We’ve all heard the buzz of S1685 and HB1301 (The Amateur Radio Parity Act). It sounds like a good thing on the surface — protecting licensed Amateur Radio operators living in PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) with CC&Rs restricting or banning antennas. Theoretically, it would enhance our national emergency communications capabilities by ensuring Homeowners Associations reduce or eliminate interfering with ham radio operations. But Kilo-16 points out some thought provoking potential unintended consequences. His Liberty Legislative Update could lead to some lively discussion, and if anything, make patriots take pause before jumping on board with something that ‘sounds’ good, especially in this age of big government. An audio version of the Liberty Legislative Update is posted below. -JJS
Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015 (H.R. 1301 & S. 1685)
This is KILO-16 with a liberty legislative update. This week’s topic is the Amateur Radio
Parity Act of 2015, better known as HR 1301 in the US House and S 1685 in the US Senate.
Liberty-loving amateur radio operators around the nation, your freedoms are on the
chopping block! Sadly, the assault is being led by none other than the American Radio Relay
League (ARRL). In a well-intentioned, but grossly misguided effort to help amateur operators
increase their operating footprint in neighborhoods governed by CC&R’s and stringent HOA’s,
the ARRL is currently pushing parallel legislation in both houses of Congress which would
direct the FCC to amend 47 CFR Part 97 to apply the three-part “Federal preemption test” of
PRB-1 to private covenants, deed restrictions, and homeowner regulations. For the
unfamiliar, PRB-1 was an FCC order issued in 1985 which directed local governments to make
“reasonable accommodations” for amateur operations when establishing local zoning
ordinances, with the guiding directive to allow restrictions for reasons of height, safety, and
“aesthetic concerns.” The legislation currently sponsored by the ARRL is named the Amateur
Radio Parity Act of 2015, and numbered as H.R. 1301 in the House and S. 1685 in the Senate.
The ARRL has recently made concerted public relations and lobbying efforts to move
this dangerous legislation through the halls of Congress, touting it as the answer to amateur
operators who are restricted in their ability to erect outdoor antenna systems due to
conditions established by many private property deed restrictions. While many of you may be
thinking, “Well it’s about time!” I challenge you to think again. For freedom-loving patriots,
the words “Federal preemption” should strike a very sensitive nerve next to your liberty bone.
According to Webster’s Dictionary, the word “preemption” means “a doctrine in which
Federal law supersedes State law when the Federal law is in conflict with State law.”
Hopefully, if the matter at hand was unclear before, it comes into sharp focus at this point.
The real issue at stake with H.R. 1301 and S. 1685 is not an issue of whether amateur radio
operators can erect antenna systems in deed-restricted neighborhoods, but rather the issue of
whether it is proper and Constitutional to allow the Federal government to overrule private
contracts, deed restrictions, and local ordinances in the name of “preemption.” Not only is
the Amateur Radio Parity Act badly written legislation, but it is also simply un-Constitutional,
and therefore must be actively opposed by freedom-loving patriots.
On Page 83 of the October 2015 edition of QST magazine, the article titled “Amateur
Radio Parity Act Would Not Void ‘Private Contracts’” bears the subtitle “Private land-use
regulations must give way when they conflict with Federal telecommunications policy, ARRL
General Counsel explains.” I hope by now your liberty-loving skin is crawling. In this article,
ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, makes several key points worth addressing. First,
Chris argues that private contracts are not violated by the ARPA because land-use regulations
are not really covenants:
“The contractual characteristic of private land-use regulation has not existed in the United States for a
great many years,” Imlay pointed out…”A contract requires a meeting of the minds between the two
parties,” Imlay said….rather that contracts, Imlay explained, private land-use restrictions are limitations
placed on the use of land long before a buyer ever shows up…with no opportunity to negotiate, “you don’t
have a contractual relationship at all, what you have is preclusion.”
While Chris’ argument may seem to hold weight on the surface, he ignores the myriad
other contractual relationships that we enter each week which afford us no opportunity to
negotiate. When was the last time you got to negotiate with your credit card company over
your card interest rate before you signed the contract which obligated you to pay high interest
rates and late fees should you fail to meet your appointed payment date? Does your lack of
agreement with the late fees nullify your requirement to pay them? In fact, Chris is sadly
mistaken in his statement “A contract requires the meeting of the minds between the two
parties.” Whether the minds meet or not, once an agreement is signed between two parties,
that is what establishes the contract. The contract is not contingent on “meeting of the
minds”, but rather mutual agreement to enter into the contract, which is an entirely different
matter. Again, harken back to the credit card contract…you may not like the terms of the
contract, but if you honestly objected to the terms strongly enough, you simply would not
acquire that particular credit card, but rather seek out one with more amenable terms. Liking
the terms of the agreement isn’t what cements a contract, but rather both parties signing the
common agreement as an indication of willingness to abide by that agreement.
Later in the QST article, Chris argues that the “legal underpinning of the ARPA is wellestablished”
and that “private land-use regulations that conflict with expressed federal
telecommunications policy are subject to pre-emption, which would restore private property
rights to the landowner.” How dangerous these few words are! First, Chris Imlay has spoken
at length about the ARPA in a variety of forums, but I have yet to hear him expound on the
“well-established legal underpinnings” of this legislation. Much more important, and
dangerous, is Chris’ contention that non-legislated Federal “policy” should overrule
established contract law which can be traced back to English common law in place around the
time of the Magna Carta. If you want “well-established legal underpinnings” for a law, I’d
place my money on 800+ years of legal precedence over a 30-year old Federal policy
conceived in Washington by a non-elected government bureaucrat.
Of note, while Imlay argues that the ARPA would “restore private property rights”, it
actually does no such thing. True private property rights for the property owner would allow
the owner to do whatever he desires with his property. It would eliminate zoning restrictions,
allow the owner to operate any kind of business he desires on the property, and do with the
property whatever he pleases; however, the ARPA does not allow that, or anything even close.
In fact, the ARPA obligates a restrictive HOA to change absolutely nothing about prohibitions
it may have on outdoor antenna systems, much less actually afford a property owner
sovereignty over his own property. Chris’ contention that ARPA affords property owners their
“rights” is a pure, unadulterated lie.
As a relevant side-note, it’s important to get a little background on Chris Imlay, the
lawyer. Chris came to my attention several years ago when he published an official League
policy stating ARRL members would not be allowed to carry privately-owned concealed
weapons while participating as a League club at organized club events, even if the weapon was
legally owned and carried under the jurisdiction in which the member was carrying. For those
of us out West who do any number of public service events each year in the back country, this
was a significant policy, as many of us carry personal sidearms to protect against any number
of threats to our person while serving at an event. Basically, Chris was lead champion in
denying ARRL members their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. His push to
overrule the 10th Amendment through legislated “pre-emption” should come as absolutely no
surprise to anyone.
Despite the PR campaign by the ARRL, the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015 is nothing
but a thinly veiled legislative effort to transfer power away from private individuals and
organizations, and move that power to the central Federal government. The fact is, the
Federal government grows more and more intrusive in our lives on a daily basis. Local
communities, counties, and States are constantly being overrun by Federal policies and
regulations. EPA restrictions, Department of Transportation requirements, Department of
Education standards…the list is virtually endless. Rather than delegating responsibility and
management of daily life to the lowest possible level, the Federal government constantly
moves to seize and usurp authority from lower levels. Fundamentally, ARPA is yet one more
example of this type of usurpation, and it needs to be stopped.
In closing, I encourage every patriot to consider the dangers of the Amateur Radio
Parity Act. Both H.R. 1301 and S. 1685 are currently in subcommittee in their respective
houses. Visit the House and Senate websites to track the progress of this dangerous
legislation. If one of your elected representatives serves on the subcommittee reviewing these
bills, contact them without delay and voice your concerns. If your representatives are not
assigned to the respective subcommittees, contact them and voice your strong opposition to
these bills should, God-forbid, they reach the broader chamber floor. The ARRL has put a
significant amount of time and money into lobbying these bills. We have much ground to
cover to ensure the counterpoint is heard. Contact your elected representatives and help
make the case for liberty today!
KILO-16
Below is the audio version of this report, and may also be accessed directly at:
Feel free to share!
This act took hold with my applause. Finally, ham radio operators could stand in the face of the ubiquitous home owners association (the modern day Nazi party ). Present day I wonder, did we win the battle only to lose the war?
The ARRL has argued that ARPA is necessary to ensure amateur emergency communications remain alive throughout the US; however, this is also a straw-man argument. I lived in one of the most deed-restricted communities in a large city out West for several years and was active on all bands 160m-13cm. The deed-restrictions forced me to get very creative with my antenna designs. I settled on a small magnetic loop as my main HF antenna. At 6 feet in diameter, it sat just below the block wall around my back yard on a home-made wooden stand. I used it to operate 80-10m on a regular basis, to include a regional NVIS net on 40m which proved quite suitable for regional emergency communications. I also used a thin-wire off center-fed doublet for operations from 160-10m. For the higher bands, I used a vent-mounted antenna for 2m & 70cm and operated 2m simplex and via repeaters extensively for the time I lived in that community. I may have gotten a nasty-gram or seven if the trash can stayed out by the curb for 10 minutes too long after trash pickup, but I never did hear a peep from the HOA about my antenna systems. Operating on HF bands from a deed-restricted neighborhood isn’t easy, but it’s very doable, and I learned a lot about antenna theory in the process, something every radio op should know.
Sent in by Tango Zulu-01 via email:
I’m dissapointed with the lack of quoting anynactual text from the act, so I willmhave to investigate further, but as he is citing first principles, Imwould like to counter with first principles. We have the right to keep and bear arms – self defense which comes directly from God or from nature. We also have the right for freedom of religion freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Those rights cannot be contracted away the right to have contract is a lesser rate than either of the two a homeowners association can pass laws restricting the fundamental human rights but they are null and void, just as a contract where you would sell yourself into slavery. The question of banning a large antenna is equivalent to the question of banning a press or paper or the other things required to protect our rights or banning certain kinds or all guns by a homeowners association. It is possible such an antenna will create a true nuisance and create problems for your neighbors but these are not nuisances these are the tools of our speech and even so many homeowners associations often ban thing they simply do not like. They also do so without Fifth Amendment compensation for what is a taking of your property if all of a sudden you are expensive antenna has to be taken down will they pay for it? Moreover will they pay for you to set up somewhere where it is legal so that you can continue to express your right to speak? Finally the whole FCC regulatory regime is unconstitutional where in the constitution does it give Congress, much less a bureaucracy the right to regulate the airwaves? Yes the airways might be considered property or Commons or something else but why would you need a license to buy property or to use property? It would be possible to take every homeowner’s association to court and sue them individually to try to regain our rights are fundamental human rights but it is very expensive and often you cannot recover attorneys fees so instead requiring each of us individually to cough up a lot of money to sue our own home owners association – which would likely lose after a long and difficult battle, this simply short circuits the process. I will simply add if you look at deed restrictions including in the North there are clauses banning “people of other races” from living in the houses in various subdivisions those go back even further than homeowners associations and zoning into common law. Would you return those to validity? Could an HOA pass identical language and would you accept it?
So to summarize, an antenna is an instrument of speech, association, communication, which are rights above the right to contract. Like sidearms and rifles are the instruments ofmthe right tomself defense. Absent safety or nuisance problems, such rights cannot be alienated or infringed, even by contract. And as a last thought – who and how will such a contract be enforced? Is the pen really mightier than the sword? Yes, if it can merely tattoo handcuffs and you are convinced you are in chains.
We can certainly look at the original text, but because the bill is so poorly written, I don’t think we’ll get much from it. From HR 1301:
1) Section 2 of the bill simply contains Congressional “findings” which state: a) there are over 700,000 amateur radio operators in the US, b) amateur radio is useful for self-study in the areas of tech development and EMCOM protocols, c) a “strong Federal interest” exists in having amateur stations and these stations have been impacted by land-use restrictions, d) the FCC issued PRB-1 30 years ago with the purpose of directing State and local governments to minimize their restrictions on amateur stations to “the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish a legitimate State or local purpose”, and e) the FCC has been reluctant to issue regulatory guidance without Congressional “guidance and direction.”
Of particular note, Section 2 fails to define what is a “minimum practicable regulation”, nor does it define a “legitimate State or local purpose” making this bill a virtual goldmine for litigators. It also fails to substantiate the “strong Federal interest” or why a strong Federal interest should be recognized – notably it provides no Constitutional basis at all for supporting the idea of the Federal interest.
2) Section 3 of the bill provides that 120 days after the bill’s passage 47 CFR Part 97 be amended to prohibit the application of private land use restrictions and covenants to which would: a) preclude amateur communications, b) “fail to accommodate” such communications, and c) not be the “minimum practicable restriction on such communications to accomplish the legitimate purpose of the private entity seeking to enforce such a restriction.”
Again of note, Section 3 in no way defines “fail to accommodate” or “minimum practicable restriction”.
Based on the above text, my former HOA in the large Western city would have every legal basis to deny my outdoor antenna systems, even if HR1301 were passed, since I can operate solely with indoor antennas, which weren’t prohibited in the property covenants. Furthermore, the tangible preservation of property value by covenant restrictions has legal precedence which would cause the HOA to be able to meet all direction in HR 1301 while overtly denying an external antenna system.
Bottom line is that HR1301/S1685 don’t actually do anything to enforce my fundamental private property rights, while they do give the Federal government legal basis to intrude on other private contracts and covenants. If HR1301 actually reinforced my fundamental rights, it would be worth supporting; however, it doesn’t do anything of the sort except give the Federal government precedence for overreach into other areas of private contract/covenant.
The debate on fundamental rights vs. government restrictions is actually an entirely separate debate that I’d prefer to leave separate from this issue. I think it’s important to take this legislation at face-value and oppose it based on its specific lack of merit…namely that it fails to protect the very “right” the ARRL argues it is protecting. Regulation of fundamental rights, while a worthy discussion, is best left to a separate forum, in my opinion.
As a new member of Amrron, I step tenderly, yet forthright. Having a 40 meter net on 7.242 is worthless for Florida stations due to interference. Heterodyne is the problem. Foreign short wave broadcasters such as China and North Korea care little for ham radio bands.I ask alot I know, but for many to participate in the 40 meter net, The frequency must be altered. 7.230 is always clear.
Due to QRM, the Eastern Region Net Control usually shifts (QSYs) to 7.238 or 7.236. Whenever you don’t find a net where it ‘should’ be, search up and down for it. We’re there not too far away.
Kilo-16 is spot-on in his evaluation of the Amateur Radio Parity Act.
I’m a lawyer with a pretty good education in TRUE constitutional law (Liberty University), and some experience in it also having worked for a ConLaw specialized firm.
This Act is bad news.
Don’t ever ask the government to do something for you, especially if you can take care of it yourself.
If you choose to live in a place that is part of an HOA, then deal with it. No-one forced you to buy there.
I solved the issue on a couple fronts:
1) I built an AS-2259 antenna for my KX3 (ok – it sucks on 20m – and at QRP I don’t get very far out of state). The mast is painted redneck-multicam PVC hidden next to a Mesquite Tree in the brush next to my house.
2) I put up a random wire inverted-L when I need to do 20m, which HAS got me to Montana and Georgia/Alabama, from the Southwest.
3) I got elected to the HOA board and chair the Architectural Review Committee . If we don’t see it we don’t care. (Let’s see if I keep the position.)
I used to be president of my HOA. HOA rules are established by the builder. It is very hard to change the HOA rules as you usually need a super majority to vote on it. You may also need to hire a lawyer to make changes. It is hard enough to get a quorum for a normal vote at HOA meetings. It is impossible to get a super majority to vote on an issue that affects few. The result is rules are put in place by builders who just care about the appearance of the community till they sell all the units they can. Then they leave and the HOA board cannot change rules easily. I think a law protecting the rights of HOA home owners is needed.
