[arrl-odv:22946] Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014”
I know we have no say in how these petitions are presented, but I hope the petition designers realize what market they are going for. If they are going for Amateur Radio Ops, a graphic of a beam is going to get the most powerful positive reaction; but it will probably get a very powerful negative reaction from non-hams. A graphic of amateur radio ops in the field assisting with disaster operations would elicit a much more positive response from non-hams. To us, a beam is a sign of beauty. To others…..not so much. Late last year Chris indicated that this bill could act as a “cover” for the FCC to move forward with their own authority. I have not seen this mentioned since the bill came out. Is there any new information on this? The development of our policy in handling the lobbying of this bill will certainly depend on this. ’73 de JIM N2ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 2:10 AM To: 'JRS'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:22945] Re: Fwd: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” A similar petition is being circulated by a member in the Bay area: U.S. House of Representatives: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio... <https://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http://bit.ly/hr4969&urlhash=Epqr> It reached me through multiple sources, so it’s spreading. I’ve asked those sending to me to QRX until the League formulates its talking points and Congressional outreach plan. Unless we act quickly, though, it may be out of our hands. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of JRS Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 10:44 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22944] Fwd: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” FYI 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 ----------------------------------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 04:36:24 +0000 From: ABR Industries <mailto:info@abrind.com> <info@abrind.com> Reply-To: ABR Information <mailto:info@abrind.com> <info@abrind.com> To: n5aus@hamradio.us.com Display problems? <http://abrind.com/?email_id=19&user_id=1601&urlpassed=W3ZpZXdfaW5fYnJvd3Nlcl9saW5rXQ%3D%3D&controller=stats&action=analyse&wysija-page=1&wysijap=subscriptions> View this newsletter in your browser. <http://abrind.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/email-header.jpg> <http://abrind.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/LlHcxzUfXlhFjQe-556x313-noPad.jpg> --- <http://abrind.com/wp-content/uploads/wysija/dividers/solid.jpg> HR.4969 would require the FCC, within 120 days of the Bill’s passage, to amend the Part 97 Amateur Service rules to apply <http://abrind.com/?email_id=19&user_id=1601&urlpassed=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5hcnJsLm9yZy9wcmItMQ%3D%3D&controller=stats&action=analyse&wysija-page=1&wysijap=subscriptions> PRB-1coverage to include homeowners’ association regulations and deed restrictions, often referred to as “covenants, conditions, and restrictions” (CC&Rs). PRB-1 states that local governments cannot preclude Amateur Radio communications; they must “reasonably accommodate” amateur operations, and the state and local regulations must be the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish a legitimate governmental interest. Presently, PRB-1 only applies to state and local zoning laws and ordinances. Since PRB-1 was enacted, the FCC has said several times that it would prefer to have some guidance from Congress before extending the policy to private land-use regulations. HR.4969 will provide that guidance, and give PRB-1 the force of Federal law. Radio amateurs, while providing a valuable and necessary service to their communities, are frequently and increasingly precluded from installing necessary equipment (antennas, coax, etc) by unreasonable private land-use restrictions, including restrictive CC&R covenants. The net effect of HR.4969 passage will be to suppress those unreasonable restrictions and allow licensed amateurs to install reasonable equipment for practicing our hobby and having the means to serve our communities. <http://abrind.com/?email_id=19&user_id=1601&urlpassed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2hhbmdlLm9yZy9wZXRpdGlvbnMvdS1zLWhvdXNlLW9mLXJlcHJlc2VudGF0aXZlcy1jby1zcG9uc29yLWhyLTQ5NjktdGhlLWFtYXRldXItcmFkaW8tcGFyaXR5LWFjdC1vZi0yMDE0Iw%3D%3D&controller=stats&action=analyse&wysija-page=1&wysijap=subscriptions> Sign Petition <http://abrind.com/?email_id=19&user_id=1601&urlpassed=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYWNlYm9vay5jb20vbWFpbHBvZXRwbHVnaW4%3D&controller=stats&action=analyse&wysija-page=1&wysijap=subscriptions> Facebook <http://abrind.com/?email_id=19&user_id=1601&urlpassed=aHR0cDovL3d3dy50d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9tYWlsX3BvZXQ%3D&controller=stats&action=analyse&wysija-page=1&wysijap=subscriptions> Twitter <http://abrind.com/?email_id=19&user_id=1601&urlpassed=aHR0cHM6Ly9wbHVzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20vK01haWxwb2V0&controller=stats&action=analyse&wysija-page=1&wysijap=subscriptions> Google --- <http://abrind.com/wp-content/uploads/wysija/dividers/solid.jpg> <http://abrind.com/?email_id=19&user_id=1601&urlpassed=W3Vuc3Vic2NyaWJlX2xpbmtd&controller=stats&hash=5e33ff79b32355e356e83878ad9cee35&action=analyse&wysija-page=1&wysijap=subscriptions> Unsubscribe - <http://abrind.com/?email_id=19&user_id=1601&urlpassed=W3N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbnNfbGlua10%3D&controller=stats&hash=c08b8591c8899ebe58e5a08d7dced89a&action=analyse&wysija-page=1&wysijap=subscriptions> Edit your subscription <http://www.abrind.com> www.abrind.com ABR Industries 8561 A Rayson Rd Houston, TX 77080 <http://abrind.com/?email_id=19&user_id=1601&controller=stats&action=analyse&wysija-page=1&render=1&wysijap=subscriptions>
