So, you ask, “What is the problem with H.R.1301?” I am a retired engineer, not a lawyer. I have been on an HOA board, even president. I have seen how these things work. My response is simply form years dealing with people, how words have meanings other than your interpretation, how people distort rules for their desired outcome.
First consider the following. If you have a legal issue with an HOA and it goes to court, as it easily can, it will cost you; possible thousands of dollars even if you prevail but certainly if you don’t. The HOA sees this as a cost of doing business and proof that they are defending property values and neighborhood esthetics. How do you see it? Look at the official amendment at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20160712/105227/BILLS-114-HR1301-W000791-Amdt-1.pdf . Page 4 Line 1 “… notify and obtain prior approval …”: This will require those who already have or intend to erect an outdoor antenna, stealth or otherwise. Federal Law will require them to go through the HOA “permitting” process, see below. Page 5 Line 3: “… establish reasonable written rules …”: The HOA permitting process will have the following results. 1) Unlike the 120 days requiring the FCC to modify CFR 47, there is no requirement placed upon an HOA to modify its contract with you during your lifetime. To modify a Coven of Deed Restriction often requires a large percentage of property owner votes. This is often difficult for HOAs even for officer elections. 2) The only possible good outcome will be where an HOA forbids all outdoor antennas. An HOA will be required to allow something if only on paper. That process will not be designed by anyone with any interest or understanding of RF. It will be designed, codified, implemented, and administered by those who are on the opposite side of any antenna disagreement from the radio amateur. Their outlook is already on record. There is no provision that the process be timely. It could be argued that to fully study the impact of an antenna would take many months, would require professional engineering studies, would require agreement from surrounding property owners, would requirement agreement from electrical, telephone, and cable distribution operators. It will go to private committee. The committee will make a judgment based on the HOA objectives of preserving property values, neighborhood esthetics, and above all minimizing complaints from HOA members. Never will consideration of technical aspects like efficiency, coupling into surrounding structures, take-off angle, gain, front-to-back ratio, or DX effectiveness take place. 3) If an HOA already has some allowance for antennas, they obviously already see that as reasonable. They will not easily relax those restrictions but possibly tighten them. On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Howard Bingham via BVARC <[email protected]> wrote: > From AustinHams group.. > > > Howard Bingham > > KE5APJ > ================================== > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [austinhams] Amateur Radio Parity Act > Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:52:37 -0500 > From: John Anderson [email protected] [austinhams] > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > Reply-To: John Anderson <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > > Someone explain to me why the final language in the hose bill is unacceptable? > > It changed the HOA "reasonable accommodation" to an absolute entitlement? > > I'm sure there are still holes in this law but it seems much better than the > status quo? > <http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act> > <http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act> > > > --- > > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > > -- Regards, Pete (KD5QPX) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 713-376-7277 Cell 281-980-3733 Hard Line
_______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list [email protected] http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
