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. Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> To: Chris <w3kd@aol.com>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Cc: apitts <apitts@arrl.org>; lkustosik <lkustosik@arrl.org>; dhenderson <dhenderson@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, May 15, 2012 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:20781] Re: FCC Docket 12-91; FCC Study of Amateur Radio Emergency Communications and Impediments to the Same Hi, Chris. My top four finds are: 1) There's a potentially powerful statistic in Section II - 37 that I believe should be included in the Executive summary, namely that over 80% of new housing construction is subject to private deed restrictions. 2) The statistic noted above is preceded by the statement in Section II - 36 that, "as of 1998, one out of eight Americans lived in private common-interest communities". That suggests that seven out of eight don't but ignores the great number - perhaps a majority - that live in apartments or other rental units. This statement in isolation may do more harm than good. 3) Some cities require (see D #037) or encourage private deed restrictions as an alternative to detailed municipal zoning regulations, effectively bypassing the intent of PRB-1. This fact could bolster our discussion of the pervasiveness of private deed restrictions and/or of the scope of PRB-1. 4) One important reason Hams are constrained in their housing choices is proximity to adequate medical care (a hot topic in federal circles), but I don't find that mentioned anywhere in our discussion of housing alternatives / choices. This could be incorporated into document page 25 (pdf page 28) among other places. The rest consists of minor grammatical nits that are of no real consequence. 73, Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris To: Marty Woll ; arrl-odv@arrl.org Cc: apitts@arrl.org ; lkustosik@arrl.org ; dhenderson@arrl.org Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:41 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:20781] Re: FCC Docket 12-91; FCC Study of Amateur Radio Emergency Communications and Impediments to the Same Marty, sad to say it really is too late. I am way out of position now for miscellaneous edits. Are these major concerns? 73, Chris W3KD Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> wrote:

Chris and all involved:

Thank you for your efforts in producing such a comprehensive and detail-filled response to the FCC inquiry. If you are open to edits at this late stage, let me know and I'll forward them separately. If not, I understand.

73,

Marty N6VI

arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

Chris I would add to Marty's comments that in Texas there are NO new residential subdivisions, condo or townhouse developments that are, or have been built since the late 80's that are not controlled by CC&Rs. To my knowledge all of the governing documents are just clones of all others - there is very little deviation on the use restrictions sections. These use restrictions either prohibit exterior "antennas" absolutely or provide they may only be installed by permission of an ACC or Board. I know of only about two subdivisions that have given any ground and then only under very heavy internal pressure. The more extreme variations either prohibit any radio communications or RFI (I know that isn't enforceable, but tell it to the ACC/Board) or specifically call out amateur radio for prohibition. CAI, TNT, et al are adamant they will not give ground and permit ANY exterior towers, mast, antennas, etc. That has been stated in multiple legislative strategy meetings (we have people inside) and openly in the last House Committee hearing in which the subject came up. When asked what standards they would accept, if they could set the standards, they refused to agree to any standards. If you are a Ham in Texas and want to live in a residential subdivision built since the mid 1980's you will not be able to legally operate, period. Where are you going to move if you find these restrictions unacceptable? You will move outside of an incorporated city to stand alone housing or very old subdivisions built before the modern era. You will give up closeness to good schools, medical facilities and modern shopping facilities. If you choose to move into an older inner city subdivision built before the modern era, you will find either the homes are beyond the financial means of the average ham or they are located in very undesirable neighbors. You either must be rich, have no children or be willing to live in blighted, probably crime-ridden areas. Keep in mind that all residential development, in Texas, even on the outskirts of major and minor metropolitan areas are CC&R restricted. "Outskirts" can mean between 30 to 60+ miles from a metro center. The West, Texas and the South are the fastest growing areas of the United States. Most of the major builders are building in most of the markets and they all build only with CC&Rs. This is where the majority of the US population will be living in the next 20-30 years and it will, absent legislative mandates, be a dead zone for Amateur Radio. Texas had to legislatively mandate the right to install solar electrical and water heating equipment, the right to install (even in the face of extreme drought) rain water collection systems and the right to install modern energy saving shingles. You can run, but there is no place to hide. The Navy may have been defeated by Hiram from denying the spectrum to Amateur Radio in 1917, but CC&Rs are denying all spectrum, not just EmComm usable spectrum, to Amateur Radio. Hiram fought one foe; the current foe is multitudes of builder created semi-governmental agencies protected by State laws. We should stress that there are no realistic options available. The proliferation of CC&Rs/private land use restrictions is the genocide of a federally licensed, statutorily authorized, universally requested voluntary, free emergency communications backbone for the United States. 73 *-----------------------------------------------------* ** John Robert Stratton N5AUS West Gulf Division Vice Director West Gulf Division Legislative Action Chair Office telephone: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 PO Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *-----------------------------------------------------* On 5/15/12 7:49 PM, Marty Woll wrote:

Hi, Chris. My top four finds are: 1) There's a potentially powerful statistic in Section II - 37 that I believe should be included in the Executive summary, namely that over 80% of new housing construction is subject to private deed restrictions. 2) The statistic noted above is preceded by the statement in Section II - 36 that, "as of 1998, one out of eight Americans lived in private common-interest communities". That suggests that seven out of eight don't but ignores the great number - perhaps a majority - that live in apartments or other rental units. This statement in isolation may do more harm than good. 3) Some cities require (see D #037) or encourage private deed restrictions as an alternative to detailed municipal zoning regulations, effectively bypassing the intent of PRB-1. This fact could bolster our discussion of the pervasiveness of private deed restrictions and/or of the scope of PRB-1. 4) One important reason Hams are constrained in their housing choices is proximity to adequate medical care (a hot topic in federal circles), but I don't find that mentioned anywhere in our discussion of housing alternatives / choices. This could be incorporated into document page 25 (pdf page 28) among other places. The rest consists of minor grammatical nits that are of no real consequence. 73, Marty N6VI

----- Original Message ----- *From:* Chris <mailto:w3kd@aol.com> *To:* Marty Woll <mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com> ; arrl-odv@arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org> *Cc:* apitts@arrl.org <mailto:apitts@arrl.org> ; lkustosik@arrl.org <mailto:lkustosik@arrl.org> ; dhenderson@arrl.org <mailto:dhenderson@arrl.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:41 PM *Subject:* [arrl-odv:20781] Re: FCC Docket 12-91; FCC Study of Amateur Radio Emergency Communications and Impediments to the Same

Marty, sad to say it really is too late. I am way out of position now for miscellaneous edits. Are these major concerns? 73, Chris W3KD

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com <mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com>> wrote:

>Chris and all involved: > >Thank you for your efforts in producing such a comprehensive and detail-filled response to the FCC inquiry. If you are open to edits at this late stage, let me know and I'll forward them separately. If not, I understand. > >73, > >Marty N6VI _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv