February 2016 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:23688] Thank You and HNY!
by Brian Mileshosky 02 Jan '17

02 Jan '17

Okay, now I'm bored on the air -- same for a zillion other League members and hams across the world. Fair warning: I'm making a Director's motion in January to create a Centennial QSO Party Anonymous or Points Anonymous service, because lots of people now find themselves staring hopelessly at their now absolutely quiet radios. A huge THANK YOU to everyone -- ODV, staff, volunteers, members, hams -- for an absolute home run on the air this past year. Centennial celebration aside, if there is one thing that I hope everyone who participated in the QSO Party walked away with, it is that they became better and more dedicated radio operators throughout the year. That they used this year-long opportunity to learn more about themselves as an op, learned more about their gear, uncovered station and operating limitations and found ways to resolve them, and rediscovered the magic, fun (God forbid), and camaraderie that is ham radio. One very profound moment today was working a few folks in the QSO Party who I hadn't worked since back in January 1, 2014. Staring at that date in the log, and greeting those hams once again, with literally one year of time padding our last QSO was an in-your-face "this year has absolutely flown by way too fast" epiphany. I hope everyone enjoyed it as much as they could while it lasted. Happy Centennial, and Happy New Year everyone. Be safe this evening and see you in a few weeks. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division

4 5

[arrl-odv:24932] Status of the WN3A PRB-1 antenna case
by Bob Famiglio, K3RF 31 Aug '16

31 Aug '16

Fellow ODV members: At least three of you have asked recently about the status of the notorious WN3A antenna litigation and whether it has been resolved yet. Here is an update as to the federal court proceedings. You all will recall that the ARRL filed an amicus brief in support of the radio amateur I represent. Copies of my WN3A briefs were also circulated through the ODV server late last summer. You might also recall this case before the 3rd circuit court of appeals concerns a federal judge's legal opinion that any accommodation a town provides a ham, in the towns own judgement no matter how arbitrary, is reasonable accommodation under PRB-1. The federal court ruled hams need not bother coming to federal court for relief under PRB-1 as long as they get a hearing before a local zoning board and a decision is rendered. PRB-1 was found to be very limited in effect by the court. We appealed. Recently we received the attached correspondence from the court clerk scheduling oral argument the week of our next board meeting. This is significant in that the 3rd circuit court does not routinely grant oral argument anymore-decisions are based on the lengthy briefs and research provided by the parties, as they should be. However, in cases which are of first impression and in which a significant precedential decision is anticipated, oral argument is requested by the court as it is here. Our panel of three judges includes the chief judge of the court. This appeals court controls the federal courts in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey, but the decision will surely affect the whole country as the case will be quoted as a significant circuit court decision no matter which way it goes. The argument is just a few days before the January board meeting. I may know from the questions from the court as to any leanings, but that speculation is always dangerous. What seems certain is that the court will not just treat this case as a "do over" by just sending it back to the trial court. They could do that without the need for argument. Rather, it likely will decide what PRB-1 actually means in view of the conflicting court decisions and rules for its interpretation from around the country, all raised by the numerous opponents and their various legal arguments against all ham antennas. I expect a written decision in February now, but that prediction may be off. I hope to see you all in the greater Newington area in a few weeks and will let you know what the judges wanted to know during argument. Let's keep our collective fingers crossed. I hope you are all enjoying the holiday season. I am hoping for a late Christmas present from the 3rd circuit court. 73. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF

5 6

[arrl-odv:25191] New Issue of ARRL Radio Waves Newsletter for Instructors and Teachers
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Hi, Here's the latest issue of the Radio Waves newsletter from Debra Johnson. 73, Harold Greetings! We've just published our Winter 2016 issue of Radio Waves. You'll find this issue and past issues on our website at: www.arrl.org/radio-waves<http://www.arrl.org/radio-waves> You can link to this issue directly at: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Radio%20Waves%20Newsletter/Winter%202016%20R… Inside This Issue In-Depth Licensing Class Probes Electronics Page 1 Exploring Complex Concepts through Electronic Kit Building Page 2 Two Schools Experience ARISS Impact Page 3 West Chester Amateur Radio Association on Hand for Pi Day Page 4 Youth Nets Page 4 Instructor Corner: News, Ideas, Support Resources for Classroom Instruction Page 5 Resources for Licensing Instruction Page 6 Education & Technology Program News Summer 2016 Teachers Institute Schedule Announced Page 7 2015 Licensing Statistics Page 8 Upcoming Events, Opportunities, and Deadlines Page 8 Debra Johnson, K1DMJ Education Services Manager ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio(r) 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111-1494 Office:(860) 594-0296 Fax: (860) 594-0259 djohnson(a)arrl.org<mailto:djohnson@arrl.org>

1 0

[arrl-odv:25186] Report of meeting with Kinzinger's LD
by Mike Lisenco N2YBB 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

BOARD CONFIDENTIAL - - - BOARD CONFIDENTIAL This morning Chris Imlay and Frank McCarthy of The Keelen Group met with Josh Baggett, Legislative Director for Rep. Adam Kinzinger, sponsor of H.R. 1301. Their meeting went well. Chris reports that they had a thorough conversation regarding the proposed compromise language. Chris and Frank expressed concern over the intensity in which a compromise is being sought in order to get this through the Committee. They also discussed ARRL conceding ‘reasonable accommodation’ as bill language, which has been the focus of the legislation. They gave Josh a copy of the proposed amended bill and discussed the lack of adequate concessions made so far on the part of CAI. They also noted that, in addition to removing the verbiage, we are also conceding that there would be no antennas in common areas; the entitlement of HOAs to create regulations governing antenna installation and maintenance, height, location, size and aesthetic impact; and a prior approval requirement (rather than the prior notification requirement that CAI had specified in its amendment). Josh said he understands how painful this is for us and was pleased that we had come so far as to surrender the reasonable accommodation standard. (Josh wrote Kinzinger's markup speech in which reasonable accommodation was the big issue and defended the standard.) He knew that was going to be the one big sticking point. Chris and Frank explained that in place of that language we had to have some standard, because simply not precluding antennas was not where we needed to end up: we have to have the ability to install and maintain some type of effective, efficient antenna which in some residential environments could have a negligible aesthetic impact. It was decided to not give the compromise bill to CAI yet, but only to Dave Redl, subcommittee counsel. Josh will talk to Redl and stress that ARRL has compromised well over the 50-yard line and that we have effectively put our highest and best terms available into this compromise bill. ARRL will send the Bill language, as well as a memo outlining our compromises, to Redl directly. (Redl has been out of the country all this week and hasn't had any time to address our issue.) Josh is also not sure that he wants us to give up to CAI a prior consent requirement. We might be advised by Josh to stick with the prior notification requirement only and save the prior consent issue for a later time if needed. Chris stressed again that we didn't have any more room to compromise, and that the Board has been pushed to the point that any further compromises are likely to be viewed as vitiating the entire purpose of the Bill. Josh gets that. Josh was told that CAI had come up with its own compromise Bill but it was fatally defective in two major respects and that we told them that we preferred to discuss our "highest and best terms" substitute amendment instead. There is urgency to get this compromise done however. The next full committee Markup date is March 15. Josh has no idea at all when there will be one after that, if at all. We should try to get this deal done in time to get on that calendar. Frank will get the aforementioned documents to Redl today. Josh said that now is the time to try to do this Bill because Walden won't be in his seat after the next nine months. However, if we have to do this effort again next year, and we have to pass the Bill in the House as is and get stalled in the Senate, Josh doesn't want the bill that passes to be a compromise bill, but rather our original bill. He also said that Eshoo's LD doesn't care about the bill at all but only wants CAI to not object to the Bill that goes forward. Frank had a breakfast meeting yesterday with Senator Nelson of Florida for another client. But he spoke with Nelson's COS about the compromise effort. The COS said that was a good plan and told Frank that the HOAs that had communicated with Nelson needed to hear about that when it happens. The danger is that CAI stirred up the hornet's nest in Florida and lied to them about our Bill and so even if Redl gets CAI to say that they support the compromise Bill, CAI may not be able to put Pandora back in the box in Florida. We can cross that bridge when we get to it. 73 de Mike - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mike Lisenco, N2YBB Director, Hudson Division Chairman, ad hoc Legislative Advocacy Committee ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ 917-865-3538 n2ybb(a)arrl.org

