Here is the response I sent to the staffer at Kay's request. Chris contributed substantially to the draft but the final version is my own. Dave K1ZZ Ben, Kay Craigie has asked me to thank you for your prompt response and to respond to your question. Reasonable accommodation is an intentionally flexible concept. The FCC's three-part test for municipal land use regulation of the same antennas that are routinely precluded by private land use regulations is intended to place an affirmative obligation on municipalities to (1) not preclude amateur radio communications; (2) make reasonable accommodation for those communications; and (3) forego any restriction on Amateur Radio communications that is not the least practicable regulation to accomplish the purpose of the municipality. What this translates to with respect to local government regulation is that it facilitates dialog between amateur radio operators and land use regulators. The local governments, after those negotiations, decide what no prohibition; reasonable accommodation; and least practicable regulation means in a given locality. As a summary statement, reasonable accommodation translates to the ability to install and maintain some sort of outdoor antenna that is functional, yet safe and not necessarily aesthetically obtrusive. In the context of private land use regulations where the purpose of regulating Amateur Radio antennas is purely aesthetic, the same principle should apply since the federal interest in effective amateur radio communications is the same. In some subdivisions with large, wooded lots, reasonable accommodation and least practicable regulation might lead the HOA to allow a tall, substantial antenna structure. In other environments it would likely be something less: for example, a flagpole serving double duty as an antenna or even a wire colored to blend in with the background or otherwise designed to be unobtrusive. The FCC does not make these determinations; the land use authority, in this case the HOA, would do so. We are not seeking to remove the HOA's ultimate jurisdiction to approve or disapprove an antenna installation. We simply need radio amateurs to be able to get past the "no antennas, no way" position that is all too typical and make it possible for them to negotiate in good faith with the HOA. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, David Sumner Chief Executive Officer ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio Newington, CT 860-594-0205 From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Stratton, John, N5AUS Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 5:00 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24196] Re: Follow-up messages on H.R. 1301 Kay Would you be so kind as to copy the Board on the response to the staffer who asked what "reasonable accommodation" means? 73 ----------------------------------------------------- John Robert Stratton N5AUS Office telephone: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 PO Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 ----------------------------------------------------- On 4/16/15 2:27 PM, Kay Craigie wrote: It has now been several weeks since our flurry of Hill visits about H.R. 1301. Mike Lisenco has sent out a lot (here in Virginia we'd call it a "passel") of follow-up e-mails to the staffers whom he talked with last month. I've just done the same thing. I heard back from one of those staffers saying his boss will sign on. Another one had a question about what "reasonable accommodation" means, and we'll get him a response asap. The point of all this is that if you're among those who have visited with Congressional staff in the district or on the hill, a follow-up message several weeks or a month later can pay off. That's in addition, of course, to the thank-you e-mail sent right after the meeting. 73, Kay N3KN _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv