hard to find without restrictions. For about 20 years I lived in a home with HOA restrictions. At that time ham radio was a lower priority with career and good schools for the kids a higher priority. There were few places to buy a new home in the area with out any restrictions that I could afford. 73 Gary K4FMX > -----Original Message----- > From: AMRadio [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of > Todd, KA1KAQ > Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 9:56 AM > To: Rob Atkinson > Cc: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Rob Atkinson > wrote: > > > > > I bet most folks against this have never had to live in an HOA > > controlled development. > > > Good point, Rob. I agree - in fact, I bet 99.99999% of the people out > there > still don't have to live in a home controlled by a HOA unless they want > to. > Why? Freedom of choice. I'll agree that there will be the odd number > here > or there that get a job transfer on the spur of the moment and don't > have > time to look around, but they are the tiny exception. We had less than a > month to find a place before moving to NC, yet managed to avoid the > myriad > of HOA-controlled developments simply by investing a little time and > making > a few choices. I understand now that by today's standards, doing such > can > make you a bad person for having something someone else chooses not to > have, but it is what it is. > > > > They remind me of the hams who run plasma TVs > > and don't care if it makes another ham miserable. The same, I'm okay > > Jack and move if you don't like it mindset. > > > Or an equally-good comparison: the few who want to live in a HOA home > and > sign the contract, then expect the HOA to change the rules to suit them. > The HOA could be compared to any number of private clubs out there, like > the Men's clubs that used to exist in different cities. Then one day the > feminist movement decided to cry discrimination and demand membership. > In > this instance it was an open and shut case based on gender, but they > didn't > want to be members anyway. They just didn't want someone else having > something they didn't like. Bravo. > > > > And the whole intrusive > > government running my life thing--why don't y'all tear up your > > licenses and become pirates? Hey, the government can't tell me > > > whether or not I can run a transmitter on my own property, right? > > > Simple: certain things in a civilized society are classified as > privileges > due to your ability to negatively impact others with your actions. While > you do have the right to apply and participate, you can lose that > privilege > by misusing or otherwise abusing it. A certain amount of regulation is > necessary, like traffic lights in areas with traffic congestion. I'm > sure > many of us can think of at least one spot with a light that does nothing > beyond burning electricity, aka over regulation. > > > > I object to this tyranny a.k.a. democracy and Congress! Ha! Well, > if > > this "majority" on AMradio reflector is anything to go by, the > > majority are in favor of it. > > > > Wow, Rob. I hate to use the term 'simple majority' in this case as so > far > I've seen maybe half a dozen or so people respond favoring this > approach. > Along with one list reply I've received several private replies from > members who just don't want to get involved in banging their heads > against > the wall in this discussion. I've had to stay close to the phone the > last > couple days waiting for a call from a trucking company, hence too much > time > online, tsk tsk. But if you want to think that, again - you're still > free > to do so. I do know Bernie Sanders would be proud of some of the > arguments > put forth here for government intervention. He eats that stuff up. And > being from the Chicago area, I can understand why you'd see negative > reactions to the status quo as objectionable. > > Another simple fact that is conveniently ignored is the fact that HOAs > are > not government entities, they are private groups like clubs, in which we > are free *not* to participate. They are formed *specially* to control > what > is and isn't allowed in the group. Again, you need to invoke that > Freedom > of Choice thing, even make tough choices about what means more to you. > Don't like the HOA rules? Don't join. Based on that alone, I can't see > how > this would get passed. Then again - you picked the perfect time and > administration to present it to. Even if Congress says no, the magic pen > can find a way. > > With that, I'm done. Not only is it clear that the 'not able to tell the > difference' point has been reached in the discussion, Jim is right - the > hard, blunt realities involved in a serious discussion like this are too > much for some, and feelings can get hurt. And we don't want that, not in > today's world. > > I just want to stress that, though I disagree with some, it ends there. > My > observations and opinions are just that. Aside from Common Sense telling > me > it's okay to disagree and move on, it's really not worth the effort to > take > or make it personal. Very little in this life is. > > > Todd/KAQ (o: > ______________________________________________________________ > Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net > AMRadio mailing list > Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ > List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html > List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net > To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with > the word unsubscribe in the message body. > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to garyschafer at largeriver.net From nq5t at tx.rr.com Sat Aug 22 12:52:36 2015 From: nq5t at tx.rr.com (GRANT YOUNGMAN) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 11:52:36 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: <884BADC4-8558-4F2B-BDFE-6C2C45122B9E@tx.rr.com> Well, sure. Except in many areas of the country now virtually ALL new homes are being built in these ?private clubs?. One such ?private club? around here threatened a friend of a friend with a large fine if he did not remove the ?unsightly? basketball net/backboard from the peak of his garage. He did ? he went up on the roof, kicked it down, and then moved. Apparently THIS ?club? didn?t appreciate the major scourge on a neighborhood and the unsightly mess of teens playing basketball in the driveway. Oh, and you also can?t park a pickup truck in your driveway there, either. Their kind enough to let you OWN one as long as it is never seen. HOAs are the creation of control freaks, and in many way are the modern ?neighborhood? equivalent of Jim Crow ... Grant NQ5T > On Aug 22, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Todd, KA1KAQ wrote: > > Another simple fact that is conveniently ignored is the fact that HOAs are > not government entities, they are private groups like clubs, in which we > are free *not* to participate. They are formed *specially* to control what > is and isn't allowed in the group. Again, you need to invoke that Freedom > of Choice thing, even make tough choices about what means more to you. > Don't like the HOA rules? Don't join. Based on that alone, I can't see how > this would get passed. Then again - you picked the perfect time and > administration to present it to. Even if Congress says no, the magic pen > can find a way. From knjhanlon at msn.com Sat Aug 22 13:23:16 2015 From: knjhanlon at msn.com (JAMES HANLON) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 11:23:16 -0600 Subject: [AMRadio] Classic Exchange this September Message-ID: This is a reminder to all of you good folks that the Classic Exchange will be running again this September. In particular, the CW portion of the CX is set for Sunday, September 20 from 9 am EST to 3 am EST on Monday, September 21 AND on Tuesday, September 22 from 9 am EST to 3 am EST on Wednesday, September 23. The Tuesday-Wednesday is a new time slot that has just been added to the traditional CX time on Sunday. The Phone portion of the CX is set for Sunday, September 27 from 9 am EST to 3 am EST on Monday, September 28 AND on Tuesday, September 29 from 9 am EST to 3 am EST on Wednesday, September 30. The Phone portion is open to all modes, AM, FM and SSB, and there are separate frequencies recommended for each mode. In case you haven't heard of the CX, here's a short description from the web page at www.classicexchange.org . You can find a lot more information on the CX such as frequencies, scoring, the exchange, reports, and the CX Newsletter at that site. Click on SEPTEMBER 2015 CX ANNOUNCEMENT for details about the upcoming run. "The CX is a no-pressure contest celebrating the older commercial and homebrew equipment that was the pride and joy of ham shacks many decades ago. The object is to encourage restoration, operation and enjoyment of this older Classic equipment. However, you need not operate a Classic rig to participate in the CX. YOU MAY USE ANY RIG in the contest although new gear is a distinct scoring disadvantage. You can still work the "great ones" with modern equipment. There are new Bonus Scores for using the same model rigs as your Novice station and for using a Hallicrafters receiver with a two number identifier, e.g. S-38, SX-99 and for using a World Radio Lab (WRL) transmitter, e.g. Globe Scout 65." I think it would be a good idea for those of us who are running our low power 1929 or WW2 transmitters on AM to set up a time and frequency schedule for participation in the CX. That would help everyone, both the QRP/OT folks and the "regular" AM ops to get together, and it might result in some interesting DX contacts for the QRP/OT guys. What say? Jim Hanlon, W8KGI From johnmb at nc.rr.com Sat Aug 22 13:46:11 2015 From: johnmb at nc.rr.com (john) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:46:11 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOA's and restrictions Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20150822133842.0355b820@pop-server.nc.rr.com> I live in a suburban neighborhood on large lots (1 to 4 acres@) . There are restrictions, and I read them very very carefully when I moved in. I also have a tribander at 50' a sloper for 40/80/160 and an 80m dipole. They're all in compliance with the restrictions I voluntarily agreed to when I signed the papers. I really sympathize with folks who live in a heavily restricted HOA community but participation in that is voluntary. I've also lived in 2 room apartments with NO access to the outside and still managed to play on HF. If one wants to get on the air , a "no antenna" neighborhood is a PITA but not the end of the world. It's also a voluntary choice. John K5MO III --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com From nbcblue at hotmail.com Sat Aug 22 14:02:33 2015 From: nbcblue at hotmail.com (W. Harris) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 18:02:33 +0000 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 In-Reply-To: <55D87BDE.6090007@comcast.net> References: <55D87BDE.6090007@comcast.net> Message-ID: Why do you have a problem with that? Would you want a neighbours tower to fall on your property and come crashing through your roof? Some seem to think having a ham license should give one special consideration. Bill - K5MIL > To: amradio at mailman.qth.net > From: rbethman at comcast.net > Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:40:46 -0400 > Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 > > > I already have issues with City Zoning stating "If you erect a tower, > YOU must ENSURE that should it fall, it falls on YOUR property only. > > These are sub acre lots. A 50 foot tower exceeds their statement. > > So you do the best you can under the conditions you are stuck with. > > Regards, Bob - N0DGN From nbcblue at hotmail.com Sat Aug 22 14:13:32 2015 From: nbcblue at hotmail.com (W. Harris) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 18:13:32 +0000 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Simple answer, stay away from HOAs if you don't want the restrictions. Did this friend of a friend even read the HOA before he signed it? Bill - K5MIL < Well, sure. Except in many areas of the country now virtually ALL new homes are being built in these ?private clubs?. One such ?private club? around here threatened a friend of a friend with a large fine if he did not remove the ?unsightly? basketball net/backboard from the peak of his garage. He did ? he went up on the roof, kicked it down, and then moved. Apparently THIS ?club? didn?t appreciate the major scourge on a neighborhood and the unsightly mess of teens playing basketball in the driveway. Oh, and you also can?t park a pickup truck in your driveway there, either. Their kind enough to let you OWN one as long as it is never seen. HOAs are the creation of control freaks, and in many way are the modern ?neighborhood? equivalent of Jim Crow ... < Grant NQ5T From jayw5jay at cox.net Sat Aug 22 14:19:34 2015 From: jayw5jay at cox.net (Jay Bromley) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:19:34 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <7qvx1r01545oxQM01qvy0F> References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> <7qvx1r01545oxQM01qvy0F> Message-ID: <003201d0dd07$191090d0$4b31b270$@cox.net> Todd wrote>>>>Good point, Rob. I agree - in fact, I bet 99.99999% of the people out there still don't have to live in a home controlled by a HOA unless they want to. Why? Freedom of choice. I'll agree that there will