Seriously, this author thinks that this is a power grab and is dangerous? Not me. God forbid that hams can put a reasonable antenna on their “own” property. The entire concept of covenants needs to be revisited and the parity act is a good first step. What we really need is a property owner bill of rights as the restrictions in CC&Rs have gotten out of hand. When a piece of property is sold it should not come with restrictions that live on in perpetuity. There are other ways to deal with a neighbor with junker cars on the lawn instead of burdening a community with cookie cutter covenants. Covenants are a larger threat to your liberty than the Amateur Radio Parity Act ever could be.
The Amateur Radio Parity Act transfer back some of the rights to have a reasonable antenna system on ones property. Property that many of you paid a pretty penny for. The author has not demonstrated in any meaningful way on how the Amateur Radio Parity Act is not constitutional. In any case, that is something for the supreme court decide. Many ham radio operator living with covenants will agree with this. Sometime you don’t get a choice on where to move; work, school and keeping the spouse happy are all part of that decision.
If you have such a strict dogma when it comes to liberty you will never gain anything. Remember the government gave us Amateur Radio and it can take it away. If you want to go down this road then maybe you examine the constitutionality of amateur radio and the FCC. If you are going to be such a purist when it comes to the constitution you should also give up your amateur radio license. I doubt you really want to do that. Instead you should be thinking about taking every single advantage you can get when preparing for an emergency.
If you are interested in having some of your antenna rights restored, please support the Amateur Radio Parity Act. I have made it easy to do so at http://www.rescue-radio.com
73
Kurt
KU0O
I am very much for stopping this irrational interference with having external antennas for ham radio operators. Absolutely would not fly is they went after almost any other group. I do want to dispute one small point though-
The statement was made: “Remember the government gave us Amateur Radio and it can take it away. ”
Yes, they can take it away, but they did not give us amateur radio: we invented it. Then THEY took it away and ‘banished hams to the bands below 600 meters”, which in the old days was a considered by the ‘experts’ to be a hinterland of useless radio spectrum and the pronouncement was made that ‘they’ll never be able to talk around the block way up there!’. This led to the ham (amateur) development of shortwave and reliable long range -wireless- communication. When the politicians in DC and their owners decided that they wanted that too, they stole that too & sold it off , parcelling these remaining, tiny portions of the HF spectrum to us.
Remember, we’re living on an RF ‘reservation’ because the politicians stole it from the inventors, discoverers and innovators who developed it’s usefulness.
Other than that, I have no strong opinions . . .
HAAAR!
Popeye
KU0O,
While appreciate the intent of your argument, covenants are not a threat to my liberty because I have the choice to not participate. On the flip side, should the Feds ever decide to exercise preemption, I have no choice but to submit…either to their oppression or their prosecution. Amateur Radio Parity Act is definitely the more dangerous threat.
Your argument that ARPA “transfers back reasonable rights” is hollow. I’ve reviewed the actual text of the HR and I can’t find a single place where it “transfers back reasonable rights” to anyone. If you can demonstrate where it guarantees even a single right, I’d like to see it. Functionally, the only thing ARPA absolutely guarantees is that the Federal government can exercise preemption. In no way does it secure the right for you to put up the antenna of your choosing. Your local HOA can object at any point based on arguments like: a) aesthetics, b) property value impacts, c) safety. Read the text. By the way, rights don’t need adjective modifiers. You either have them, or you don’t. Reasonable doesn’t have anything to do with rights.
Having the Supreme Court decide an issue of Federal government authority and overreach is the legal equivalent of letting the fox guard the henhouse. Why I would defer to the Federal government to tell me when it thinks it is overreaching is beyond me.
The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states this:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I’ve searched the Constitution and find no Article or Section which specifically gives the Federal government authority to overrule private covenants. As such, the Tenth Amendment makes the administration of private covenants strictly a matter for individual States or individual people. This is what makes ARPA unconstitutional. It’s pretty clear-cut. The key element is to look at the law and take the emotion out of the argument.
