View Full Version : N0ECN Shot Down by FCC Re: CC&R
From today's FCC Digest:
JAMES WHEDBEE. Denied the Petition by LETTER. (DA No. 12-699). WTB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-699A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-699A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-699A1.txt
Excerpts from the letter to N0ECN:
This letter responds to your petition for a declaratory ruling that private codes, covenants, and restrictions including homeowner association rules (CC&Rs) that restrict amateur radio facilities violate Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. You request that the Commission declare such CC&Rs to be contrary to the public safety and interest, thereby terminating their enforceability. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition. < snip >
Congress recently enacted the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which requires the Commission to report to Congress regarding the uses and capabilities of Amateur Radio Service communications in emergencies and disaster relief. The statute requires that the study identify impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio Service communications and recommendations regarding the removal of such impediments, including "the effects of unreasonable or unnecessary private land use restrictions on residential antenna installations.” On April 2, 2012, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comments relating to the topics of the study to be submitted to Congress. Comments are due May 17, 2012.
In your petition, you argue that early comments to the Public Notice demonstrate a controversy regarding whether CC&Rs that restrict amateur radio facilities violate the Communications Act, and you request a declaratory ruling terminating the controversy by holding that such CC&Rs are unenforceable. Section 1.2 of the Commission’s Rules provides that the Commission may “issue a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty.” The Commission’s policy regarding preemption of CC&Rs that restrict amateur radio facilities is clear, and has not changed since 1985. The recent congressional directive to conduct a study that, inter alia, examines the effects of such CC&Rs does not change the Commission’s existing policy. Because there is no controversy to terminate or uncertainty to remove regarding the enforceability of CC&Rs, we deny your petition.
< snip >
Translation, IMHO: Just because Congress directed that the FCC conduct a survey does NOT mean that the FCC will use that study to change their policy. Or am I wrong?
PA5COR
05-03-2012, 12:51 PM
There is an existing law.
That a study is ordered that looks at the effects of the restricting CC R's does not change that law that is still in effect, the Commission has to uphold the existing law.
Even if the study will be in favor of doing away with the restrictions, that first must be changed in the law.
Only then can the FCC act on the new law.
Till then they have to work with the existing law.
Translation, IMHO: Just because Congress directed that the FCC conduct a survey does NOT mean that the FCC will use that study to change their policy. Or am I wrong?
I'd say "does not necessarily mean that the FCC will use that study to change their policy." It might, but it might not and they don't want to commit at this time.
I'd say "does not necessarily mean that the FCC will use that study to change their policy." It might, but it might not and they don't want to commit at this time.
Hmmm.
How about "Just because Congress directed the FCC to conduct a survey does not imply what, if anything, the FCC will do with the results of that survey" ?
Something about a snowball & Hell comes to mind... :roll:
Something about "Don't buy property which is regulated by such nonsense" also comes to mind.
Something about a snowball & Hell comes to mind... :roll:
Something about "Don't buy property which is regulated by such nonsense" also comes to mind.Well, there is that.
wa6mhz
05-03-2012, 02:14 PM
Something about "Don't buy property which is regulated by such nonsense" also comes to mind.
That is why I bought in CREST and not in Poway or Rancho Bernardo. ANY antenna Regulations are TOO MUCH regulation!
The only one I am bound by is the 200ft limit for FAA and planes. (Like I am going to put up a 200ft tower! LOL!)
Hams are driven by their WIVES to buy a PRETTY house. Pretty houses usually come with HOAs and CC&Rs. Trashed houses are usually FREE from those. It is easier to live in a TRASHED house (and cheaper too) that you can always fix up than to take a Pretty house where you have to ask permission to even plant a DAISY! My wife knew that HAM RADIO COMES FIRST in house shopping. In fact, for every house we looked at, I ran a TOPO program to make sure it had a FB shot to Hawaii for DUCT working and a great VHF/UHF radio location for the JUNE VHF Contest! The roof had to be fairly FLAT for easy climbing on to put up antennas. The yard had to be EXPANSIVE for stringing up dipoles. And what the actual house looked like was completely IMMATERIAL. I just use it to SLEEP in at night anyway, who cares what it looks like? We don't have COCKTAIL PARTIES! And after living in a SEEDY, broke down 12x60 Mobilehome for 18 years, this 5BR house was a MANSION!
