Thanks, Chris.
 
Re. my Point #2: The lead sentence in Item 37 defines CICs as individually owned lots or units (emphasis added).  I believe that excludes apartment renters, who make up a substantial segment of our population and are not free to put up antennas on the basis of not living under CC&Rs or HOA rules.  What I was trying to say is that way, way fewer that 7/8 of Americans are free from restrictions on installing effective antennas. Unless we can put the one-in-eight comment in that context, I think we should leave it out entirely and lead instead with the four-out-of-five statistic referenced in my Point 1.
 
 
Re. my Point #4: Here's the suggested edit:  near the end of the text on document page 23 add (insert bolded):
 
. . . one who wants (or must due to proximity to medical facilities, schools, work or family) to live in a CIC . . .
 
 
 73,
 
Marty N6VI
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Imlay
To: n6vi@socal.rr.com ; arrl-odv@arrl.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:21 PM
Subject: [arrl-odv:20783] Re: FCC Docket 12-91; FCC Study of Amateur Radio Emergency Communications and Impediments to the Same

OK, well, let me see what we can do. Logistically, the changes you suggest are going to be somewhat difficult to get in, but we will try. I have some good supporting material that Dave Woolweaver and John Stratton came up with that I have to get into the record somehow so maybe we can put these points in as well.
 
As to your point #2, CICs include Multiple Unit Dwellings if they are privately managed so the stat can't really be manipulated.
 
And for point #3, I agree that municipalities do encourage and some enforce CC&Rs, but without a few anecdotal examples other than the one you note in D 037 I can't make much of that.
 
Good points though, Marty. Let's see what we can do with them.