3 2

[arrl-odv:25162] H.R. 1301 Update
by Mike Lisenco N2YBB 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

BOARD CONFIDENTIAL --- BOARD CONFIDENTIAL Good Afternoon, Here is the latest information we have regarding the state of H.R. 1301. As the issue is very sensitive, please do not share with anyone outside of ODV. In our one and a half hour meeting with CAI this past Wednesday, which was mediated by David Redl of Walden's subcommittee staff, we were unable to reach an understanding that would retain the “reasonable accommodation" language in the Bill. CAI's view is that the 30 years of case law interpreting reasonable accommodation in the zoning context would invariably favor Amateur Radio and entitle hams to towers in every instance. We believe that they are wrong and have offered to explain why they are wrong, but they are intransigent on this subject. We left the meeting at an impasse on only this specific issue. It is imperative that we come to terms on this one issue as it has been made clear to us by both the House subcommittee AND full committee staffers that the bill will not move forward to the full House Commerce Committee without a consensus. We have also been told that without this consensus, the bill will also not get past Senator Nelson (to whom this is a personal issue) without agreed upon alternative language. We were left with two options. One is to rewrite our Bill in a way that allows us to come up with a substitute for "reasonable accommodation.” That is difficult as we would run the risk of jeopardizing virtually all of the jurisprudence and case law on PRB-1 that we have developed over the past 30 years in the zoning context. We absolutely cannot risk that. The alternative is to create a separate and distinct policy applicable only to private land use regulations written in such a way as to keep the tenets of PRB-1 while at the same time including the operative principles that CAI asked for which are acceptable to us. We believe that the attached bill accomplishes that task. It should satisfy CAI while at the same time keeps our needs intact. And it would keep the existing PRB-1 (Sec. 97-15b) and the jurisprudence that accompanies PRB-1safe from alteration. The traditional reasonable accommodation test would continue to apply to zoning and municipal land use cases. We have offered a lot to reach a consensus. Should this not be acceptable to CAI, we believe that an intransigent approach on their part would play poorly in the House and work to our benefit. Please read the bill. While it’s substantially longer than the original bill, it does make our case. (It will most likely be made cleaner, but without any loss of substance, when edited for style by the office of legislative counsel.) Feel free to reach out with any questions. 73, Mike - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mike Lisenco, N2YBB Director, Hudson Division Chairman, ad hoc Legislative Advocacy Committee ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ 917-865-3538 n2ybb(a)arrl.org

11 10

[arrl-odv:25178] Regarding HR 1301
by Mike Lisenco N2YBB 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

Good Morning ODV – I think it’s fair to say that we all understand the need for compromise in order to achieve consensus. After all, the Board is a political body and we all have our own agendas. We’ve often worked together with opposing viewpoints to achieve a goal. At this moment, as I’ve said to many of us, we are caught between a rock and a hard place. It has been made clear to us, through multiple House sources, that if we want to have H.R. 1301 brought to the full House Commerce Committee, we need to reach a compromise with CAI in order to achieve that goal. We may not like that, but it is a fact and it needs to be addressed. Through Chris Imlay’s tireless work, we have a proposed compromise bill that addresses both the needs of CAI as well as the needs of ARRL. It’s not perfect, but no legislation is. Today, right now, Chris is meeting with Rep. Kinzinger’s office to discuss the matter. We will have a better handle on their thoughts in due time. While you may be unhappy with our position at this moment, as am I, we are still very much in the running to accomplish what we set out to do; to craft and pass legislation that will allow a home-owner living in a deed restricted community, the ability to use their earned FCC license from their home with an efficient and effective outdoor antenna. Throughout this process, there have been no guarantees. If you keep in mind the fact that deep down inside we all knew that it would be naïve on our part to assume that there would be no pushback from the opposition. So it should be no surprise to any of us that we find ourselves at this juncture. The decision to continue is, of course, a decision that will be made only by the Board of Directors. It is my opinion that we are still operating within the parameters of our Board approved legislative policy. Should that change, I will be the first to suggest we stop and walk away. Now is not the time to do that. It would lose the goodwill we’ve created and generate tremendous ill-will with the members and staffs of both House of Congress. Until that time, I ask the Board’s indulgence to continue on this path as it has gotten us further along than any previous attempt to get the ability to install an outdoor antenna in an HoA community. 73 de Mike N2YBB - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mike Lisenco, N2YBB Director, Hudson Division Chairman, ad hoc Legislative Advocacy Committee ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ 917-865-3538 n2ybb(a)arrl.org