You might have missed my previous comment that I lived in a highly deed-restricted community in a large city out West for several years. During that time I was quite active on the air on all bands from 160m-13cm, all with stealth antennas which kept me more than adequately connected throughout the local area and region. I ran a weekly 40m net which reached from Las Vegas to Tucson to Riverside to Albuquerque. During my time there I didn’t get a single complaint from the HOA about my antenna systems. I can’t say the same thing about leaving my trash can out for 3 hours too long. My point is that HOA living didn’t restrict my ability to operate…it just forced me to get creative in antenna system design. If I can do it, you can too.
The bottom line of the discussion is one of principle vs. pragmatism. Government power goes both ways…it can work for you, or it can work against you. The problem is you can’t control which is which, so the government that’s your friend today can “disappear” you tomorrow. The better answer is to not empower that government at all and work through local measures. Even if ARPA gave you some legal right to antennas (which it clearly doesn’t), there’s nothing prohibiting you from working in the Colorado legislature to pass a similar bill at the State level which would have the same end result for you as ARPA. Your chances of passing that bill are likely much higher than the chance of passing ARPA, since at the very least you won’t be contending with my representatives who I’ve lobbied to oppose ARPA at the Federal level. If you don’t think you can win at the State level, nothing stops you from working within your county or city to accomplish the same end. In short, even if ARPA were the answer (which it isn’t), getting it passed at the local level would be far easier than at the Federal level, so I wonder why this hasn’t been addressed and/or attempted by many ARPA amateur operator advocates?
73,
KILO-16
The commentary presents an argument that suggests the preferred solution is to work through local government and there our freedoms are best protected. But government is government. The distinction is only in scale. To reject large scale government only to favor local scale government is a very narrow and self-limiting way of thinking. I might have considered it reasonable if I were living in say 1760 when my mobility across this continent would have been much more limited than today. But in my lifetime I’ve been settled in a half dozen communities in four different states in three different regions of the country. And I could pack up, if I wanted, and by tomorrow night be settled in another community in a different state in a different region. Many of us do that all the time, certainly much more so than in 1760. But in each community I should not have to work through yet another local government to claim my rights, no these are unalienable and should not stop at some invisible line. No indeed.
The point is that local scale thinking alone is insufficient, our rights must be protected and respected at all scales and locations in our country. Our town, county and state governments are not *inherently* better or worse than our federal government. They differ only in scale, in the number of politicians and bureaucrats they employ, that is all.
Most of us in my current HOA have satellite dishes on our roofs and we didn’t need to petition our HOA, town, county or state approval for the right to install them. Nor would we if any of us moved to another HOA in another state. That is because at the federal scale we are able to evoke that right regardless of our location. Thank the Lord for that. A single HOA board or town council sure can’t do that for me.
Like the satellite dish, I expect the same right to deploy a simple VHF or HF vertical in my backyard or on my roof. And not have to petition yet another HOA or local government with every move I make, be it across town or across the country. The ARPA is common sense for this Patriot.
Once again, another Patriot who argues that ARPA provides/secures/guarantees some kind of right…yet I still find myself waiting for someone to show me what right ARPA actually provides.
I don’t understand the argument that since local governments are troublesome, large federal governments are a better answer. If someone couple please explain that to me, I’d be most appreciative.
Having the choice to move to a community where you don’t have to “work to claim your rights” would not be possible without local government. It was the entire reason for the establishment of the individual States. Based on your argument, we should do away with local and State governments and just have a Supreme Federal Authority who bestows on us all “good” so that we don’t have to trouble with being involved in our own governance. That place exists…it’s called North Korea.
I fail to see the common sense in ARPA. Granting the Federal government the power of preemption without gaining anything in return is simply foolish. I’ve yet to see anyone make a convincing case that ARPA guarantees the individual anything, yet there are those willing to surrender legitimate private contract oversight to the Federal government for the false promise of their own personal betterment.