In our discussions on the Hill, we have been emphasizing reasonable accommodation. In an HOA, that will not be a tower. We have been talking about wire antennas in trees, under eaves, flagpole antennas, small verticals, etc. Antennas that are stealthy and couldn't be seen unless you were truly looking for them. The biggest fear that these folks have is what they consider to be an unsightly tower in their community. If we push towers, we will never get the support of representatives that have communities with CC&Rs in their district. I would suggest that these petitions tone down the rhetoric. What I have been doing is to send an email to each member in my Division, sorted by Congressional District. I use a template that I wrote. I also include the representative's name and the amount of FCC licensed hams in their respective district (a much larger number than ARRL members). They are instructed to go to the representative's website, go to his/her contact link, fill out the online form for access, and cut and paste the template in the appropriate box. We need to reach out to non-members as well as we only have about 20 percent of the total package. (It is an unfortunate fact, and a discussion for another day.) I think one way of doing this is to reach out to all clubs and ask them to participate in this email program. They could forward the email to their members and ask them to participate. It would certainly create some goodwill for the League. Another approach would be a hard copy letter writing in which the letters would be had delivered by our lobbyist to representatives in their offices. I know that this caught us under-prepared. We do need to get in front of it and control it as best we can. I'll be more than happy to share my template and the email I sent to my Division with anyone who wants it. 73 de Mike N2YBB Sent from my iPad On Jul 5, 2014, at 9:52 AM, "James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
I know we have no say in how these petitions are presented, but I hope the petition designers realize what market they are going for.
If they are going for Amateur Radio Ops, a graphic of a beam is going to get the most powerful positive reaction; but it will probably get a very powerful negative reaction from non-hams. A graphic of amateur radio ops in the field assisting with disaster operations would elicit a much more positive response from non-hams.
To us, a beam is a sign of beauty. To others…..not so much.
Late last year Chris indicated that this bill could act as a “cover” for the FCC to move forward with their own authority. I have not seen this mentioned since the bill came out. Is there any new information on this? The development of our policy in handling the lobbying of this bill will certainly depend on this.
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 2:10 AM To: 'JRS'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:22945] Re: Fwd: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014”
A similar petition is being circulated by a member in the Bay area: U.S. House of Representatives: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio...
It reached me through multiple sources, so it’s spreading. I’ve asked those sending to me to QRX until the League formulates its talking points and Congressional outreach plan. Unless we act quickly, though, it may be out of our hands.
73,
Marty N6VI
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of JRS Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 10:44 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22944] Fwd: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014”
FYI
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
-----------------------------------------------------
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 04:36:24 +0000 From: ABR Industries <info@abrind.com> Reply-To: ABR Information <info@abrind.com> To: n5aus@hamradio.us.com
Display problems? View this newsletter in your browser.
HR.4969 would require the FCC, within 120 days of the Bill’s passage, to amend the Part 97 Amateur Service rules to apply PRB-1coverage to include homeowners’ association regulations and deed restrictions, often referred to as “covenants, conditions, and restrictions” (CC&Rs). PRB-1 states that local governments cannot preclude Amateur Radio communications; they must “reasonably accommodate” amateur operations, and the state and local regulations must be the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish a legitimate governmental interest.
Presently, PRB-1 only applies to state and local zoning laws and ordinances. Since PRB-1 was enacted, the FCC has said several times that it would prefer to have some guidance from Congress before extending the policy to private land-use regulations. HR.4969 will provide that guidance, and give PRB-1 the force of Federal law.