be the odd number here or there that get a job transfer on the spur of the moment and don't have time to look around, but they are the tiny exception. We had less than a month to find a place before moving to NC, yet managed to avoid the myriad of HOA-controlled developments simply by investing a little time and making a few choices. I understand now that by today's standards, doing such can make you a bad person for having something someone else chooses not to have, but it is what it is. Hi Todd, I will agree with you on that basic statement that 99.99999% of the people out there still don't have to live in a home controlled by a HOA unless they want to. However when one is in a family, their careers and jobs matter as well. When I was single that was another matter. I guess one could say that they didn't have to get married and have a family. My wife has a great job and one I wouldn't dream of saying my way or the highway. The benefits are quite good as well and we need those as I have some health issues! My wife Kathy was the one not willing to give up looking for a place I could put up a tower! When we lived in an HOA, I waited for 10 years to get the kids off to college before we got serious about moving so I could do ham radio with nice antennas. She is one in a million, loves hams and ham radio! We looked for 5 years hard in the area she could commute to. Our other house was an hour and 45 minutes away. So she stay up near her work during the week. It was like being single during those 5 years and I feel like those years were wasted somewhat due to the love of ham radio. In the end, we found a fairly nice place that is outside of the surrounding cites. Still there are restrictions in the County we live in and around the country the county restrictions are becoming like HOAs. Also the nearby town has be able to put us in their planning area, after we moved. Right now that town doesn't have any antenna restrictions that I know of and we have check. My point is, these HOA like restrictions are coming to everyone. Maybe not in my lifetime, but they are coming fast to a county near you, hi. I have worked hard to promote ham radio where I could, taught classes, etc. In the end, I see so many just give up the hobby from it being too hard now to get a simple dipole or vertical up. With the bands sucking and it looks like from the predictions it will only get worse. All of us need to be concentrating on the low bands below 40m. Which means longer and higher antennas to work right! Putting up a hidden antenna even for 40m is very hard for some folks, especially new hams in these HOAs. They always want a do all antenna they see in QST that I know that are not going to have great luck with. I know one contester that had a huge antenna system in his attic that did fairly well, but after I nearly set my apartment on fire once, I cringed at seeing his system in the attic. When I taught ham classes, the main thing I would focus on each class was antenna, antenna, antenna, is the most important thing for a ham operator. Plus they are fun to play and experiment with. Gezz, I can see the headlines now, ham op is killed because he got electrocuted in attic or fell through his roof. How sad if one wanted to learn antennas if all he had was the inside of his roof area while 100 F degrees outside I never mentioned to students, that their only recourse to get on the air was a hidden antenna or magnetic loop. That would have been hugely discouraging. You need to start with the basics and that usually means how to construct a dipole. There are a few questions about a dipole in each test. When I got into this hobby over 40 years ago, I never heard one person from the outside world call an antenna or tower ugly. Wires were everywhere, ditto for poles. Eye sores was folks that kept junk in the yard in a untidy way and never took care of anything. We laugh when we heard other areas in the US telling folks what color to paint their houses. Even today just outside nearly all these Mc Mansions HOAs there is all these eye sores providing them things they need or use, but no complaints from the HOA board. Huge power poles, cell mono poles dress as trees, street lights. We all pay for those, not just the HOA folks. To me if the hobby is going to survive you need to have antennas. Even magnetic loops are not above the HOA's wrath. Some even allow dish TV antennas, but no ham radio antennas of any kind. I find this whole thing fascinating, but sad at the same time! Yes there is some negations you can work out before buying, but that doesn't stop the law suits from anyone wanting to stop an activity you love. I guess this all boils down to your life experiences. IMHO, if this is not stop at some point it will reach everyone, including the non HOA folks out in the country. Just Google some of the guys that have fought the counties in recent years after their neighbors complained. These guys did what some of you are saying, they moved out in the country to build their dream station. Still some didn't win the battle and moved on after years of legal battles and money spent. I wish no one ill feelings on this, even all the ones that disagree with me. I know I strayed all over the map after my beginning comment about family. Love all you folks! 73 de jay/w5jay.. From nbcblue at hotmail.com Sat Aug 22 14:24:36 2015 From: nbcblue at hotmail.com (W. Harris) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 18:24:36 +0000 Subject: [AMRadio] HOA's and restrictions In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20150822133842.0355b820@pop-server.nc.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20150822133842.0355b820@pop-server.nc.rr.com> Message-ID: I know several hams who live in restricted "no outside antenna" areas and do just fine with dipoles in the attic. Bill - K5MIL > Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:46:11 -0400 > To: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net > From: johnmb at nc.rr.com > Subject: [AMRadio] HOA's and restrictions > > I live in a suburban neighborhood on large lots (1 to 4 acres@) . There > are restrictions, and I read them very very carefully when I moved in. I > also have a tribander at 50' a sloper for 40/80/160 and an 80m dipole. > They're all in compliance with the restrictions I voluntarily agreed to > when I signed the papers. > > I really sympathize with folks who live in a heavily restricted HOA > community but participation in that is voluntary. I've also lived in 2 room > apartments with NO access to the outside and still managed to play on HF. > If one wants to get on the air , a "no antenna" neighborhood is a PITA but > not the end of the world. It's also a voluntary choice. > > John K5MO > From jayw5jay at cox.net Sat Aug 22 14:30:51 2015 From: jayw5jay at cox.net (Jay Bromley) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] It is not just an HOA issue! Message-ID: <003d01d0dd08$ac8441d0$058cc570$@cox.net> http://www.co.larimer.co.us/planning/planning/telecomm_towers.pdf https://www.arrl.org/files/file/maodade.pdf Just an FYI, if you are inside a county, you are not safe from being regulated. These are just a few that popped after doing a Google. It is endless! 73 de jay/w5jay.. From nbcblue at hotmail.com Sat Aug 22 14:41:20 2015 From: nbcblue at hotmail.com (W. Harris) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 18:41:20 +0000 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: If your 50 ft. or whatever tower would not fall on any other's property, then what is your issue with the restriction? I ask again, would you want a neighbour to erect a structure that if it fell it would fall on your property damaging your house? You mention the fence. Is this the neighbours fence? And you would gladly compensate them for any damages that would occur, very kind of you as that is what you should, but now the neighbour has a damaged fence he must spend time to have repaired even though you are paying for it. So just what is wrong with a restriction that says if you put up a structure that should it fall it will not fall on someone else's property? Seem very reasonable to me. We have too much of this "I am a ham radio operator and I should be allowed to do whatever I want." Bill - K5MIL References: <55D87BDE.6090007@comcast.net> Message-ID: You should know all of that is possible when you signed up to wear the Military Uniform. Thanks for your service. Bill - K5MIL > To: amradio at mailman.qth.net > From: rbethman at comcast.net > Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:40:46 -0400 > Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. 1301 > > Quoting another persons comments: > > While one wears a Military Uniform, you get NO CHOICE where you get > orders where you go next. > > Yet you can, (I Have!), be stationed on a particular duty station, while > the Housing is OFF that duty station. > > Choice - ZERO, result - NO Amateur Radio operation where you are housed. > > Only option is to operate on the duty station while you are on it. That > means while you are performing your duties. > > Regards, Bob - N0DGN > ______________________________________________________________ From ka1kaq at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 15:20:40 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:20:40 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 11:22 AM, wrote: > Pardon me Todd for quoting you but I want to urge everyone to participate > in the public discussion. No problem, Jim. I don't mind a bit and it's a good point. In my case it's just starting to feel like a dog chasing parked cars or such. I'm not going to change Rob or Don or Lee's minds, and I certainly can understand folks on either side of the conversation who look in and say 'they just refuse to see it'. But yes - so long as it can remain civil, there's no reason not to and every reason to discuss something that will be affecting an increasing portion of the amateur community. I did manage to get two loads of limbs and brush taken to the landfill to be ground up, as well as the household garbage and recycling done in the meantime. Just taking a cool down break before heading out for some Fun with Farmall. ~ Todd/KAQ From ka1kaq at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 15:40:30 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:40:30 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <884BADC4-8558-4F2B-BDFE-6C2C45122B9E@tx.rr.com> References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> <884BADC4-8558-4F2B-BDFE-6C2C45122B9E@tx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, GRANT YOUNGMAN wrote: > Well, sure. Except in many areas of the country now virtually ALL new > homes are being built in these ?private clubs?. > I disagree and have seen otherwise in my travels. And as mention, in what is supposedly the fastest growing area of the country, we were able to find a home without restrictions and land in a short period of time relatively easily *once we accepted* that there would be trade offs. Now, if what you're referring to are urban areas like Dallas, Houston, NYC, etc, then sure - chances of finding something around there are probably slim. No different than right around Raleigh/Durham/Wake Forest and so on. But it's your choice to live there. Move to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, any number of places with loads of open space, if that's truly what you want. Otherwise, accept the trade offs for the choices you make and live with them. I just spent a couple hours making two round trips to dispose of yard waste because my wife doesn't like the giant scorch mark that burning the pile leaves in the yard. Two hours out of my Saturday for living out here is fine. I'd probably spend that in traffic down around Raleigh on Rte 1. > HOAs are the creation of control freaks, and in many way are the modern > ?neighborhood? equivalent of Jim Crow ... > Just the opposite. HOAs are groups of people who give up control and agree on what they will and won't accept in their neighborhood, within the confines of the law. Substitute 'biker gang' or 'club' for ham radio and think how well you'd enjoy having a pack of loud bikers hanging out next door to your $375K house. You like ham radio and outside antennas. They like motorcycles. It's just as much Jim Crow for them. They'd have just as much right to reasonable accommodation as you. This is how the rest of society already is. HOAs arose to fill a need for those who were willing to abdicate control in favor of living in an environment they prefer over the all-inclusive everyday society. Ferguson MO comes to mind. It's still your choice. When all else fails, choose something you can live with. Don't choose something you don't want or like - move to a different area if it's so bad there. I did, and as anyone who knows me will tell you - I'm no Einstein. If I can figure it out, anyone can. Come on in, the water's fine out here in the sticks. The malls just aren't as convenient. ~ Todd/KAQ From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 16:11:18 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:11:18 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOA's and restrictions In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20150822133842.0355b820@pop-server.nc.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20150822133842.0355b820@pop-server.nc.