Hi, Doug. The member’s statement is based on the presumption that every Ham can freely choose to live inside or outside a development governed by private deed restrictions. In some parts of the country, particularly in older cities and areas of slow to moderate growth that may be the case. However, in later-developed and faster-growing areas, finding suitable housing free of CC&Rs or HOA rules can be quite difficult. In some cities and even entire counties in the West Gulf and Southwest, practically all housing built in the last several decades is subject to deed restrictions that limit or preclude outside antennas. Developers impose these restrictions in order to control the appearance of the area in which they are trying to sell homes. Every few years, they begin another phase of building, and they keep the restrictions in place for all prior tracts, through which prospective buyers must drive to reach the currently offered homes. With build-out periods of twenty years or more, entire communities remain antenna-hostile. If a Ham wants or needs to live close to work, schools, health care facilities and other infrastructure, there may be no option but to buy in an area governed by covenants. Consider also that many new entrants into Amateur Radio are older these days, and they may have purchased their home and settled into their communities long before the ability to install effective antennas was a consideration. In some states, such as California, selling one’s home and buying another can trigger significant increases in property taxes that can make such a move impractical. School-age (and even older) youth living with their parents are stuck with whatever restrictions govern their parents’ homes. PRB-1 was written when suitable housing choices were the rule rather than the exception in most parts of the country. Its intent was to ensure that the overriding national interest in maintaining a thriving Amateur Radio Service was not frustrated by local regulation. That interest still exists for all the same reasons, but the major obstacle has morphed into something not anticipated – at least in magnitude – at the time of enactment. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Doug Rehman Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:33 PM To: 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:22907] HR 4969 I have received an interesting email from a member in the Southeastern Division that is also a volunteer counsel. He raises an interesting question that the Board needs to have a good, unified answer to—a FAQ similar to the RM-11708 one on the website might be in order. Rather than attempt to paraphrase, here’s the pertinent part of his email: “Second, I am concerned about federal legislation that wholesale invalidates private contracts. The federalism concerns which prompted the FCC to avoid interfering with CC&Rs in the first instance continue to exist even with Congressional fact-finding or action. It seems to me that if a ham moves to a development with CC&Rs, that is on him or her to exercise due diligence to understand the restrictions imposed, how they work and how they can be enforced. Despite our public service, I struggle with what makes us think we are special and should not be bound by private contracts that we voluntarily enter into.” What is the Board response, especially in view of that being a question that is likely to be asked by legislators and by opponents such as HOAs? Doug K4AC