Radio amateurs, while providing a valuable and necessary service to their communities, are frequently and increasingly precluded from installing necessary equipment (antennas, coax, etc) by unreasonable private land-use restrictions, including restrictive CC&R covenants. The net effect of HR.4969 passage will be to suppress those unreasonable restrictions and allow licensed amateurs to install reasonable equipment for practicing our hobby and having the means to serve our communities.
Sign Petition
Unsubscribe - Edit your subscription
www.abrind.com ABR Industries 8561 A Rayson Rd Houston, TX 77080
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
N2YBB wrote: " In our discussions on the Hill, we have been emphasizing reasonable accommodation. In an HOA, that will not be a tower. We have been talking about wire antennas in trees, under eaves, flagpole antennas, small verticals, etc. Antennas that are stealthy and couldn't be seen unless you were truly looking for them. The biggest fear that these folks have is what they consider to be an unsightly tower in their community. If we push towers, we will never get the support of representatives that have communities with CC&Rs in their district." I think this is a MAJOR point that is being lost by the average ham in their excitement that things might change. Many are thinking a 50'-70' tower and tribander are in their future... I'd appreciate a copy of the template you have been using for emails to members. Thanks & 73, Doug K4AC
It looks to me as I we need to get some points clarified on this and what is being discussed on the hill. Let's get some goals defined or get those definitions to the rest of us so we are clear and coordinated on this and we aren't giving false expectations to the members. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jul 5, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Doug Rehman <doug@k4ac.com> wrote:
N2YBB wrote: " In our discussions on the Hill, we have been emphasizing reasonable accommodation. In an HOA, that will not be a tower. We have been talking about wire antennas in trees, under eaves, flagpole antennas, small verticals, etc. Antennas that are stealthy and couldn't be seen unless you were truly looking for them.
The biggest fear that these folks have is what they consider to be an unsightly tower in their community. If we push towers, we will never get the support of representatives that have communities with CC&Rs in their district."
I think this is a MAJOR point that is being lost by the average ham in their excitement that things might change. Many are thinking a 50'-70' tower and tribander are in their future...
I'd appreciate a copy of the template you have been using for emails to members.
Thanks & 73, Doug K4AC
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Mike, why don't you go ahead and send the template to ODV so all will have it ready to use if they want to. 73, Rick - K5UR ... -----Original Message----- From: Doug Rehman <doug@k4ac.com> To: 'Mike Lisenco N2YBB' <n2ybb@arrl.org>; 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Sat, Jul 5, 2014 9:56 am Subject: [arrl-odv:22949] Re: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” N2YBB wrote: " In our discussions on the Hill, we have been emphasizing easonable accommodation. In an HOA, that will not be a tower. We have been alking about wire antennas in trees, under eaves, flagpole antennas, small erticals, etc. Antennas that are stealthy and couldn't be seen unless you were ruly looking for them. The biggest fear that these folks have is what they consider to be an unsightly ower in their community. If we push towers, we will never get the support of epresentatives that have communities with CC&Rs in their district." I think this is a MAJOR point that is being lost by the average ham in their xcitement that things might change. Many are thinking a 50'-70' tower and ribander are in their future... I'd appreciate a copy of the template you have been using for emails to members. Thanks & 73, oug 4AC ______________________________________________ rrl-odv mailing list rrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org ttp://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
After a few minutes of reflection, I remembered that I could find Mike's form message in the Division/Section Sent Email Log. I do have one question though, how do you determine the number of licensees per Congressional District? Thanks & 73, Doug K4AC
Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014”unintended consequences of well intended acts! When I dealt with my HOA, I didn't show them pictures of a beam (knowing full well that they would object) but showed them flagpoles, small verticals, wire antennas and semi-hidden antennas, the idea was to give them some options. As it turned out, they changed their minds and recognizing the assistance Hams give in this community during our semiannual flood season, have allowed me to have a few antennas. No beams, but no objection to a small tower and a vertical; it works for now. I do applaud the zeal of those who are putting together petitions, but we need to assist them and provide them some useable language that will put everyone on the same page. 73 all Jim Pace, K7CEX From: James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 6:52 AM To: 'Marty Woll' ; 'JRS' ; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:22946]Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” I know we have no say in how these petitions are presented, but I hope the petition designers realize what market they are going for. If they are going for Amateur Radio Ops, a graphic of a beam is going to get the most powerful positive reaction; but it will probably get a very powerful negative reaction from non-hams. A graphic of amateur radio ops in the field assisting with disaster operations would elicit a much more positive response from non-hams. To us, a beam is a sign of beauty. To others…..not so much. Late last year Chris indicated that this bill could act as a “cover” for the FCC to move forward with their own authority. I have not seen this mentioned since the bill came out. Is there any new information on this? The development of our policy in handling the lobbying of this bill will certainly depend on this. ’73 de JIM N2ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 2:10 AM To: 'JRS'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:22945] Re: Fwd: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” A similar petition is being circulated by a member in the Bay area: U.S. House of Representatives: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio... It reached me through multiple sources, so it’s spreading. I’ve asked those sending to me to QRX until the League formulates its talking points and Congressional outreach plan. Unless we act quickly, though, it may be out of our hands. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of JRS Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 10:44 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22944] Fwd: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” FYI 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 ----------------------------------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 04:36:24 +0000 From: ABR Industries <info@abrind.com> Reply-To: ABR Information <info@abrind.com> To: n5aus@hamradio.us.com Display problems? View this newsletter in your browser. HR.4969 would require the FCC, within 120 days of the Bill’s passage, to amend the Part 97 Amateur Service rules to apply PRB-1coverage to include homeowners’ association regulations and deed restrictions, often referred to as “covenants, conditions, and restrictions” (CC&Rs). PRB-1 states that local governments cannot preclude Amateur Radio communications; they must “reasonably accommodate” amateur operations, and the state and local regulations must be the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish a legitimate governmental interest. Presently, PRB-1 only applies to state and local zoning laws and ordinances. Since PRB-1 was enacted, the FCC has said several times that it would prefer to have some guidance from Congress before extending the policy to private land-use regulations. HR.4969 will provide that guidance, and give PRB-1 the force of Federal law. Radio amateurs, while providing a valuable and necessary service to their communities, are frequently and increasingly precluded from installing necessary equipment (antennas, coax, etc) by unreasonable private land-use restrictions, including restrictive CC&R covenants. The net effect of HR.4969 passage will be to suppress those unreasonable restrictions and allow licensed amateurs to install reasonable equipment for practicing our hobby and having the means to serve our communities. Sign Petition Unsubscribe - Edit your subscription www.abrind.com ABR Industries 8561 A Rayson Rd Houston, TX 77080 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7800 - Release Date: 07/04/14
Jim, glad you raised this. Yes, the strategy is still the same. The strategy is that of Greg Walden and we want to do this according to his plan. This is seriously confidential and under no circumstances is it to be mentioned outside the Board family but when we reach critical mass on cosponsors, Walden plans to call his former staffer at WTB, FCC and tell them to do this on their own and not make Congress pass this Bill. Critical mass at this juncture is about 30 cosponsors. We can do this. As to the arguments to be made, Mike and I have a talking points paper that I thought had been circulated to the Board. It deals appropriately with what reasonable accommodation in the CC&R context means. I have a few edits for Mike's "how to sell this Bill" piece that I will get to the Board ASAP. We want to be ahead of the petition guys here who may be well-intentioned but on the wrong track. Also, the Keelen Group is working with us very closely on getting cosponsors on a surgical basis rather than on a shotgun basis so it is best not to get too far ahead of them on rounding up cosponsors. We are paying them a lot of money to strategize this and believe me, they know what they are doing. 73, Chris W3KD Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 5, 2014, at 9:52 AM, "James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
I know we have no say in how these petitions are presented, but I hope the petition designers realize what market they are going for.
If they are going for Amateur Radio Ops, a graphic of a beam is going to get the most powerful positive reaction; but it will probably get a very powerful negative reaction from non-hams. A graphic of amateur radio ops in the field assisting with disaster operations would elicit a much more positive response from non-hams.
To us, a beam is a sign of beauty. To others…..not so much.
Late last year Chris indicated that this bill could act as a “cover” for the FCC to move forward with their own authority. I have not seen this mentioned since the bill came out. Is there any new information on this? The development of our policy in handling the lobbying of this bill will certainly depend on this.
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 2:10 AM To: 'JRS'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:22945] Re: Fwd: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014”
A similar petition is being circulated by a member in the Bay area: U.S. House of Representatives: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio...
It reached me through multiple sources, so it’s spreading. I’ve asked those sending to me to QRX until the League formulates its talking points and Congressional outreach plan. Unless we act quickly, though, it may be out of our hands.
73,
Marty N6VI
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of JRS Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 10:44 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22944] Fwd: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014”
FYI
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
-----------------------------------------------------
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 04:36:24 +0000 From: ABR Industries <info@abrind.com> Reply-To: ABR Information <info@abrind.com> To: n5aus@hamradio.us.com
Display problems? View this newsletter in your browser.