3 2

[arrl-odv:25184] Re: H.R. 1301 Update
by nwdvd 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

I agree with Dr Jim. Let's get it done 73, from Big Sky Country Jim K7CEX Sent from Jim's Samsung Galaxy Tab®4 -------- Original message -------- From: "James F. Boehner, MD via arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Date:02/26/2016 6:18 AM (GMT-08:00) To: 'Christopher Imlay' <w3kd.arrl(a)gmail.com>, 'Rick Roderick' <k5ur(a)aol.com> Cc: 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv(a)arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:25172] Re: H.R. 1301 Update My opinion is that we need to go forward at full force. We need to get this bill passed. Go with the compromise language. If CAI refuses, it will certainly weaken their case. ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Imlay Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 8:59 AM To: Rick Roderick Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25171] Re: H.R. 1301 Update To add to what Rick said, and with thanks to those who have offered helpful edits to the draft we have come up with, we don't have the luxury of time and we have precious little flexibility in what we counterpropose. I drafted the "compromise" language in an effort to replace the "reasonable accommodation" provision of PRB-1 that CAI has flatly rejected. The "effective and efficient outdoor antenna" provision is the closest I can come to the concept of reasonable accommodation. We have to have a separate test in order to get a Bill through the House and separately through the Senate. I am right now heading for a meeting with TKG and Josh Baggett of Representative Kinzinger's office to give him our compromise draft. At this point, if the Directors want us to stop this process and abandon the effort to get this Bill, we need to know this right now. I know that one Director thinks that we have always had a weak bill and that this compromise vitiates the entire benefit of any Bill at all. I disagree strongly with that view, but the negotiations that we have been forced into with CAI aren't over and at some point we may get to the point that it is better to have no bill at all than to carve in stone provisions that don't suit our members. So as Mike said, we have effectively two choices and virtually no time to decide: Do you want this compromise Bill or do we want to abandon the effort at this point? It is unfortunate but that is where we are right now. The Board makes the call. As Rick says, let's hear from you, and fast please. 73, Chris W3KD On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> wrote: Hi all: We are at an important point in this effort. Things are happening fast as Mike indicated. Strategy-wise we are at important juncture. Please let us hear your ideas and comments. The Legislative Advocacy Team needs your input. Thanks. 73, Rick - K5UR ... -----Original Message----- From: Mike Lisenco N2YBB <n2ybb(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 3:05 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:25162] H.R. 1301 Update BOARD CONFIDENTIAL --- BOARD CONFIDENTIAL Good Afternoon, Here is the latest information we have regarding the state of H.R. 1301. As the issue is very sensitive, please do not share with anyone outside of ODV. In our one and a half hour meeting with CAI this past Wednesday, which was mediated by David Redl of Walden's subcommittee staff, we were unable to reach an understanding that would retain the “reasonable accommodation" language in the Bill. CAI's view is that the 30 years of case law interpreting reasonable accommodation in the zoning context would invariably favor Amateur Radio and entitle hams to towers in every instance. We believe that they are wrong and have offered to explain why they are wrong, but they are intransigent on this subject. We left the meeting at an impasse on only this specific issue. It is imperative that we come to terms on this one issue as it has been made clear to us by both the House subcommittee AND full committee staffers that the bill will not move forward to the full House Commerce Committee without a consensus. We have also been told that without this consensus, the bill will also not get past Senator Nelson (to whom this is a personal issue) without agreed upon alternative language. We were left with two options. One is to rewrite our Bill in a way that allows us to come up with a substitute for "reasonable accommodation.” That is difficult as we would run the risk of jeopardizing virtually all of the jurisprudence and case law on PRB-1 that we have developed over the past 30 years in the zoning context. We absolutely cannot risk that. The alternative is to create a separate and distinct policy applicable only to private land use regulations written in such a way as to keep the tenets of PRB-1 while at the same time including the operative principles that CAI asked for which are acceptable to us. We believe that the attached bill accomplishes that task. It should satisfy CAI while at the same time keeps our needs intact. And it would keep the existing PRB-1 (Sec. 97-15b) and the jurisprudence that accompanies PRB-1safe from alteration. The traditional reasonable accommodation test would continue to apply to zoning and municipal land use cases. We have offered a lot to reach a consensus. Should this not be acceptable to CAI, we believe that an intransigent approach on their part would play poorly in the House and work to our benefit. Please read the bill. While it’s substantially longer than the original bill, it does make our case. (It will most likely be made cleaner, but without any loss of substance, when edited for style by the office of legislative counsel.) Feel free to reach out with any questions. 73, Mike - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mike Lisenco, N2YBB Director, Hudson Division Chairman, ad hoc Legislative Advocacy Committee ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ 917-865-3538 n2ybb(a)arrl.org _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG

1 0

[arrl-odv:25173] Minutes of Special Meeting, Final
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

ARRL Board Members: I circulated draft minutes of the January 25 Special Meeting immediately after the meeting but have not previously distributed the final version. The only change is the addition of apologies for absence from IAVP Bellows. The procedure established by the Board for formal approval of Board Meeting minutes is as follows: 1. The Secretary will circulate draft minutes to Board members as soon as possible after the meeting. 2. Once Board members have had the opportunity to review the draft and offer comment, a final draft will be circulated. 3. Ten days after distribution of the final draft, the Secretary will call for a vote by electronic mail to approve the minutes. 4. The minutes will be declared as approved upon the receipt of affirmative votes of eight or more directors within the ten days of the call for the vote. 5. The final draft minutes will continue to be made available to members following their circulation to Board members and prior to formal approval. The minutes are now available to members as per #5 above. I will call for the vote to approve the minutes early in the week of March 7. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

2 2

[arrl-odv:25175] Fwd: Kim Korea ando
by G Widin 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

Forwarded to ODV per Jim Pace's request. See below. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *jimpace101* <jimpace101(a)comcast.net> Date: Friday, February 26, 2016 Subject: Kim Korea ando To: G Widin <gpwidin(a)comcast.net> Greg I'm on the road and only have my tablet. Would you send this out to the odv? http://www.komando.com/listen/komando-on-demand 73, Jim Sent from Jim's Samsung Galaxy Tab®4

1 0

[arrl-odv:25174] Re: arrl-odv Digest, Vol 63, Issue 29
by Michael Lee 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

I agree with Jim - I think we need to go full speed. If CAI balks, then we gain some advantage in that we are perceived as taking the high-road (which we are). Best, Mike Michael Lee (702) 494-9066 mikelee0531(a)me.com > On Feb 26, 2016, at 9:40 AM, arrl-odv-request(a)reflector.arrl.org wrote: > > Send arrl-odv mailing list submissions to > arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > arrl-odv-request(a)reflector.arrl.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > arrl-odv-owner(a)reflector.arrl.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of arrl-odv digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. [arrl-odv:25172] Re: H.R. 1301 Update (James F. Boehner, MD) > 2. [arrl-odv:25173] Minutes of Special Meeting, Final > (Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:18:48 -0500 > From: "James F. Boehner, MD" <jboehner01(a)yahoo.com> > To: "'Christopher Imlay'" <w3kd.arrl(a)gmail.com>, "'Rick Roderick'" > <k5ur(a)aol.com> > Cc: 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv(a)arrl.org> > Subject: [arrl-odv:25172] Re: H.R. 1301 Update > Message-ID: <01b701d170a0$9d280920$d7781b60$(a)yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > My opinion is that we need to go forward at full force. > > > > We need to get this bill passed. > > > > Go with the compromise language. If CAI refuses, it will certainly weaken their case. > > > > > > ?73 de JIM N2ZZ > > Director ? Roanoke Division > > Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections > > ARRL ? The National Association for Amateur Radio? > > > > > > > > From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Imlay > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 8:59 AM > To: Rick Roderick > Cc: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:25171] Re: H.R. 1301 Update > > > > To add to what Rick said, and with thanks to those who have offered helpful edits to the draft we have come up with, we don't have the luxury of time and we have precious little flexibility in what we counterpropose. I drafted the "compromise" language in an effort to replace the "reasonable accommodation" provision of PRB-1 that CAI has flatly rejected. The "effective and efficient outdoor antenna" provision is the closest I can come to the concept of reasonable accommodation. We have to have a separate test in order to get a Bill through the House and separately through the Senate. > > > > I am right now heading for a meeting with TKG and Josh Baggett of Representative Kinzinger's office to give him our compromise draft. At this point, if the Directors want us to stop this process and abandon the effort to get this Bill, we need to know this right now. I know that one Director thinks that we have always had a weak bill and that this compromise vitiates the entire benefit of any Bill at all. I disagree strongly with that view, but the negotiations that we have been forced into with CAI aren't over and at some point we may get to the point that it is better to have no bill at all than to carve in stone provisions that don't suit our members. > > > > So as Mike said, we have effectively two choices and virtually no time to decide: Do you want this compromise Bill or do we want to abandon the effort at this point? It is unfortunate but that is where we are right now. The Board makes the call. As Rick says, let's hear from you, and fast please. > > > > 73, Chris W3KD > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> wrote: > > Hi all: > > > > We are at an important point in this effort. Things are happening fast as Mike indicated. Strategy-wise we are at important juncture. Please let us hear your ideas and comments. The Legislative Advocacy Team needs your input. > > > > Thanks. > > > > 73, > > Rick - K5UR > > > > ... > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Lisenco N2YBB <n2ybb(a)arrl.org> > To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)arrl.org> > Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 3:05 pm > Subject: [arrl-odv:25162] H.R. 1301 Update > > BOARD CONFIDENTIAL --- BOARD CONFIDENTIAL > > Good Afternoon, > > Here is the latest information we have regarding the state of H.R. 1301. As the issue is very sensitive, please do not share with anyone outside of ODV. > > In our one and a half hour meeting with CAI this past Wednesday, which was mediated by David Redl of Walden's subcommittee staff, we were unable to reach an understanding that would retain the ?reasonable accommodation" language in the Bill. CAI's view is that the 30 years of case law interpreting reasonable accommodation in the zoning context would invariably favor Amateur Radio and entitle hams to towers in every instance?. > > We believe that they are wrong and have offered to explain why they are wrong, but they are intransigent on this subject.? > > We left the meeting at an impasse on only this specific issue. > > It is imperative that we come to terms on this one issue as it has been made clear to us by both the House subcommittee AND full committee staffers that the bill will not move forward to the full House Commerce Committee without a consensus. We have also been told that without this consensus, the bill will also not get past Senator Nelson (to whom this is a personal issue) without agreed upon alternative language. > > We were left with two options. One is to rewrite our Bill in a way that allows us to come up with a substitute for "reasonable accommodation.? That is difficult as we would run the risk of jeopardizing virtually all of the jurisprudence and case law on PRB-1 that we have developed over the past 30 years in the zoning context. We absolutely cannot risk that. > > The alternative is to create a separate and distinct policy applicable only to private land use regulations written in such a way as to keep the tenets of PRB-1 while at the same time including the operative principles that CAI asked for which are acceptable to us. > > We believe that the attached bill accomplishes that task. It should satisfy CAI while at the same time keeps our needs intact. And it would keep the existing PRB-1 (Sec. 97-15b) and the jurisprudence that accompanies PRB-1?safe from alteration. > > ?The traditional reasonable accommodation test would continue to apply to zoning and municipal land use cases.? > > > > We have offered a lot to reach a consensus. Should this not be acceptable to CAI, we believe that an intransigent approach on their part would play poorly in the House and work to our benefit. > > Please read the bill. While it?s substantially longer than the original bill, it does make our case. (It will most likely be ?made ?cleaner, but without any loss of substance, when edited for style by the ?office of legislative counsel.) > > Feel free to reach out with any questions. > > 73, > > Mike > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Mike Lisenco, N2YBB > Director, Hudson Division > Chairman, ad hoc Legislative Advocacy Committee > ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio? > 917-865-3538 > n2ybb(a)arrl.org > > _______________________________________________ > arrl-odv mailing list > arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv > > > _______________________________________________ > arrl-odv mailing list > arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv > > > > > > > > -- > > Christopher D. Imlay > > Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC > > 14356 Cape May Road > > Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 > > (301) 384-5525 telephone > > (301) 384-6384 facsimile > > W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG > >

1 0