[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
I agree with Bob Famiglio that associations whose rules place restrictions on antennas should be required by the bill to establish standards so that a property buyer isn’t walking into a big unknown that may turn out to be unacceptable. Requiring standards, whatever they may be, should make any subsequent decision concerning an antenna request less arbitrary and allow potential buyers to understand the rules. Hams would have an idea as to the most they could get, and non-Hams would have an idea what they would have to tolerate. For the many associations who have never had to deal with Amateur antenna requests, getting them to develop standards may be a difficult task, and associations may want to save time and trouble by turning to CAI or some other source for “boilerplate” language, much as happened with the League of Cities and its model zoning codes decades ago. I think it would be advisable for associations to have more than one source of such boilerplate – perhaps ARRL, for example – lest a CAI-developed absolute minimum become the norm. This is where some of the gradations Bob gave as examples might come into play. I can provide other examples that ended up as categorical exemptions in some municipal regulations we negotiated. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lisenco N2YBB Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 1:06 PM To: arrl-odv@arrl.org 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
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
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
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
Agreed--forward with all dispatch. The language is far from empty, and "efficient and effective" is probably more understandable than "reasonable accommodation." The idea that any HOA that wants to regulate antennas be required to have a published plan is very interesting, but it sounds like the timing will not permit this new concept to be inserted at this time. Good luck, Chris! 73, Greg, K0GW On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, James F. Boehner, MD via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I think we need to proceed with your compromise language Chris. Good Luck, Rod, K0DAS From: Christopher Imlay Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 7:58 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I fully support Chris' plan. While it may be a compromise, it demonstrates what we hams can in fact achieve a compromise and reasonably accommodate some needs of the homeowners associations. 73, Dale WA8EFK On 2/26/2016 8:58 AM, Christopher Imlay wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <mailto:n2ybb@arrl.org>> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org <mailto: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 <tel:917-865-3538> n2ybb@arrl.org <mailto:n2ybb@arrl.org> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto: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 <mailto:W3KD@ARRL.ORG>
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Hello Rick et al; Although the compromise is not what we had hoped for and the pathforward does not look promising, continuing this process does havethe result of demonstrating the we have a willingness to continue forwardrather than retreat. I do know that whatever happens next would be far more preferable thanto not continuing this effort, whatever the outcome. The language proposedlook sufficiently precise to help remedy the problem. Thank you to all involved. 73, Kermit W9XA From: "Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> To: n2ybb@arrl.org; arrl-odv@arrl.org Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 7:01 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:25170] Re: H.R. 1301 Update 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 CONFIDENTIALGood 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
All: I believe compromise is the best route forward. Prior to PRB-1, we struggled to meet with town councils and planning commissions. They didn’t need to speak with us, and typically—they didn’t. After PRB-1, they still didn’t always grant us everything we asked for but at least they came to the table and talked about it. Right now, HOAs don’t need to talk to us—and usually don’t. This legislation will hopefully bring them to the table and we can at least begin to have the discussions. 73, Jeff, K0RM Vice Director, Rocky Mountain Division From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 6:02 PM To: n2ybb@arrl.org; arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:25170] Re: H.R. 1301 Update 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 <mailto:n2ybb@arrl.org> > To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org <mailto: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 <mailto:n2ybb@arrl.org> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
At 04:05 PM 2/24/2016, Mike Lisenco N2YBB wrote:
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-1âsafe from alteration.
âThe traditional reasonable accommodation test would continue to apply to zoning and municipal land use cases.â
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.
Mike, Chris, etc I think we're still on the right track here. Keep it moving. Many home owner associations really don't exist any more, through lack of organization, etc. Let's also be sure that if the HOAs only exist in name only, hams can do what they want on their own property. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
participants (11)
-
Christopher Imlay -
Dale Williams -
G Widin -
James F. Boehner, MD -
Jeff Ryan -
k5ur＠aol.com -
Kermit Carlson -
Marty Woll -
Mike Lisenco N2YBB -
Rod Blocksome -
Tom Frenaye