HR.4969 would require the FCC, within 120 days of the Bill’s passage, to amend the Part 97 Amateur Service rules to apply PRB-1coverage to include homeowners’ association regulations and deed restrictions, often referred to as “covenants, conditions, and restrictions” (CC&Rs). PRB-1 states that local governments cannot preclude Amateur Radio communications; they must “reasonably accommodate” amateur operations, and the state and local regulations must be the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish a legitimate governmental interest.
Presently, PRB-1 only applies to state and local zoning laws and ordinances. Since PRB-1 was enacted, the FCC has said several times that it would prefer to have some guidance from Congress before extending the policy to private land-use regulations. HR.4969 will provide that guidance, and give PRB-1 the force of Federal law.
Radio amateurs, while providing a valuable and necessary service to their communities, are frequently and increasingly precluded from installing necessary equipment (antennas, coax, etc) by unreasonable private land-use restrictions, including restrictive CC&R covenants. The net effect of HR.4969 passage will be to suppress those unreasonable restrictions and allow licensed amateurs to install reasonable equipment for practicing our hobby and having the means to serve our communities.
Sign Petition
Unsubscribe - Edit your subscription
www.abrind.com ABR Industries 8561 A Rayson Rd Houston, TX 77080
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Chris: Is there a danger in “reasonable accommodation” as it has been interpreted/defined by the courts in PRB-1 cases being affected by amateurs now saying that verticals and wire antennas are “reasonable accommodation” in CC&R cases? Could opponents of towers take the CC&R “acceptable antennas” and make a strong argument that those same antennas would be reasonable accommodation in PRB-1 situations? My concern is that we win the battle for antennas in CC&R restricted areas, but lose the war by having courts now say towers are unnecessary in PRB-1 cases. It would seem that trying to proffer two different definitions for “reasonable accommodation” is a potentially dangerous game. Doug K4AC From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Chris Imlay Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2014 4:31 PM To: James F. Boehner MD Cc: Marty Woll; arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22956] Re: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014” Jim, glad you raised this. Yes, the strategy is still the same. The strategy is that of Greg Walden and we want to do this according to his plan. This is seriously confidential and under no circumstances is it to be mentioned outside the Board family but when we reach critical mass on cosponsors, Walden plans to call his former staffer at WTB, FCC and tell them to do this on their own and not make Congress pass this Bill. Critical mass at this juncture is about 30 cosponsors. We can do this. As to the arguments to be made, Mike and I have a talking points paper that I thought had been circulated to the Board. It deals appropriately with what reasonable accommodation in the CC&R context means. I have a few edits for Mike's "how to sell this Bill" piece that I will get to the Board ASAP. We want to be ahead of the petition guys here who may be well-intentioned but on the wrong track. Also, the Keelen Group is working with us very closely on getting cosponsors on a surgical basis rather than on a shotgun basis so it is best not to get too far ahead of them on rounding up cosponsors. We are paying them a lot of money to strategize this and believe me, they know what they are doing. 73, Chris W3KD Sent from my iPhone
Good question Doug but there is a ton of case law (not all of it favorable to us of course) applying the codification of PRB-1 and the declaratory ruling itself. There is no real fear that H.R. 4969 will undo any of that as it applies to municipal ordinances. It is quite clear from the case law that reasonable accommodation, no prohibition and least practicable restriction is a flexible test of both ordinances and in special use permit situations to individual applications. An HOA would have to apply the test in each case to individual parcels of land. That said, there are a lot of potential problem areas in how the Bill could shake out if we are fortunate enough for our strategy to work: FCC could make findings that could use those examples and limit the effectiveness of the application of the three-part test to CC&Rs. But at this point, anything is better than where we are now and there is no danger to the zoning application of this, the way the Bill reads, unless FCC goes completely rogue, which we hope to prevent in our dialog with Walden and his darn sharp committee staff guys. 73, Chris W3KD Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 5, 2014, at 9:41 PM, Doug Rehman <doug@k4ac.com> wrote:
Chris:
Is there a danger in “reasonable accommodation” as it has been interpreted/defined by the courts in PRB-1 cases being affected by amateurs now saying that verticals and wire antennas are “reasonable accommodation” in CC&R cases? Could opponents of towers take the CC&R “acceptable antennas” and make a strong argument that those same antennas would be reasonable accommodation in PRB-1 situations?
My concern is that we win the battle for antennas in CC&R restricted areas, but lose the war by having courts now say towers are unnecessary in PRB-1 cases. It would seem that trying to proffer two different definitions for “reasonable accommodation” is a potentially dangerous game.
Doug K4AC
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Chris Imlay Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2014 4:31 PM To: James F. Boehner MD Cc: Marty Woll; arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22956] Re: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014”
Jim, glad you raised this. Yes, the strategy is still the same. The strategy is that of Greg Walden and we want to do this according to his plan. This is seriously confidential and under no circumstances is it to be mentioned outside the Board family but when we reach critical mass on cosponsors, Walden plans to call his former staffer at WTB, FCC and tell them to do this on their own and not make Congress pass this Bill. Critical mass at this juncture is about 30 cosponsors. We can do this. As to the arguments to be made, Mike and I have a talking points paper that I thought had been circulated to the Board. It deals appropriately with what reasonable accommodation in the CC&R context means. I have a few edits for Mike's "how to sell this Bill" piece that I will get to the Board ASAP. We want to be ahead of the petition guys here who may be well-intentioned but on the wrong track. Also, the Keelen Group is working with us very closely on getting cosponsors on a surgical basis rather than on a shotgun basis so it is best not to get too far ahead of them on rounding up cosponsors. We are paying them a lot of money to strategize this and believe me, they know what they are doing. 73, Chris W3KD
Sent from my iPhone
It might be helpful at this point to provide to you a compendium of materials that we can use initially (until just before the Board meeting when we have a grassroots lobbying session scheduled with the Keelen Group on Sunday after the Convention) in helping ARRL members support H.R. 4969. Hoping that this will be helpful to you for the short run, here are the following. 1. A PDF copy of the Bill. 2. A PDF copy of a "leave-behind" that was prepared by the Keelen Group from materials we gave them. 3. Our "bullet points" paper that Mike Lisenco and I have been using as talking points in our Congressional visits so far. 4. Mike Lisenco's thought piece (with template for Congressional letter) on grassroots lobbying. (Note, I have edited this and Mike has not seen these edits. So, he may have some remarks about the edits, which are entirely my own. Don't blame Mike if you don't like this). I am also including a list of the numbers of hams in each Congressional District that we and TKG have found to be very valuable. 73, Chris W3KD On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Doug Rehman <doug@k4ac.com> wrote:
Chris:
Is there a danger in “reasonable accommodation” as it has been interpreted/defined by the courts in PRB-1 cases being affected by amateurs now saying that verticals and wire antennas are “reasonable accommodation” in CC&R cases? Could opponents of towers take the CC&R “acceptable antennas” and make a strong argument that those same antennas would be reasonable accommodation in PRB-1 situations?
My concern is that we win the battle for antennas in CC&R restricted areas, but lose the war by having courts now say towers are unnecessary in PRB-1 cases. It would seem that trying to proffer two different definitions for “reasonable accommodation” is a potentially dangerous game.
Doug
K4AC
*From:* arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Imlay *Sent:* Saturday, July 5, 2014 4:31 PM *To:* James F. Boehner MD *Cc:* Marty Woll; arrl-odv *Subject:* [arrl-odv:22956] Re: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014”
Jim, glad you raised this. Yes, the strategy is still the same. The strategy is that of Greg Walden and we want to do this according to his plan. This is seriously confidential and under no circumstances is it to be mentioned outside the Board family but when we reach critical mass on cosponsors, Walden plans to call his former staffer at WTB, FCC and tell them to do this on their own and not make Congress pass this Bill. Critical mass at this juncture is about 30 cosponsors. We can do this. As to the arguments to be made, Mike and I have a talking points paper that I thought had been circulated to the Board. It deals appropriately with what reasonable accommodation in the CC&R context means. I have a few edits for Mike's "how to sell this Bill" piece that I will get to the Board ASAP. We want to be ahead of the petition guys here who may be well-intentioned but on the wrong track. Also, the Keelen Group is working with us very closely on getting cosponsors on a surgical basis rather than on a shotgun basis so it is best not to get too far ahead of them on rounding up cosponsors. We are paying them a lot of money to strategize this and believe me, they know what they are doing.
73, Chris W3KD
Sent from my iPhone
-- 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
participants (8)
-
Chris Imlay -
Christopher Imlay
-
David Norris -
Doug Rehman -
James F. Boehner MD -
Jim Pace K7CEX NW Division Director -
k5ur＠aol.com -
Mike Lisenco N2YBB