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 12:46 PM, john wrote: > If one wants to get on the air , a "no antenna" neighborhood is a PITA but not > the end of the world. It's also a voluntary choice. > It all depends on how you want to define "get on the air." You can get on the air with a light bulb for an antenna. In a famous QST article, N6BT the founder of Force-12 wrote about it. I think the title was "Everything works" or maybe it was "Anything works" The message was that your enjoyment of operating is proportional to the quality of your antenna. And it is true if you want to be piss weak and have 2 minute QSOs you can probably operate from a HOA controlled development. If you want to strap and be armchair copy and enjoy radio (in the way I think most AM ops want to enjoy it), weeeeelllll, you probably gonna have to do more than hide away a crappy little gutter antenna. 73 Rob K5UJ From ka1kaq at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 16:12:55 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:12:55 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <003201d0dd07$191090d0$4b31b270$@cox.net> References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> <003201d0dd07$191090d0$4b31b270$@cox.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Jay Bromley wrote: > > > Hi Todd, > I will agree with you on that basic statement that 99.99999% of the people > out there still don't have to live in a home controlled by a HOA unless > they > want to. However when one is in a family, their careers and jobs matter as > well. When I was single that was another matter. Hey there Jay - Ain't that the truth! I love being married and having a child, but I do miss my 'whatever/where ever/when ever freedom some days. In fact, I get email asking why I haven't been on the air lately. A little 2 yr old princess has other plans for my time. So I've moved to other interests and put ham radio on the back burner for now. Because there's a lot to be said for taking care of the family and keeping the Mrs. happy. It all falls under 'choices', just like marriage. When you get married, you give up the freedoms of the single life for something (hopefully) better. And I don't doubt that anyone with a loving wife and family would choose what was best for them over a hobby. You'd be stupid and incredibly selfish not to, and the resulting divorce might cost you all your radio gear as well. Life is about choices, plain and simple.Sometimes they're easy, many times they're tough. I understand that between the media and politicians we've been led to believe that we don't have to choose or sacrifice, just let the government take care of you and it will all work out. They've done a good job convincing some that they truly are 'entitled' in today's world. The example you relate is one that I may be facing in the future. We've been looking at a potential career move to another large, urban area. On a recent flight I talked with a fellow who lived there. He told me to be prepared to live an hour or more out from the city if we wanted any kind of land, privacy, freedom from HOAs and so on. His description is very much like you related: an apartment in the city during the week and home on the weekends. He said this is what a lot of folks there do, it's the choice you make when you move there if you don't want to live in a cracker box development with postage stamp lots controlled by HOAs. We know that going in, so there's no reason to whine about it if we decide to go there. Another thing you mentioned in a previous post warrants further comment. The issue of non-HOA zoning restrictions. I've spoke with several people who came up against this. In every case they were either granted a variance once they explained the situation or the requirements were changed. More often than not, towns base their zoning off a neighboring community and get *zero* input from the amateur community. Simply put, they're clueless about it. So while it might require a little time and legwork to set things right, it's usually not impossible. PRB-1 was written just for such cases, not for private contracts that individuals freely agree to. Always good to research an area before moving there and with the internet, there's no excuse not to. Lastly, Charlie mentioned the developer who made changes to remove or alter restrictions while he was still building, to better accommodate. Another worthwhile path to pursue for those who want to live in the HOA environment. Much easier than signing and then deciding to complain and fight later. Of course, the demand for ham-friendly communities is probably almost non-existent, or surely some enterprising developer would've seized on it by now. As far as the hobby surviving, Jay, I think we have far bigger things to worry about here than HOAs. In fact, the HOAs would be smart just to let hams put up a wire antenna and be done with it. Our hobby isn't far behind WWII vets when it comes to the rate of decline. Younger generations don't even know what radio is beyond internet radio. Kinda makes you wonder how many of these folks yelling to special exceptions have ever done anything to invite more interest into the hobby. Like you, I've spent endless hours trying to promote the hobby through demonstrations, displays, interviews and so on, along with almost 25 yrs in the public service side with different state and federal agencies. And none of that entitles me to any special treatment over someone else. It's just what some of us chose to do. BTW, I still have your audio mods in the table drawer next to the big transmitter. (o: That's for all you've done and continue to do for ham radio, Jay. Enjoy your weekend. ~ Todd/KAQ From nq5t at tx.rr.com Sat Aug 22 16:15:28 2015 From: nq5t at tx.rr.com (GRANT YOUNGMAN) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:15:28 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> <884BADC4-8558-4F2B-BDFE-6C2C45122B9E@tx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1C04638A-1D5A-4324-98A2-F6BBB96769A4@tx.rr.com> > On Aug 22, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Todd, KA1KAQ wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM, GRANT YOUNGMAN > wrote: > Well, sure. Except in many areas of the country now virtually ALL new homes are being built in these ?private clubs?. > > I disagree and have seen otherwise in my travels. And as mention, in what is supposedly the fastest growing area of the country, we were able to find a home without restrictions and land in a short period of time relatively easily *once we accepted* that there would be trade offs. Now, if what you're referring to are urban areas like Dallas, Houston, NYC, etc, then sure - chances of finding something around there are probably slim. No different than right around Raleigh/Durham/Wake Forest and so on. > > But it's your choice to live there. Move to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, any number of places with loads of open space, i Oh, come on. Montana? Really? Kansas? They go hunting for Progressives in Kansas and hang them when they?re bored on Saturday nights. So you see, there are other reasons to live or not live in some locale. You can ?disagree? all you want, but you don?t live HERE. Perhaps we?ve just traveled to different places? We?ve become a nation of narcissists who think their lives are ?ruined" if they see an outside antenna, or if a neighbor has the complete audacity to want their 14 year old kid to be able to play some hoops in the driveway, or a guy down the street has a front door that doesn?t match the three acceptable front door colors in the community, or their marriage is destroyed because someone else gets married that they just don?t think is ?right", or the guy that picked the tomato they're happily chowing down on doesn?t meet someone?s requirement for legality, or ?... It?s everywhere. Groups of people that cannot be happy unless everyone marches in perfect lock step with their compulsion to control what someone else can and cannot do. That?s all it?s about. You can argue that ?well, you have a choice? all you want. That doesn?t change the root of the problem. I gag every time I hear something about ?freedom? ? because invariably, it means THEIR freedom to make sure you do whatever it is THEY think is ok. Enough of this. HOAs are an evil construct. There should be NO REASON to have to make a ?choice? ? about an antenna, or a door, or hoops, or the size of your truck in the driveway. A ham antenna is really the least of the problem. Grant NQ5T (Going off to worry about other things. I?ve made my opinions known to my Senators and Representative ? not that that will have much effect, given the lobbyists and donors that buy their votes). From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 16:29:29 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:29:29 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <1C04638A-1D5A-4324-98A2-F6BBB96769A4@tx.rr.com> References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> <884BADC4-8558-4F2B-BDFE-6C2C45122B9E@tx.rr.com> <1C04638A-1D5A-4324-98A2-F6BBB96769A4@tx.rr.com> Message-ID: A lot of the noise about an antenna has to do with how suddenly it changes the landscape, and the people doing a freak out over it weren't consulted. The psychology is basically something happened they didn't control, and that makes them uncomfortable. People like to think they are in charge of everything that happens in their surroundings. They get a sense of security from that. 4 weeks later they don't even notice the change or no longer care. It has blended into the landscape "noise." One tactic that illustrates this is "Let's have a meeting to discuss this. I have a whole day on Saturday next month." By then, 6 weeks later, 9 out of 10 don't show. They no longer care having gotten used to the new structure and have other priorities. Then there are the unsightly poles with antenna wires. But the street is lined with wood poles holding power, cable, telephone etc. What about them. Oh, they're okay because I need them. Uh huh. Rob K5UJ On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 3:15 PM, GRANT YOUNGMAN wrote: > > We?ve become a nation of narcissists who think their lives are ?ruined" if they see an outside antenna, or if a neighbor has the complete audacity to want their 14 year old kid to be able to play some hoops in the driveway, From ka1kaq at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 16:30:16 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:30:16 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <1C04638A-1D5A-4324-98A2-F6BBB96769A4@tx.rr.com> References: <644C8DED-DF27-426E-8ED9-D92FD51578F4@aol.com> <14f551a81ba-172d-c045@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> <884BADC4-8558-4F2B-BDFE-6C2C45122B9E@tx.rr.com> <1C04638A-1D5A-4324-98A2-F6BBB96769A4@tx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 4:15 PM, GRANT YOUNGMAN wrote: > > Oh, come on. Montana? Really? Kansas? They go hunting for Progressives > in Kansas and hang them when they?re bored on Saturday nights. > I think that's a bit of an....exaggeration perhaps? Montana is full of people from California who have set about doing the same things you cite about the Dallas area. Just the same, I see why you want to stick around a city environment. Just understand that the progressive movement you mention is largely responsible for the current HOA situation. The developers build them, sure, but the city people who live there make the rules. If it didn't sell, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We?ve become a nation of narcissists who think their lives are ?ruined" if > they see an outside antenna, or if a neighbor has the complete audacity to > want their 14 year old kid to be able to play some hoops in the driveway > Yep, I don't disagree with you there, Grant. Back when traditional values mattered, none of the nonsense you listed amounted to anything. As we've 'progressed' to the point of telling people what they can or can't say, that we must accept all behavior from all groups regardless, basically removing accountability, we've ended up right where we are. But you're wrong - we *do* still have to make choices, every day. I'm sorry if your beliefs, political or otherwise, have led you to think otherwise. At least it explains your frustration much better. The rest of the post has more to do with political views and zero to do with ham radio, so let's leave it there. We're back to the point of chasing parked cars. I'm going outside with my wife now to set up a tee pee in the yard. Then I have some upkeep to do on the '51 Farmall mower. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. ~ Todd/KAQ From amradio at mailman.qth.net Sat Aug 22 21:16:58 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (W4AWM via AMRadio) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:16:58 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> Haven't we hauled this subject through the dirt long enough? My mailbox is full! 73, John, W4AWM -----Original Message----- From: Todd, KA1KAQ To: GRANT YOUNGMAN Cc: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service Sent: Sat, Aug 22, 2015 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 4:15 PM, GRANT YOUNGMAN wrote: > > Oh, come on. Montana? Really? Kansas? They go hunting for Progressives > in Kansas and hang them when they?re bored on Saturday nights. > I think that's a bit of an....exaggeration perhaps? Montana is full of people from California who have set about doing the same things you cite about the Dallas area. Just the same, I see why you want to stick around a city environment. Just understand that the progressive movement you mention is largely responsible for the current HOA situation. The developers build them, sure, but the city people who live there make the rules. If it didn't sell, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We?ve become a nation of narcissists who think their lives are ?ruined" if > they see an outside antenna, or if a neighbor has the complete audacity to > want their 14 year old kid to be able to play some hoops in the driveway > Yep, I don't disagree with you there, Grant. Back when traditional values mattered, none of the nonsense you listed amounted to anything. As we've 'progressed' to the point of telling people what they can or can't say, that we must accept all behavior from all groups regardless, basically removing accountability, we've ended up right where we are. But you're wrong - we *do* still have to make choices, every day. I'm sorry if your beliefs, political or otherwise, have led you to think otherwise. At least it explains your frustration much better. The rest of the post has more to do with political views and zero to do with ham radio, so let's leave it there. We're back to the point of chasing parked cars. I'm going outside with my wife now to set up a tee pee in the yard. Then I have some upkeep to do on the '51 Farmall mower. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. ~ Todd/KAQ ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to w4awm at aol.com From w4rl at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 22 21:27:36 2015 From: w4rl at bellsouth.net (Robert) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:27:36 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> References: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> Amen, Brother John! Good grief! The original post was good enough for me to fish instead of cutting bait. 73 Robert W4RL On 8/22/2015 8:16 PM, W4AWM via AMRadio wrote: > Haven't we hauled this subject through the dirt long enough? My mailbox is full! > > 73, > > John, W4AWM > > > > > > > > > From w5sum at comcast.net Sun Aug 23 06:33:37 2015 From: w5sum at comcast.net (w5sum at comcast.net) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 05:33:37 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> References: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Yeah the subject got worn out, I was considering drinking drano if I had to read another LOL W5SUM -----Original Message----- From: Robert Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 8:27 PM To: amradio at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. Amen, Brother John! Good grief! The original post was good enough for me to fish instead of cutting bait. 73 Robert W4RL On 8/22/2015 8:16 PM, W4AWM via AMRadio wrote: > Haven't we hauled this subject through the dirt long enough? My mailbox > is full! > > 73, > > John, W4AWM > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to w5sum at comcast.net From ka1kaq at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 10:57:39 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:57:39 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Now, now, boys....as Jim said, discussion on this topic is fine and encouraged, so long as it remains civil. Like joining a HOA, list membership is voluntary, as is the choice of which message to read or delete. No one is making anyone read anything, and deleting is a part of receiving email - lists or otherwise. I don't know of any list on here that guarantees you'll like or enjoy every post or thread. Some bore me to sleep. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, and remember Ronnie - Drano is really bad for your breath. (o: ~ Todd, KA1KAQ/4 On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:33 AM, wrote: Yeah the subject got worn out, I was considering drinking drano if I had to > read another LOL > > W5SUM > From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 17:00:56 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:00:56 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Todd you have saying this is your last post on the topic for the past 36 hours. I wish I had the time to post 1000 word screeds. You are the one keeping it alive. You all who are so madly in love with people running your lives from some HOA committee can go live in one. Heck, there's a gigantic one covering an island about 90 miles south of Key West. Learn Spanish and move. There's an even better one but it's farther away just north of the DMZ in Korea. Learn Korean and head west. Pros: You get to be real rare DX. Cons: You can't get on the air. But you get that in any HOA so it should be alright. 73 Rob K5UJ From hbrnut at suddenlink.net Sun Aug 23 17:58:14 2015 From: hbrnut at suddenlink.net (WA5VGO) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:58:14 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <55DA41F6.5040000@suddenlink.net> I'm sure I've read something this absurd before, but I don't remember when. Get a grip. We're discussing ham radio, not fighting communism. Darrell > Todd you have saying this is your last post on the topic for the past > 36 hours. I wish I had the time to post 1000 word screeds. You are > the one keeping it alive. > > You all who are so madly in love with people running your lives from > some HOA committee can go live in one. Heck, there's a gigantic one > covering an island about 90 miles south of Key West. Learn Spanish > and move. There's an even better one but it's farther away just north > of the DMZ in Korea. Learn Korean and head west. Pros: You get to > be real rare DX. Cons: You can't get on the air. But you get that > in any HOA so it should be alright. > > 73 > > Rob > K5UJ > > > From ka1kaq at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 20:07:47 2015 From: ka1kaq at gmail.com (Todd, KA1KAQ) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:07:47 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: References: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > You all who are so madly in love with people running your lives from > some HOA committee can go live in one. Yes! NOW you're getting it Rob - couldn't agree more! That's what I've been saying from the start: those who want to live there can. Those who don't want to, don't have to. Sounds like you choose not to. You're a wise man. Yep, you caught me. I did respond several more times after saying I was done. Didn't want to be rude to those who had addressed questions or comments my way. Normally my online time is very limited. Weeks or months go by without posting, then I'm stuck by the computer and phone for several days dealing with business and get a chance to jump in. Just lucky timing, I guess. Have a shipment arriving next week from out west that will keep me busy for the foreseeable future, that along with my daughter starting preschool. But I'll still try to drop in from time to time to say hello. I promise. Especially now that I know you're watching. (o: Been outside pulling stumps and small trees with a 1951 Farmall Super A. She won't win any beauty contests but made in the USA and still going strong 64 years later! 73 & have a good day OM - ~ Todd, KA1KAQ/4 From amradio at mailman.qth.net Sun Aug 23 22:09:08 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (KC9CDT via AMRadio) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:09:08 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <14f5d77612c-172d-fd76@webprd-a31.mail.aol.com> I get it...let's keep EVERYTHING exactly the same in the world, let's don't be open to any changes even if it makes sense...let's just not support anyone thinking that something is wrong & need changing. Let's not support our fellow Hams to make changes for the betterment of the hobby. Unbelievable! I sure hope this represents a small minority of thinking out there with all Hams..... Sure does not represent the ones I talk to on the air regularly. 73, Lee -----Original Message----- From: Todd, KA1KAQ To: Rob Atkinson Cc: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service Sent: Sun, Aug 23, 2015 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] HOAs fighting antenna Parity Act proposal H.R. On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > You all who are so madly in love with people running your lives from > some HOA committee can go live in one. Yes! NOW you're getting it Rob - couldn't agree more! That's what I've been saying from the start: those who want to live there can. Those who don't want to, don't have to. Sounds like you choose not to. You're a wise man. Yep, you caught me. I did respond several more times after saying I was done. Didn't want to be rude to those who had addressed questions or comments my way. Normally my online time is very limited. Weeks or months go by without posting, then I'm stuck by the computer and phone for several days dealing with business and get a chance to jump in. Just lucky timing, I guess. Have a shipment arriving next week from out west that will keep me busy for the foreseeable future, that along with my daughter starting preschool. But I'll still try to drop in from time to time to say hello. I promise. Especially now that I know you're watching. (o: Been outside pulling stumps and small trees with a 1951 Farmall Super A. She won't win any beauty contests but made in the USA and still going strong 64 years later! 73 & have a good day OM - ~ Todd, KA1KAQ/4 ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to kc9cdt at aol.com From k4kyv at charter.net Sun Aug 23 23:08:05 2015 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:08:05 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Licensed hams opposed to H.R.1301 and S 1685 Message-ID: <005e01d0de1a$188e9da0$49abd8e0$@charter.net> >From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" > But if you buy a piece of property and sign a contract not to do something, you are bound by it. That's what contracts are for. They govern specific situations, just like zoning laws do. It's amazing how people can so conveniently forget this part when it involves something they want. There is nothing in the proposed Parity Act that would change that, something that anti-parity-rule hams and others don't seem to grasp. It would merely discourage contracts, under the long-settled principle of federal pre-emption, from being written in such a way as to exclude reasonable outdoor antennas without due consideration of the specific situation. The proposed legislation is based on precedent already in place, the 'Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule'. See https://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule Parity Act legislation would merely expand existing federal pre-emption to cover amateur radio, hence its name, placing licensed hams in 'PARITY' with OTA TV and satellite users. HOA interests fought OTARD tooth and nail, just as they are now fighting this legislation, but it passed Congress, the president signed it, and it has never been overturned by any federal court, including SCOTUS. > It certainly explains the current political administration and prevailing mentality in the country far better than I ever could... > After all, the nanny state mentality has worked wonders for this country for the last 7 years. What does the "current political administration" have to do with any of this? We haven't a clue what their position on this issue might be because it hasn't reached that level yet. Todd, I'm surprised to see you, of all people, bring partisan politics into this conversation , while as administrator/moderator of another forum, you have always been so quick to delete posts and lock threads whenever the discussion turned even slightly political. Let's leave partisan and presidential politics out of this; it has no place here. > Yes, that's exactly it, Don. I want no one else to enjoy amateur radio. > It's more fun to talk to myself. Which is exactly what we'll both eventually be doing from the comfort of our country estates a few years hence, after 99% of the would-be new hams couldn't get on HF because of HOA and deed restrictions, and the rest of the old timers lost their right to erect antennas when some family, health or financial situation forced them to move from their old QTH. > Or an equally-good comparison: the few who want to live in a HOA home and sign the contract, then expect the HOA to change the rules to suit them... > Your argument is based on a false premise: that someone bought property then had this nonsense forced on them... Something else to keep in mind: this mess has the potential to do considerable future damage to the amateur community when we're seen as a bunch of sniveling crybabies who sign on the dotted line, then whine to the government to intervene on our > behalf when we decide we don't want to follow the contract we agreed to... Your argument here is based on property rights after the fact. I think in the real world that's referred to as Buyers Remorse. Please understand this is not all about people who bought property now whinging and whining to wiggle out of restrictions they initially agreed to. It's about the near-universal existence of default no-antenna provisions in the first place, more about people trying to find a piece of property with good schools for their kids and not an hour or two commute to and from work every day, after being confronted with the same antenna prohibition in property after property, restrictions often worded identically. It is hoped that the Parity Act would demand a valid reason for antenna prohibitions and restrictions, on a case-by-case basis, while pre-empting model, one-size-fits-all rules, written by anonymous lawyers and distributed nationwide by way of the real estate industry by people who likely never gave antennas a second thought until they encountered the default provisions embedded in the model. Here is the full text of the bill. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1685/text > These folks are the ones HOAs are built for, not those who want old junk in their yard, towers around, or a firing range in their backyard. Hence the 'agreement' or contract. Aha! Once again that same old broken-record, the bogus argument that amateur radio antennas = gigantic dangerous unsightly towers and beams, junk cars, untended lawns, loud motorcycles and overfilled garbage cans. HOAs are built by and large for the real estate corporation that built the subdivision development, or as in some localities, a city or county government ordinance requires a HOA for each new development to relieve them of the responsibility of enacting and enforcing zoning regulations. HOAs formed before the fact, come with the residences as a package deal, along with all the default prohibitions mindlessly copied verbatim from a standard model. > Then again - your approach encourages suppression of rights by abdicating them to the government in favor of some immediate gratification. Much more Soviet-esque. We already have > the liberty you're claiming has been taken so long as we don't foolishly sign it away. Or get the government involved. I'd no more prefer to live under tyrannical rules privately imposed than under tyrannical rules government imposed. At least we might vote out the government people who imposed them. Furthermore, consider what HOAs ultimately depend on to enforce sanctions against those who violate or ignore their rules: GOVERNMENT POLICE POWER. > My argument is about the personal freedom to choose... My argument is the one for personal freedoms and personal rights. A classic Orwellian example of 'Doublethink' as in '1984'. That's what the Parity Act is ultimately about: personal freedoms, personal rights and the personal freedom to choose. Don k4kyv --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From k4kyv at charter.net Mon Aug 24 02:40:36 2015 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:40:36 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Dead Reflector Message-ID: <007101d0de37$c8eb8470$5ac28d50$@charter.net> > From: W4AWM via AMRadio > Haven't we hauled this subject through the dirt long enough? My mailbox is full! > Amen, Brother John! Good grief! The original post was good enough for me to fish instead of cutting bait. > b73 Robert W4RL > Yeah the subject got worn out, I was considering drinking drano if I had to read another LOL > W5SUM Amazing how dead the AM Reflector can become, sometimes going for days or even a week or more without a single posting, but when an interest-grabbing topic like, for example, the recent Parity Act thread comes up, postings come out of the woodwork in abundance. But then, almost immediately, we get whinging and whining about clogged in-boxes. Well, what's the point of maintaining this list if no-one uses it? What's the point of subscribing to a list if you don't want to receive messages from it? Some subscribers must prefer a dead reflector instead. If a filled-up in-box is the problem, there are a couple of available solutions. The simplest is to subscribe in digest mode. That way, instead of each and every posting from the reflector arriving as a separate e-mail, the postings are stored together until enough messages accumulate to make a digest, which is then sent out as a single e-mail with the full text of all the accumulated messages listed in the order of arrival. That way, it's easy to open the digest, scroll through the list and read the messages of interest while ignoring the rest. And this will appear as a single entry in the in-box. Sometimes it may take a while for enough messages accumulate to form a digest, but your mailbox is never flooded. A second solution is available with most e-mail programs. You can create a folder, name it something like "AM Radio Mailing List", and set it up so that e-mail from a given address such as this reflector will arrive in that folder instead of the regular in-box. This has the advantage that messages appear instantly as soon as they are transmitted, but you have to take the trouble to set up the folder, and it takes longer to open separate individual messages in a folder than to scroll through the text in the digest. I subscribe to several, including this one, the Broadcast, Topband, RFI, Tower Talk, Antique Wireless Association, Broadcast Transmitters 4 Ham, Foreign Language Teachers lists, and a couple others. If I received individual messages from each list, postings would be arriving every few seconds throughout the day and my in-box would indeed be too full to manage. I choose the digest route, making it easy to keep track and monitor the messages I receive. Another pet peeve of mine with mailing lists is that some folks hit the reply button to a message of interest without editing or snipping the other stuff. So you may get one posting with a short answer to a question, followed by the full text of the entire digest for that day. Sometimes you will see multiple exchanges with each posting quoting the entire digest. Sometimes a message becomes so cluttered that it is difficult to find the actual response in the midst of all the extraneous lines of text. Don k4kyv --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From jayw5jay at cox.net Mon Aug 24 09:01:47 2015 From: jayw5jay at cox.net (Jay Bromley) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:01:47 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Antenna Battles Message-ID: <000401d0de6d$08f85b80$1ae91280$@cox.net> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk0po-fbccY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp_RcE1bsbE Here are some interesting videos on how others view ham radio antennas both in and out of the city. 73 de w5jay/jay.. From rbethman at comcast.net Mon Aug 24 10:24:30 2015 From: rbethman at comcast.net (rbethman) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:24:30 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Sir Chester's clear command of the King's English In-Reply-To: <005e01d0de1a$188e9da0$49abd8e0$@charter.net> References: <005e01d0de1a$188e9da0$49abd8e0$@charter.net> Message-ID: <55DB291E.1010303@comcast.net> Kudos to Don Chester! A simple yet very eloquent restatement of what this proposal really is about and not about! This proposed Legislation simply puts forth the concept of "Reasonable Accommodation" in those areas where there are indeed HOAs and CCRs. It does not propose that "I am a ham radio operator and I should be able to do whatever I want". As was directed toward me in "mostly" one on one off list messages. I do not have this idea in mind at all! The time will come when I will finally have my XYL retire. We plan to relocate significantly South of here, (Manassas, VA), and it would entail attempting to locate a home that I hope would allow "modest" wire antennas. Failing that, I would sit down with whomever is head of the HOA/CCR, and propose an antenna scheme that would allow this hobby to continue, yet not be something that would be an eyesore to the community. Perhaps one or two that would be on the roof, yet behind the ridge, therefore not "unsightly". This is precisely as described by Mr. Chester in a very fine manner. It would also be in line with the proposed Legislation. I do not now, or ever will ask that my hobby impact others by resembling an aluminum porcupine bristling with all sort of antennas that stick out like a sore thumb. Thank You Don! Regards, Bob - N0DGN On 8/23/2015 11:08 PM, Donald Chester wrote: > There is nothing in the proposed Parity Act that would change that, > something that anti-parity-rule hams and others don't seem to grasp. It > would merely discourage contracts, under the long-settled principle of > federal pre-emption, from being written in such a way as to exclude > reasonable outdoor antennas without due consideration of the specific > situation. The proposed legislation is based on precedent already in place, > the 'Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule'. See > https://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule Parity Act > legislation would merely expand existing federal pre-emption to cover > amateur radio, hence its name, placing licensed hams in 'PARITY' with OTA TV > and satellite users. HOA interests fought OTARD tooth and nail, just as they > are now fighting this legislation, but it passed Congress, the president > signed it, and it has never been overturned by any federal court, including > SCOTUS. From amradio at mailman.qth.net Wed Aug 26 10:55:29 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (KC9CDT via AMRadio) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:55:29 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] LOTS of vintage gear for sale...moving to FL Message-ID: <14f6a81b55d-4fed-acd3@webprd-m27.mail.aol.com> Hi All, OK, I have lots of superb vintage gear FS. We are moving to FL to a smaller place. I am listing it with asking price, without details to save bandwidth here. Please inquire as to all details, photos etc if genuinely interested...All prices are open to reasonable offers....Thanks. 1) Hallicrafters SX-115 $1200.00 2) Hallicrafters HT-32B $400 3) National HRO-60 Beautiful condition. $500 4) Collins R-388 $300 5) Heath DX-60B and VFO $150. 6) Viking Ranger II $450. 7) Viking ranger I $300. 8) Hallicrafters SR-150 with power supply $450. 9) Hallicrafters SR 400 Cyclone II (kind of rare) with Power supply $1000. 10) 2- Hallicrafters PS-150 power supplies (rebuilt) $150 each 11) Hallicrafters R-47 speaker $40 12) Drake R-4C SHERWOOD High S/N $1200. 13) Drake T-4xc High S/N $400 14) Drake L-4B with PS upgrade $1200. 15) Drake R-4B shiney copper excellent cond. $ 450. 16) Collins KWM-2 RE $1200. 17) Collins 30-L1 RE $900 18) Collins 75S-3 4700 19) Collins 32S-1 $400 20) 2 - Collins 32S-3 $700 each 21) 2 - Collins 516-F2 RE $400 each 22) Collins 312-B4 RE $350 23) Collins 312-B3 RE $300 24) 2- Drake MS-4 $75 each 25) Collins XTAL pack $150 26) 2- Collins plastic trim rings (new) $50 each 27) Heathkit HO-10 scope (Drake type covers) $50 28) Heathkit SB614 scope $50 29) HP 8640B Sig Gen $350 30) HP 410B $100 31) HP 410C $250 32) HP 1745 scope $100 33) Eico 235 VTVM $30 34) Heathkit AC line monitor $20 35) Ten-Tec 307 speaker $75 36) AAD DFD 103 digital display $80 37) HP 200CD oscillator $50 38) Alpha 91b AMP with extra tubes $2400 Please contract off list. Shipping is not included and some items will be pickup only or you arrange pack/ship. Postal MO, cashiers check, cash(if pickup) or PayPal only if doing a gift payment. (You can ask why if you e-mail me) Please let me know if you have interest/questions etc. Thanks, 73, Lee KC9CDT good in QRZ. 260-403-6936 Lee Simmonds Summit DCS LLC 260-799-4077 Office 260-403-6936 Cell From w4wsz at embarqmail.com Wed Aug 26 11:07:38 2015 From: w4wsz at embarqmail.com (Bob. W4WSZ) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:07:38 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] NC-270 Manual Message-ID: <003301d0e010$f3ca3bc0$db5eb340$@embarqmail.com> I found an original manual for the NC-270 if anyone needs it. No telling what else is stashed away in these file cabinets. 73, Bob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From qedconsultants at embarqmail.com Fri Aug 28 09:23:58 2015 From: qedconsultants at embarqmail.com (Bernie Doran) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:23:58 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] arrl band change proposal In-Reply-To: <55DA41F6.5040000@suddenlink.net> References: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> <55DA41F6.5040000@suddenlink.net> Message-ID: I am puzzled by the arrl wanting to change the lower end of 80 meters yet again, taking away 50 kc of phone. I see arguments that CW nets had to move below 3,600, why? They could operate anywhere! Wed. a bit before 10 AM EDT I turned on the rx to 40 meters and was surprised to hear dozens of high speed CW stations then realized they were calling cq test. Another contest, then at 10 AM the entire CW portion went dead, only hiss and crackle. Nothing to be found any where. Seems like some only operate contests. Also concerned that the arrl will propose a band width limit to conserve space. What are we saving it for? Most of the day there is little or no activity. Bernie W8RPW From manualman at juno.com Fri Aug 28 10:03:41 2015 From: manualman at juno.com (manualman at juno.com) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:03:41 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] arrl band change proposal Message-ID: This past mid week we had major solar storm that brought A and K indexes up into the double digits. Many of the bands during the day had nothing but hiss and crackle. On Wednesday August 26, there were two CW contests: SKCC Sprint and CWops Mini-CWT Test. Lots of amateurs only live for contests. Pete, wa2cwa On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:23:58 -0400 "Bernie Doran" writes: > > Wed. a bit before 10 AM EDT I turned on the rx to 40 meters and was > > surprised to hear dozens of high speed CW stations then realized > they were > calling cq test. Another contest, then at 10 AM the entire CW > portion went > dead, only hiss and crackle. Nothing to be found any where. Seems > like > some only operate contests. > > Also concerned that the arrl will propose a band width limit to > conserve > space. What are we saving it for? Most of the day there is little > or no > activity. Bernie W8RPW From oldradio at comcast.net Fri Aug 28 10:06:26 2015 From: oldradio at comcast.net (oldradio at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [AMRadio] arrl band change proposal - What are we saving it for? In-Reply-To: References: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> <55DA41F6.5040000@suddenlink.net> Message-ID: <651878080.10569387.1440770786126.