Director Hopengarten brings up some very interesting points with the various types of associations that can exert their jurisdictional authority upon the radio amateur and his/her antenna installations in the universe of common interest housing. We tend to focus on the single family dwelling with a solely owned lot in a HOA or deed/covenant restricted neighborhoods. The three pronged method K1VR outlines below seems to provide a logical sequence in attacking the problem. Let’s start with the low hanging fruit and then move to the more complex situations. I think this to be more efficient in managing the issues as well as our time. The apartment dweller also presents a unique challenge. I suppose it depends on the terms of sale as what can be accomplished here. I remember when Scott W4PA was living in an apartment building in downtown Knoxville. He had access to the balcony, then later the roof with sympathetic building management and a move to the upper floor. Without the sympathetic manager what happens? I think we have some ground work going here. TU Fred. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 23, 2019, at 10:00 AM, k1vr@arrl.org wrote:
Director Norris has asked exactly the right question. What is Plan B and Plan C? The question deserves an answer.
I suggest that we begin the process by dividing up the world of common interest housing and work on those blocks separately, instead of trying to solve all problems in one “swell foop.”
There are at least three types of common interest housing. Speaking generally, they are:
· Road associations and lake associations. They have no interest, and no mechanism for controlling antennas. But, under the ARPA bill as written, prior approval would have been required because they are
composed of owners of real estate described in a declaration of covenants or created pursuant to a covenant or other applicable law with respect to which a person, by virtue of the person’s ownership of or interest in a unit or parcel, is obligated to pay for a share of real estate taxes, insurance premiums, maintenance, improvement, services, or other expenses related to common elements, other units, or any other real estate other than the unit or parcel described in the declaration.
The first thing I’d do is to try and find a definition from existing literature or statutes that distinguishes road associations and lake house associations from what we all think of as “condos.”
Then I would write that, unless they have explicit authority to control antennas in their governing documents, antennas are, by default, not regulated.
The advantage of this approach is that it gets those folks out of the discussion early, and serves as the “break-through” legislation. This should be the first step.
· Townhomes (attached walls) and single family homes (0.3 to 5 acres or so). I’d try to find a definition from existing literature or statutes and write that antennas are permissible in the solely-controlled backyard, and wires may be erected in the woods of common land if not materially visible. And I’d include all bands specifically, requiring reasonably efficient antennas that are practicable in the circumstances. I’d go after this segment second, as the apartment building dweller faces the most uphill climb.
· Apartment buildings. Again, a definition – so that they aren’t confused with other types of housing. The problem here is: What if there is no lanai or porch? I’d go for access to the roof, but preserving the ability of the association to enact regulations designed to protect the roof (rubber roofing, etc.)
HOW?
To work on the definitions, we need the help of lawyers, real estate developers and brokers, and architects who work in the field. We could publish a call for help from these people in QST, seeking volunteers to work with us.
To work on defining the aesthetics, or outer limits (will 199’ towers be allowed without review?), I’d ask the same folks for help, especially the architects..
To work on defining usable, efficient, effective, or whatever, antennas, I’d ask for help from RF engineers and lawyers.
Phasing
I’m open to discussion, but it may be too hard to accomplish all in one bill. But mostly we need to get over the “you signed on to these restrictions” hump.
Begin
Let the discussion begin.
-Fred K1VR From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of David Norris via arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:14 AM To: Greg Sarratt Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:27918] Re: ARPA statement
BOARD CONFIDENTIAL for ODV ONLY
I am mostly in agreement with Greg’s posting. We need to be very careful with this wording in tone and tenor and to not misstate the events. As this reads, it gives ammo to CAI and may potentially damage any future attempts of gaining relief more closely resembling PRB-1 for private land use. The hams in Florida went to bat for ARRL in a big way and we owe them as well as the thousands of other members across this nation something more, so I well understand Greg’s position.
We also need to start a discussion on Plan B and Plan C with regards to ARPA. Inquiring members will want to know.
73
David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 23, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Greg Sarratt <gsarratt@att.net> wrote:
Howard and odv,
The following comments are for ODV only.
I agree with Rods comments and think we need to correct and soften some comments. Also we need to provide a better reason to the impacted membership that worked beside us by writing over 60,000 letters and taking the time to call and visit Senator Nelson about why the documents were withdrawn. Congress and the FCC will also read this. Here are my additional comments.
1: “step back and take the time to get this issue right”. This states that we submitted an un-reviewed or flawed document, we did not. As with last year’s efforts and the filings we want to move forward. As you know the document was edited and improved in the past several years and recently to include: a: discussed with and met National CAI approval. b: discussed with and met Florida CAI approval. c: reviewed and edited by Imlay and two experts last winter. d: reviewed by the EC. e: reviewed and edits provided by the Board before the December 17, 2018 filing.
2: “decision to file the petition was made without review by the full Board of Directors”. This is not a true statement. The petition was reviewed by the EC, officers and the Board was provided the document and several submitted edits before the December 17, 2018 filing.
3: “this refiling was done with no advance notification to the ARRL.” While true, I think we cannot say it this way because it will help to the burn the bridge. It needs to be softened and left out entirely.
