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@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@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@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@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 -- 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@ARRL.ORG