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Because they can. We're supposed to be impressed, I guess. 73, John ?Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success.? - Ernest Shackleton, 4 Burlington St., 1913 - Thousands applied. http://www.spinningyarninantarctica.com/spinning-yarn-about-antarctica.html http://www.south-pole.com/p0000097.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernie Doran" Also concerned that the arrl will propose a band width limit to conserve space. What are we saving it for? Most of the day there is little or no activity. Bernie W8RPW From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Fri Aug 28 13:15:13 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:15:13 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] arrl band change proposal In-Reply-To: References: <14f5821401c-f85-d4fb@webprd-m102.mail.aol.com> <55D92188.8020304@bellsouth.net> <55DA41F6.5040000@suddenlink.net> Message-ID: 1. ARRL can't do anything except propose stuff to FCC. Only FCC can really do something. Wait and file comments with FCC. The outrageous thing in my opinion is the lumping of "phone/image" in with any analog voice sub-band in the U.S. Any digital, any at all that is other than traditional analog or FSK machine code (i.e. analog SSTV, and RTTY) should be segregated from analog voice. I'd support the change involving 3650 band-edge if the digital LIDS who use slopbucket rigs to QRM AM had to move to below 3650, but if ARRL insists on conflating "phone" with digital pictures transmitted with slopbucket rigs to "phone/image," then I'm out. Digital and analog anything should be segregated, By the way, since digital stations don't have to furnish any kind of analog ID, I have no way of determining if the noise I hear is a ham, an intruder, or a leaky cable TV line. Therefore, I elect to ignore the noise and carry on with my operations. 2. A lot of contester CW ops are incapable of genuinely operating CW, i.e. sitting and having a ragchew QSO copying CW in their heads. The old timers can do it but many of these new contest operators can only manage a few bits and pieces of CW, and a lot of them now have computers for sending and receiving. Work them with a bug, even in a contest and they can't handle it. 73 Rob K5UJ On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Bernie Doran wrote: > I am puzzled by the arrl wanting to change the lower end of 80 meters yet > again, taking away 50 kc of phone. I see arguments that CW nets had to move > below 3,600, why? They could operate anywhere! > > Wed. a bit before 10 AM EDT I turned on the rx to 40 meters and was > surprised to hear dozens of high speed CW stations then realized they were > calling cq test. Another contest, then at 10 AM the entire CW portion went > dead, only hiss and crackle. Nothing to be found any where. Seems like > some only operate contests. > > Also concerned that the arrl will propose a band width limit to conserve > space. What are we saving it for? Most of the day there is little or no > activity. Bernie W8RPW From w4wsz at embarqmail.com Fri Aug 28 14:12:49 2015 From: w4wsz at embarqmail.com (Bob. W4WSZ) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:12:49 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] OD3 Needed Message-ID: <001001d0e1bd$26d360c0$747a2240$@embarqmail.com> If anyone in the group has an oversupply of OD3's, I am in need of a couple to complete restoration of an RCA Modulation Monitor. Thanks, Bob w4wsz at embarqmail.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From manualman at juno.com Fri Aug 28 14:41:45 2015 From: manualman at juno.com (manualman at juno.com) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:41:45 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] arrl band change proposal Message-ID: ARRL tried that roughly 10 years ago; it was called the "regulation by bandwidth" proposal which would basically separate all the digital/image stuff from the analog stuff. But, as we all know, it got beat down by "concerned" amateurs. Pete, wa2cwa On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:15:13 -0500 Rob Atkinson writes: > 1. ARRL can't do anything except propose stuff to FCC. Only FCC > can > really do something. Wait and file comments with FCC. > > The outrageous thing in my opinion is the lumping of "phone/image" > in > with any analog voice sub-band in the U.S. Any digital, any at all > that is other than traditional analog or FSK machine code (i.e. > analog > SSTV, and RTTY) should be segregated from analog voice. I'd > support > the change involving 3650 band-edge if the digital LIDS who use > slopbucket rigs to QRM AM had to move to below 3650, but if ARRL > insists on conflating "phone" with digital pictures transmitted > with > slopbucket rigs to "phone/image," then I'm out. Digital and > analog > anything should be segregated, > > By the way, since digital stations don't have to furnish any kind > of > analog ID, I have no way of determining if the noise I hear is a > ham, > an intruder, or a leaky cable TV line. Therefore, I elect to > ignore > the noise and carry on with my operations. > > Rob > K5UJ From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Fri Aug 28 16:09:57 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:09:57 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] arrl band change proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hogwash. I am writing about modes; you are writing about "bandwidth," a completely different and bogus issue. 73 Rob K5UJ On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:41 PM, wrote: > ARRL tried that roughly 10 years ago; it was called the "regulation by > bandwidth" proposal which would basically separate all the digital/image > stuff from the analog stuff. But, as we all know, it got beat down by > "concerned" amateurs. From w5jo at brightok.net Fri Aug 28 16:20:15 2015 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:20:15 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] arrl band change proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <78B01F27B07F434CB91C51358698A01A@JimPC> Rob, bandwidth was mentioned earlier by another poster, Pete was giving some of the history. Jim W5JO -----Original Message----- hogwash. I am writing about modes; you are writing about "bandwidth," a completely different and bogus issue. On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:41 PM, wrote: > ARRL tried that roughly 10 years ago; it was called the "regulation by > bandwidth" proposal which would basically separate all the digital/image > stuff from the analog stuff. But, as we all know, it got beat down by > "concerned" amateurs. From k4kyv at charter.net Fri Aug 28 16:59:49 2015 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:59:49 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] arrl band change proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002001d0e1d4$7ab7da10$70278e30$@charter.net> > ARRL tried that roughly 10 years ago; it was called the "regulation by bandwidth" proposal which would basically separate all > the digital/image stuff from the analog stuff. But, as we all know, it got beat down by "concerned" amateurs. > Pete, wa2cwa Not exactly. In fact, just the opposite. The ARRL plan was a re-hash of Johnny Johnston's infamous Docket 20777 from the mid 1970s, which would have DELETED all specific references to modes of emission and re-defined the sub-bands in terms of occupied bandwidth. Below 28 mHz, the maximum allowable transmitted bandwidth in what we now know as the 'phone bands' would have been 3.5 kHz, effectively precluding double sideband AM. Fortunately, the AM community with the help of others in those pre-internet days mounted a letter-writing campaign, and the FCC was flooded with comments overwhelmingly in opposition, and the bandwidth proposal was ultimately dismissed. The ARRL's redux would have been slightly better, but still would have posed a significant threat to AM. The League proposed to define sub-bands in terms of NECESSARY bandwidth instead of OCCUPIED bandwidth, meaning that the actual transmitted bandwidth of a signal would have been less strictly regulated, but the problem with the ARRL proposal was that in what is now the 'phone bands' would have been defined in terms of something like 2700 Hz necessary bandwidth. To accommodate AM, which has a necessary bandwidth of at least 6 kHz, a footnote was proposed to specifically permit double sideband phone emissions in the 2700 kHz sub-bands. The problem with that is that the continued legality of AM would have reduced to hanging on by a single footnote. It's much easier to sometime in the future delete a simple footnote, than to re-write an entire rule to outlaw a specific mode. Under the ARRL's bandwidth proposal, ANY mode with a given necessary bandwidth would be permitted within that sub-band. In the 2700 Hz sub-band (what we now call the 'phone band'), SSB, analogue SSTV, RTTY, digital SSTV, and any digital data mode that could be transmitted within that bandwidth, would have been permitted. Besides the AM community, another group that originally opposed Docket 20777 back in the 1970s was CW operators, since under that proposal, tone modulated CW would have been re-legalised; some amateurs were seriously entertaining the idea of removing the power supply filter components from their CW rigs to transmit pre-1929 style 'rectified a.c.', if that proposal had gone through. Reportedly, following the rejection of the 20777 bandwidth proposal, Johnston was guest speaker at some amateur radio club, where he expressed sour grapes over the full Commission's decision, saying something to the effect, 'Here we had a good proposal, but it was killed by a group of hams who want to keep on operating the same transmitters they have been using for 25 years'. One thing the ARRL's planned petition to move the sub-band boundary to 3650 has going against it, is that it would mean the FCC would have to reverse their recent rulemaking decision to expand the phone band down to 3600. Bureaucratic regulatory agencies like the FCC rarely rule against themselves and agree to an about-face, unless the original decision was made many years previously or else they are directed by a federal court. To renege on a major rule change as recent as the expansion of the 75/80m phone band would be to effectively admit they made a bad decision in the first place, and therefore their wisdom might be less than infinite. Don k4kyv --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From kenw8ek at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 10:10:35 2015 From: kenw8ek at gmail.com (Ken, W8EK) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:10:35 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Power Supplies from 25 amps to 1 amp FS Message-ID: <55E1BD5B.7070200@gmail.com> Various Power Supplies For Sale: Pyramid Phase III, PS-25, 25 amp power supply: This power supply will furnish up to 25 amps. The voltage is adjustable from the front panel from 4.5 to 15 V DC. It includes both an ammeter and a voltmeter on the front panel. The output connections are on the front, making this a really great bench supply, as well as great for powering a rig. This unit works fine, and looks very nice. It may be new. It is still in its original box, with the packing material and paper work. The box is marked $299.50! Buy this one for only $100. Radio Shack 25 Amp, 13 V DC Power Supply: The Radio Shack 22-510 is a 13.8 V DC switching power supply rated at 25 amps continuous duty. Note the 100% duty cycle rating! It should easily power most any modern HF transceiver. It is small and relatively light weight. The front has a lighted power switch. The back has the 13 V DC output, the 120 V AC input cord, and a fan. This unit works 100%, and looks extremely nice -- close to new. It includes paper work -- operating manual, parts list, schematic, and circuit board layout. Only $65. Astron RS-12 A Astron rates this supply at 12 amps intermittent, and 9 amps continuous. It is ideal for 2 meter or dual band rigs. With paper work for $35. Staco RPS-6, 6 amp regulated power supply Ideal for 25 watt VHF or dual band rigs. $30 Stinger 6 amp regulated power supply Similar to RPS-6 above. $30 EVG Model 10-395, 4 amp, 13 V DC power supply: This supply is regulated, with switch and pilot bulb on the front, and binding post output on the rear panel, along with the fuse. It works fine and looks good. $28 Micronta 22-120 A, 13 V DC power supply: This supply is rated at 2.5 amps. It is well regulated. It has a switch and LED light on the front, with a circuit breaker and output terminals on the back. The case (left & right side & top) is basically all a heat sink. This one works fine and looks like new. No