Thanks, 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK
-------- Original message -------- From: Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> Date: 1/22/19 5:32 PM (GMT-06:00) To: "Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO)" <wb2itx@arrl.org> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:27914] Re: ARPA statement
Howard and odv,
The following comments are for ODV only - externally I will support the board decisions.
I have several objections to the wording (or "spin") in this announcement. Specifically:
1 - "In order to have time to effectively undertake such a review, ... " I see nothing in the motion to indicate that timing or schedule was a factor or reason for the action. Therefore I request this phrase be stricken from the announcement.
2 - "Board members believe that taking this action represents ... " This statement implies that all board members believe... when, in fact, only 10 of the 15 directors did (we don't know what the officers believe). I request this be re-worded to more accurately reflect the situation by changing it to say " A majority of the ARRL directors believe that taking this action represents ..."
3 - "Board members believe that taking this action represents a chance to take a step back and take the time to get this issue right." There was nothing in the motion stating we are taking a "step back" though I'm sure CAI will enjoy seeing this term in the announcement.
3 - "The Board believe that the timing is appropriate in taking this step, particularly given that ARRL’s petition to the FCC was only filed about a month ago (December 17, 2018), and that the decision to file the petition was made without review by the full Board of Directors. In addition, it has only been a couple of weeks since the ARPA legislation was filed by members of Congress and this refiling was done with no advance notification to the ARRL." This editorial comment is not supported by any language in the motion "Disposition of Amateur Radio Parity Act -r". As I pointed out earlier, timing was not a factor in the motion. Secondly, I'm not aware of any requirement that the FCC petition be reviewed by the full board and this editorial would imply otherwise. The petition was properly reviewed and authorized for submission by the EC. Thirdly, I'm not aware of any requirement for a US congressmen to consult with or provide advanced notification to ARRL prior to refiling a bill that had previously passed in the House of Representatives of an earlier congress. Therefore this paragraph should be removed from the announcement.
4. Finally "Dr. Woolweaver was kind enough to work with lobbyist Matt Keelan who will notify Rep. Kinzinger." Does this mean Dr. Woolweaver tasked Matt Keelan for work involving notifying Rep. Kinzinger? Dr. Woolweaver resigned as director during the board meeting Saturday. Or did he do this after the motion passed and before his resignation?
In summary, I firmly believe we (ARRL Directors) have just emptied our "political capital account" on the hill and opened the door to many unintended consequences. Never mind the thousands of dollars and countless hours of volunteer time expended over the past 3 years. I think we'll able hear the champagne corks popping at CAI HQ when they read this news. Standby for a "hue and cry" from the thousands of ARRL members who have supported this effort over the year. We have abandoned them with only a vague promise of doing "something better". What that will be (and when) is anyone's guess at this point.
Finally a couple comments on this board meeting:
This was my 18th board meeting and there is always a certain amount of politicking as we work to improve ARRL and Amateur Radio. But at this meeting, I was especially dismayed at the number of very important motions with far-reaching consequences that were apparently purposefully presented to some board members well in advance of the meeting and to other directors and officers only on the morning of the meeting. It seems the new first-time directors were well versed on these motions as evidenced by their unified voting block on these issues. I think we witnessed the transparency of "back room" politics in action - I'm not impressed.
Finally let me say I'm extremely impressed with the range of knowledge, skill, and experience brought to the board room by the new Vice-Directors and Directors. We are facing huge challenges and change in the coming years and a wide diversity of expertise and careful thought will be required going forward.
73's, Rod, K0DAS
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:51 PM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org> wrote: Dear Officers, Directors and Vice Directors,
Thank you for your suggestions on the ARPA statement. Here is a revised version.
At its annual meeting, held Jan. 18-19 in Windsor, CT, the ARRL Board of Directors decided that the organization needs to “review, re-examine and reappraise the ARRL’s regulatory and legislative policy with regard to private land use restrictions.” In order to have time to effectively undertake such a review, the Board adopted a resolution to withdraw its Petition for Rule Making to the FCC (which would amend its Part 97 Amateur Service rules to incorporate the provisions of the Amateur Radio Parity Act), without prejudice to refiling. The resolution also asks the members of Congress who had refiled legislation to enact the Amateur Radio Parity Act (ARPA) to refrain from seeking to advance that legislation pending further input from the ARRL. Board members believe that taking this action represents a chance to take a step back and take the time to get this issue right. The ARRL has been pursuing adoption of the ARPA for the past several years. The board now believes that there is a need to reassess the organization’s approach to this issue. The Board noted that its “intent [is] to renew, continue and strengthen the ARRL’s effort to achieve relief from such restrictions.” This action represents a chance to get the best product possible for ARRL members and all amateur radio operators. The Board believe that the timing is appropriate in taking this step, particularly given that ARRL’s petition to the FCC was only filed about a month ago (December 17, 2018), and that the decision to file the petition was made without review by the full Board of Directors. In addition, it has only been a couple of weeks since the ARPA legislation was filed by members of Congress and this refiling was done with no advance notification to the ARRL. Also, as an update on notifications to Congress and the FCC. Dr. Woolweaver was kind enough to work with lobbyist Matt Keelan who will notify Rep. Kinzinger. No notification can be made to the FCC until the government reopens. I hope to have David Siddall under agreement at that time.
73, Howard, WB2ITX
-- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Virus-free. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv