|[AMRadio] Licensed hams opposed to H.R.1301 and S 1685|
k4kyv at charter.net
Sun Aug 23 23:08:05 EDT 2015
>From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
> 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
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 24 Nov 2017.