scratches. $30 Homebrew Power Supply: This power supply is in a very nice gray and black enclosure with binding posts for the output on the front, along with a pilot bulb and power switch. The back panel has a fuse and the regulator. It looks to be good for about 1.5 amps at 12 V DC. It works fine and looks really great. No scratches or defects. $15 Other power supplies: "Open Frame" Regulated Power supply This power supply is a real brute. It produces +12 V DC, + 5 V DC, and also - 12 V DC. There are separate voltage adjust pots for each voltage, as well as current limiting adjustments. Regulation is superb; less than 0.01 V variation from no load to loaded. I can not find a manufacturer marked on it, but the info on the PC board is great. It appears to be 1982 vintage from the markings on the parts. The transformer is about a 5 inch cube, and it includes a 43,000 mfd cap, among others. Very heavy duty! Only $30. It will just barely fit into a post office large flat rate priority mail box for shipping. Kepco Variable Bench Power Supply: This is an ideal bench power supply! It is a Kepco Model ABC 40-0.5, which means that it will produce from zero up to 40 V DC at up to 1/2 amp. Great for the bench. The voltage is adjustable with a 10 turn pot from close to zero, up to about 40 volts. There is a fairly large analog meter that reads the voltage. There is also current limiting built in that is adjustable from about 100 ma to up to about 700 ma. The same meter that reads voltage can be switched to read current, or short circuit current (the point that the current limit is set). In addition, there are connections on the back to allow remote sensing and remote programming. This is a quality regulated power supply! This particular unit works 100%, and looks extremely nice. $85 "Wall Wart" Power Supplies: All of these are "regular" wall warts - not the new switching type that create all sorts of noise in your receiver. Use one of these, and you will not need to put up with all of the interference. There are many uses for the 12 volt variety. These all have 2.1 mm coaxial connectors with center positive. 12 V DC at 1000 ma $17 12 V DC at 800 ma $15 12 V DC at 625 ma $14 12 V DC at 500 ma $12 12 V DC at 300 ma $10 13.5 V DC at 800 ma $16 12 Volt AC at 1 amp - Note it is AC, not DC. $15 9 Volt DC at 500 ma This unit was used on a MFJ 422 keyer, but will also power other items needing 9 V DC. It has a 2.5 mm male plug on it, tip positive. $12 Icom BC-25 / Santec HT Charger Same thing, with slightly different tags. Used with Icom IC-2AT, 3AT, 4AT, IC-32, and many other Icoms. Used with Santec HT-1200, ST-142, ST-144, and other Santecs. This is the same as the original wall wart that came with these HTs. 2.1 mm coaxial power plug output, with center +. Still in box, unused. $15 APC Back UPS 400 Uninterruptible Power Supply: We all know that this is the season when we get a lot of thunderstorms, plus the possibility of hurricanes and tornadoes. When that happens the power can be very unreliable, and have many surges and spikes on it. Because of this, your electronics should have an Uninterruptible Power Supply, or UPS. The ones made by APC are considered the best. The APC Back UPS 400 is ideal to place between the power outlet and your electronics, including your ham equipment. It is rated at 400 VA, which should be adequate for most applications. This particular unit works fine and looks really great -- close to new. It has recently had a new battery. Only $30. Noise Filter and Surge Suppressor: This unit is still in its Radio Shack (#61-2327) box, never used. It has connections for a computer network (LAN, RJ-45 connector), the AC power, and for phone lines (RJ-11 connector), and provides noise filtering and surge suppression on each. It even includes $25,000 insurance against surges. Maximum power rating is 1875 Watts, or 15 amps. Noise filtering is listed at 40 db. This unit is new, in its original box, with its original paper work. $12 I also have many other accessories available such as many different types of microphones, HTs, VHF and UHF rigs, antennas, etc. Just too many things to list here. Please e-mail your requests. Prices do not include shipping from Florida. In all cases, pick up near Ocala, FL would be great. Thanks. 73, Ken, W8EK Ken Simpson E-mail to W8EK at FLHam.net or W8EK at arrl.net Voice Phone (352) 732-8400 From k4kyv at charter.net Mon Aug 31 14:04:24 2015 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:04:24 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development Message-ID: <002e01d0e417$787ad140$697073c0$@charter.net> From: "Jay Bromley" Regardless of your situation, Jay, you have always been able to send a good signal here, even on 160. > Sadly county laws are now expanding to antenna regulations at a rapid pace. > So even if you have a north 40 today and feel safe from antenna regulations, eventually you might get to experience what a > typical HOA ham goes through. That's true. I have had hams living on farm acreage way out in the middle of nowhere, tell me that they decided to put up a tower or two and discovered they were under county-wide tower and antenna regulations just as strict as zoning and HOA rules in suburban developments, even when the antenna or tower wouldn't be visible beyond the property boundaries. > There are NO trees here either for me to string wires to. That's the problem in many sub-divisions. The developers come in and buy up wooded farm acreage no longer being used for agriculture. The first thing they do to prepare the site is to bulldoze down all the old mature trees and level the ground to make the plot look like a desert. Then boxes made of ticky-tacky that all look the same are thrown up, and puny little saplings planted in a lawn freshly sodded over bare clay. I can't see how anyone could present a legitimate objection to a property owner stringing a piece of wire between tall trees on his own property, but problem is, there are no suitable trees, and the only choice for even a simple dipole would be a mast or two, which would bring the wrath of every busy-body and HOA Nazi within a half mile radius. I live on 100 acres and I'm glad I put my tower up 35 years ago before all this nonsense had taken such a foothold throughout the country. As far as I know, there are no county-wide tower restrictions here, but you never know what the future might bring. Since mine would be long ago grandfathered in place, anyone trying to force me to take it down would be successful over my dead body. Don k4kyv --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From amradio at mailman.qth.net Mon Aug 31 14:10:17 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (Don Merz via AMRadio) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development In-Reply-To: <002e01d0e417$787ad140$697073c0$@charter.net> References: <002e01d0e417$787ad140$697073c0$@charter.net> Message-ID: <657902694.3526070.1441044617140.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Yes, but disgusting, unsightly cell phone towers that ruin every scenic view from every hilltop in the USA are OK.?Sometimes I just don't understand the decisions we collectively make....73 de N3RHT From: Donald Chester To: amradio at mailman.qth.net Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 2:04 PM Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development From: "Jay Bromley" Regardless of your situation, Jay, you have always been able to send a good signal here, even on 160. > Sadly county laws are now expanding to antenna regulations at a rapid pace. > So even if you have a north 40 today and feel safe from antenna regulations, eventually you might get to experience what a > typical HOA ham goes through. That's true. I have had hams living on farm acreage way out in the middle of nowhere, tell me that they decided to put up a tower or two and discovered they were under county-wide tower and antenna regulations just as strict as zoning and HOA rules in suburban developments, even when the antenna or tower wouldn't be visible beyond the property boundaries. > There are NO trees here either for me to string wires to.? ? That's the? problem in many sub-divisions.? The developers come in and buy up wooded farm acreage no longer being used for agriculture. The first thing they do to prepare the site is to bulldoze down all the old mature trees and level the ground to make the plot look like a desert. Then boxes made of ticky-tacky that all look? the same are thrown up, and puny little saplings planted in a lawn freshly sodded over bare clay. I can't see how anyone could? present a legitimate objection to a property owner stringing a piece of wire between tall trees on his own property, but problem is, there are no suitable trees, and the only choice for even a simple dipole would be a mast or two, which would bring the wrath of every busy-body and HOA Nazi within a half mile radius. I live on 100 acres and I'm glad I put my? tower up 35 years ago before all this nonsense had taken such a foothold throughout the country.? As far as I know, there are no county-wide tower restrictions here, but you never know what the future might bring. Since mine would be long ago grandfathered in place, anyone trying to force me to take it down would be successful over my dead body. Don k4kyv --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to n3rht at yahoo.com From amradio at mailman.qth.net Mon Aug 31 14:14:43 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (Don Merz via AMRadio) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:14:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [AMRadio] 3 el Beam On Fiberglas Pole?? In-Reply-To: <002e01d0e417$787ad140$697073c0$@charter.net> References: <002e01d0e417$787ad140$697073c0$@charter.net> Message-ID: <1540309633.3478382.1441044883810.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Save me from making a mistake here. I am about to put up a used tri-bander--a 3 element hy gain TH3-MK4. I have this set of ex-military fiberglas poles that fit together to make one tall pole. Each section is roughly 5 feet tall. can I safely and reliably use 3 of these poles as one 15 foot pole to hold up this antenna? Or must I buy and use a metal mast?Any help appreciated. 73 de N3RHT From: Donald Chester To: amradio at mailman.qth.net Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 2:04 PM Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development From: "Jay Bromley" Regardless of your situation, Jay, you have always been able to send a good signal here, even on 160. > Sadly county laws are now expanding to antenna regulations at a rapid pace. > So even if you have a north 40 today and feel safe from antenna regulations, eventually you might get to experience what a > typical HOA ham goes through. That's true. I have had hams living on farm acreage way out in the middle of nowhere, tell me that they decided to put up a tower or two and discovered they were under county-wide tower and antenna regulations just as strict as zoning and HOA rules in suburban developments, even when the antenna or tower wouldn't be visible beyond the property boundaries. > There are NO trees here either for me to string wires to.? ? That's the? problem in many sub-divisions.? The developers come in and buy up wooded farm acreage no longer being used for agriculture. The first thing they do to prepare the site is to bulldoze down all the old mature trees and level the ground to make the plot look like a desert. Then boxes made of ticky-tacky that all look? the same are thrown up, and puny little saplings planted in a lawn freshly sodded over bare clay. I can't see how anyone could? present a legitimate objection to a property owner stringing a piece of wire between tall trees on his own property, but problem is, there are no suitable trees, and the only choice for even a simple dipole would be a mast or two, which would bring the wrath of every busy-body and HOA Nazi within a half mile radius. I live on 100 acres and I'm glad I put my? tower up 35 years ago before all this nonsense had taken such a foothold throughout the country.? As far as I know, there are no county-wide tower restrictions here, but you never know what the future might bring. Since mine would be long ago grandfathered in place, anyone trying to force me to take it down would be successful over my dead body. Don k4kyv --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to n3rht at yahoo.com From amradio at mailman.qth.net Mon Aug 31 14:19:21 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (KC9CDT via AMRadio) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:19:21 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development In-Reply-To: <657902694.3526070.1441044617140.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <14f84fc24c3-6c6-8ecd@webprd-a14.mail.aol.com> Oh....That's all about money! 73, Lee -----Original Message----- From: Don Merz via AMRadio To: Donald Chester ; amradio Sent: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 2:12 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development Yes, but disgusting, unsightly cell phone towers that ruin every scenic view from every hilltop in the USA are OK. Sometimes I just don't understand the decisions we collectively make....73 de N3RHT From: Donald Chester To: amradio at mailman.qth.net Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 2:04 PM Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development From: "Jay Bromley" Regardless of your situation, Jay, you have always been able to send a good signal here, even on 160. > Sadly county laws are now expanding to antenna regulations at a rapid pace. > So even if you have a north 40 today and feel safe from antenna regulations, eventually you might get to experience what a > typical HOA ham goes through. That's true. I have had hams living on farm acreage way out in the middle of nowhere, tell me that they decided to put up a tower or two and discovered they were under county-wide tower and antenna regulations just as strict as zoning and HOA rules in suburban developments, even when the antenna or tower wouldn't be visible beyond the property boundaries. > There are NO trees here either for me to string wires to. That's the problem in many sub-divisions. The developers come in and buy up wooded farm acreage no longer being used for agriculture. The first thing they do to prepare the site is to bulldoze down all the old mature trees and level the ground to make the plot look like a desert. Then boxes made of ticky-tacky that all look the same are thrown up, and puny little saplings planted in a lawn freshly sodded over bare clay. I can't see how anyone could present a legitimate objection to a property owner stringing a piece of wire between tall trees on his own property, but problem is, there are no suitable trees, and the only choice for even a simple dipole would be a mast or two, which would bring the wrath of every busy-body and HOA Nazi within a half mile radius. I live on 100 acres and I'm glad I put my tower up 35 years ago before all this nonsense had taken such a foothold throughout the country. As far as I know, there are no county-wide tower restrictions here, but you never know what the future might bring. Since mine would be long ago grandfathered in place, anyone trying to force me to take it down would be successful over my dead body. Don k4kyv --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to n3rht at yahoo.com ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to kc9cdt at aol.com From w5jo at brightok.net Mon Aug 31 14:24:11 2015 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:24:11 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development In-Reply-To: <657902694.3526070.1441044617140.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <002e01d0e417$787ad140$697073c0$@charter.net> <657902694.3526070.1441044617140.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004B6A7EDB0B4930BB48E5D79C42E257@JimPC> What I detest is the new thing in windmills. They are a blight on the landscape yet zoning boards, counties and the state government love them. I guess the reason is they are a source of revenue, they certainly aren't pretty nor all that useful. Jim W5JO -----Original Message----- Yes, but disgusting, unsightly cell phone towers that ruin every scenic view from every hilltop in the USA are OK. Sometimes I just don't understand the decisions we collectively make....73 de N3RHT From rbethman at comcast.net Mon Aug 31 14:24:53 2015 From: rbethman at comcast.net (rbethman) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:24:53 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] 3 el Beam On Fiberglas Pole?? In-Reply-To: <1540309633.3478382.1441044883810.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <002e01d0e417$787ad140$697073c0$@charter.net> <1540309633.3478382.1441044883810.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55E49BF5.403@comcast.net> Don, Those particular fiberglass poles have plastic ends, and will NOT tolerate that antenna. The only military sections that I know that will handle such a load, with appropriate guying are the aluminum ones that are made to slip one over the other. The fiberglass poles are "intended" to support camouflage netting over an artillery piece, a troop emplacement, and other such things. Regards, Bob - N0DGN On 8/31/2015 2:14 PM, Don Merz via AMRadio wrote: > Save me from making a mistake here. I am about to put up a used tri-bander--a 3 element hy gain TH3-MK4. I have this set of ex-military fiberglas poles that fit together to make one tall pole. Each section is roughly 5 feet tall. can I safely and reliably use 3 of these poles as one 15 foot pole to hold up this antenna? > Or must I buy and use a metal mast?Any help appreciated. > 73 de N3RHT From amradio at mailman.qth.net Mon Aug 31 14:29:39 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (KC9CDT via AMRadio) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:29:39 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development In-Reply-To: <004B6A7EDB0B4930BB48E5D79C42E257@JimPC> Message-ID: <14f850594a7-6c6-8f85@webprd-a14.mail.aol.com> Farmers RUN the commissioners, Farmers make big bucks on the windmill thing...so the strong arm the commissions to approve them. Actually a LOT of the commissioners ARE the farmers. And yet you can't put up a antenna in your own back yard. Some stuff needs to change in this country...LOTS of stuff. Be sure & VOTE. 73, Lee -----Original Message----- From: w5jo To: amradio Sent: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 2:26 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development What I detest is the new thing in windmills. They are a blight on the landscape yet zoning boards, counties and the state government love them. I guess the reason is they are a source of revenue, they certainly aren't pretty nor all that useful. Jim W5JO -----Original Message----- Yes, but disgusting, unsightly cell phone towers that ruin every scenic view from every hilltop in the USA are OK. Sometimes I just don't understand the decisions we collectively make....73 de N3RHT ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to kc9cdt at aol.com From manualman at juno.com Mon Aug 31 14:36:06 2015 From: manualman at juno.com (manualman at juno.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:36:06 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development Message-ID: Around my urban area, many of the cell towers are disguised as tall trees. From any distance, unless you're standing almost next to them, you can't tell the difference. Pete, wa2cwa On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Don Merz via AMRadio writes: > Yes, but disgusting, unsightly cell phone towers that ruin every > scenic view from every hilltop in the USA are OK. Sometimes I just > don't understand the decisions we collectively make....73 de N3RHT From manualman at juno.com Mon Aug 31 14:40:04 2015 From: manualman at juno.com (manualman at juno.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:40:04 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Fw: Re: Ham antennas in suburban development Message-ID: See: http://waynesword.palomar.edu/faketree.htm Pete, wa2cwa --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: To: amradio at mailman.qth.net Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:36:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development Around my urban area, many of the cell towers are disguised as tall trees. From any distance, unless you're standing almost next to them, you can't tell the difference. Pete, wa2cwa From rbethman at comcast.net Mon Aug 31 14:45:38 2015 From: rbethman at comcast.net (rbethman) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:45:38 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Cell Towers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E4A0D2.3060302@comcast.net> Guess some folks don't notice this breed of cell tower. Personally, the dang things stick out like a big sore thumb! There are some in this urban area, and I instantly spot them from a half mile away! Someone needs to send them to a course on camouflage! Then perhaps they wouldn't be such an eyesore! Regards, Bob - N0DGN On 8/31/2015 2:36 PM, manualman at juno.com wrote: > Around my urban area, many of the cell towers are disguised as tall > trees. From any distance, unless you're standing almost next to them, you > can't tell the difference. > > Pete, wa2cwa From m0ghq at outlook.com Mon Aug 31 14:53:41 2015 From: m0ghq at outlook.com (Max Cotton) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:53:41 +0100 Subject: [AMRadio] Cell Towers In-Reply-To: <55E4A0D2.3060302@comcast.net> References: , <55E4A0D2.3060302@comcast.net> Message-ID: In the UK the cellphone companies get around the local councils by quoting power in dBW so it does not appear to be so high, I only found this out when I had to apply for planning for an antenna and said max power would be 400W, they threw a fit and said that is over ten times the cellphone tower output, well it was until I pointed out the dBW trick! We have the 'tree' towers too especially in rural areas, they all have big green boxes underneath them.73, Max M0GHQ > To: amradio at mailman.qth.net > From: rbethman at comcast.net > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:45:38 -0400 > Subject: [AMRadio] Cell Towers > > Guess some folks don't notice this breed of cell tower. > > Personally, the dang things stick out like a big sore thumb! > > There are some in this urban area, and I instantly spot them from a half > mile away! > > Someone needs to send them to a course on camouflage! Then perhaps they > wouldn't be such an eyesore! > > Regards, Bob - N0DGN > > > On 8/31/2015 2:36 PM, manualman at juno.com wrote: > > Around my urban area, many of the cell towers are disguised as tall > > trees. From any distance, unless you're standing almost next to them, you > > can't tell the difference. > > > > Pete, wa2cwa > > ______________________________________________________________ From amradio at mailman.qth.net Mon Aug 31 18:21:48 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (W4AWM via AMRadio) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:21:48 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development Message-ID: The only restriction in my subdivision is that the tower cannot be over 200 feet high! Can you say obstruction lights and paint??? 73, John, W4AWM In a message dated 8/31/2015 2:12:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, amradio at mailman.qth.net writes: Yes, but disgusting, unsightly cell phone towers that ruin every scenic view from every hilltop in the USA are OK. Sometimes I just don't understand the decisions we collectively make....73 de N3RHT From amradio at mailman.qth.net Mon Aug 31 21:33:07 2015 From: amradio at mailman.qth.net (CL in NC via AMRadio) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:33:07 -0700 Subject: [AMRadio] BW, HOA's and the ARRL Message-ID: <1441071187.72134.YahooMailBasic@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I don't know why the ARRL pursues the things they do sometimes. Since I do find and restore older tube gear and use it on CW and AM, I took their bandwidth proposal as an affront to my interests, wondering why they seem to want to outlaw AM. The HOA stuff I'm ambivalent about, I don't live in that type of place, but not sure if Martin Niem?ller's observation will apply in future situations in the long run. Perhaps the 4's, 5's, and some of the 7's, 8"s and possibly the 2's in Western NY have observed, since the ARRL is located in the epicenter of east coast liberal, government knows best thinking, that thinking seems to be dictating what they want this hobby to change into, and you better like it. The membership is about 1/5 the licensed hams, but the League seems to have become masters of the grand plan. I've been a member for 46 years now, and one thing I have noticed, for many years, you never see them print a negative correspondence letter that is critical of the organization or their plans. To me, they way they are ruling leads to the world of Ozymandias. Charlie, W4MEC in NC From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Mon Aug 31 22:01:41 2015 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:01:41 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Ham antennas in suburban development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: cell phone towers don't bother me unless one is so close by it poses an RFI problem for me. I really don't see antennas as a partisan political issue in the U.S. I think both political parties are equally apt to cause problems or provide relief. The Amateur Radio Parity bill in congress now is sponsored by members of congress from both parties. I am dismayed to find out about unincorporated county antenna rules. I suspect the problems begin when a ham is located in sight of some homes occupied by city transplants who never want their landscape vista to change. Wherever you go you have to make sure you have no tract homes nearby, no "gentlemen farmers" and such, no one with a vinyard, just grain silos or cattle and farm homes. then put up all your antennas you will ever need ASAP before things can change out from under you. It is just one thing right after the other. BPL, followed by RFI from you name it, plasma TVs and variable speed furnace motors seem to be the worst, then came grow lights--now there is some ham battling some guy who has decorative spot lights up in trees 70 feet high and they are powered by square wave supplies that are completely unfiltered with 1/4 wave 75 meter vertical antenna power cords wiping everything out for him--then the antenna haters and the latest are the "RF makes me ill" nut cakes. A ham is going to have to be able to afford his own pacific island in order to work the only other ham in the world who can also afford one. Rob K5UJ

This page last updated 21 Oct 2017.