Alexis de Tocqueville, in his treatise on the experiment of American Democracy had this to say about local governments:
“Nevertheless local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations. Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty.”
Furthermore, he rightly observes the following:
“The form of the Federal Government of the United States was the last which was adopted; and it is in fact nothing more than a modification or a summary of those republican principles which were current in the whole community before it existed, and independently of its existence. Moreover, the Federal Government is, as I have just observed, the exception; the Government of the States is the rule.”
How far we have fallen chasing after our own selfish desires for the empty promises of a bankrupt Federal enterprise. Send me pictures of your towering antenna systems and the Federal troops who surround them, enforcing your rights erect them against the evil HOA’s. I’m eagerly waiting.
KILO-16
Where is the text of the bill? Link please.
I do not participate in hoa’s or similar. I wish event that my neighborhood wasn’t even within city limits. But, I can build up to a 60 foot antenna. The only thing that limits me from doing so is my financial ability to build it.
As a licensed radio amateur, as well as a former HOA director, I can understand both sides of this issue. I have always believed that the primary purpose of an HOA is to preserve, and if possible, to enhance the value of property owned by its members. I understand how some HOA members might feel threatened by the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015, thinking it would diminish an association’s ability to control the aesthetics which contribute to the value of property in a community.
In reading statements and comments advanced by the HOA side of this discussion, it is clear to me that there is a considerable misunderstanding of what the act is designed to do. Senate Bill 1685 and its identical House bill would merely require “reasonable accommodation” of amateur antennas. Two factors must be considered to make sense of this:
1) Any structure tall enough to pose a threat to adjacent property would clearly not be “reasonable” under the Amateur Radio Parity Act.
2) Giant towers are a luxury that only wealthy amateur can afford and are neither necessary for normal amateur radio operation nor typical of the antennas most amateurs use.
Most amateurs use barely-visible wire antennas tacked to the inside of perimeter fences or strung from trees. Antennas of this type have been used since the early 1900s and are adequate to achieve world-wide communications when ionospheric conditions are favorable. Even so, many HOAs ban all antennas without exception, regardless of how inconspicuous they may be.
I don’t want to see giant towers spring up in my community any more than anyone else does, and I am confident that a “reasonable accommodation” law could not be construed to permit expensive, ugly and potentially dangerous structures to be erected on residential lots. At the same time, I believe that a “reasonable accommodation” law should be enacted to permit radio amateurs to construct stealth antennas that do not endanger property and do not detract from the aesthetics of our communities.
Tom Watson
15706 Stoney Fork Dr.
Houston, TX 77084
713-444-9155
Amateur License: WZ8Q
The act is good because it says that outdoor antennas cannot be banned outright, unless they are obtrusive – then they can be banned. Fine.
That does not limit Liberty of the HOA.
In my city, there is mostly CC&R based neighborhoods. This eliminates a lot of things home owners can do with their homes. Also, when signing HOA documents, the antenna stipulation is not clearly specified in any of the documents the home owner must sigh to buy homes in suburban neighborhoods. Basically, no receiving or transmitting antennas of any kind including hidden antennas are allowed except for TV or satellite antennas. If they are required to allow TV antennas, why not HF antennas? The private land use restrictions are in all organized neighborhoods and are used as a form of discrimination.
Absolutely poorly reasoned and written. Have you ever served this nation in the military; for if not, don’t talk to me about freedom and rights or privileges. Like some spoilt child, getting one bite at a time into these legacy Jim-Crow derived HOAs is winning a battle to win the final war. Whining about rights when the amateur radio service is a privilege not a right is just plain immature and ignorant. So while some of you out there feel the need to fight the Government at every turn and never win, time to realize in Government or war or the business world, compromise wins the day, not stubborn one-way attitudes and actions. Again, let’s get what we can, prove our good behavior and continued community service, and then go the next step. I have beaten several targets, foes on the battlefields since the Nam thru Gulf War I and civil competition (being a civilian is a piece of cake) by compromising, not whining or wanting it all right now or else. We have nothing at present, and so you more of the same?