So, Hams just shouldn't even THINK of moving to CC&R or HOA neighborhoods if they plan on doing Ham Radio. If they move there, they should take up Stamp Collecting instead! Because a ROTTEN antenna is almost as bad as NO antenna!
KC2UGV
05-03-2012, 02:49 PM
Something about "Don't buy property which is regulated by such nonsense" also comes to mind.
Something about finding an agent who is a ham, and letting them know "Ham friendly only, please" does as well :)
Something about finding an agent who is a ham, and letting them know "Ham friendly only, please" does as well :)I'll vouch for that; it worked for me.
And it was a nice house, too, Pat. (Although it needed some work, you should have seen those gawdawful red carpets that they had in there...)
Hmmm.
How about "Just because Congress directed the FCC to conduct a survey does not imply what, if anything, the FCC will do with the results of that survey" ?
Yeah, I could go with that as well.
I'll vouch for that; it worked for me.
And it was a nice house, too, Pat. (Although it needed some work, you should have seen those gawdawful red carpets that they had in there...)
Did the light on the front porch match? Mirrors everywhere?
K7SGJ
05-03-2012, 03:52 PM
Did you WHIP it into shape?
The Islets of Langerhans is fairly ham radio friendly—they allow up to 100' of tower height here. Of course, I'd be happy with 50'.
W2NAP
05-03-2012, 04:02 PM
prob is. anything nice seems to have stupid HOA and CCR shit. which honestly I see them as unconstitutional. if you buy the house you do as you wish with it. you know the pursuit of happiness thing and all.
places with no HOA or other bullshit is usually found in the ghettos or what will soon become ghettos. Sure you can move to that place and have no HOA or bullshit. but enjoy having all your shit jacked or yourself and family killed by some druggie or thug
prob is. anything nice seems to have stupid HOA and CCR shit. which honestly I see them as unconstitutional. if you buy the house you do as you wish with it. you know the pursuit of happiness thing and all.
places with no HOA or other bullshit is usually found in the ghettos or what will soon become ghettos. Sure you can move to that place and have no HOA or bullshit. but enjoy having all your shit jacked or yourself and family killed by some druggie or thug
Really? Jeeze, Tony, you need to get the hell outta Indiana! No HOA here and not a lot of crime either. It may not be the nicest neighborhood in town but it sure ain't "the ghetto" either.
wa6mhz
05-03-2012, 04:14 PM
Crest sure isn't a ghetto. In fact, we are an ISLAND of PEACE and TRANQUILITY above the VALLEY of MAYHEM and KNASHING OF TEETH!!!! I wouldn't want to live anywhere else!
wa6mhz
05-03-2012, 04:15 PM
I'll vouch for that; it worked for me.
And it was a nice house, too, Pat. (Although it needed some work, you should have seen those gawdawful red carpets that they had in there...)
we put in MAROON Carpets, so that if anyone was SHOT in the house, the blood would blend in!
W2NAP
05-03-2012, 04:34 PM
Really? Jeeze, Tony, you need to get the hell outta Indiana! No HOA here and not a lot of crime either. It may not be the nicest neighborhood in town but it sure ain't "the ghetto" either.
No HOA in north anderson ether. I dont own the house so I have to play by the owners rules which is fine.
However North Anderson is quickly becoming ghetto. Within about 10 more years N. Anderson will be as bad as W Anderson. whole city has actually went into the shitter. needless to say Section 8 Housing is a big cause of it. We have crimes in N. Anderson now that were non existent in the 90s and before. Only change they forced Apt complexes into Section 8
we put in MAROON Carpets, so that if anyone was SHOT in the house, the blood would blend in!The carpets were blood red & worn out. The one bedroom looked like the son was into heavy metal or goth... bright red baseboard, dark blue (almost black walls)... ugh.
All replaceable. And it was all taken care of.
KC2UGV
05-03-2012, 05:46 PM
prob is. anything nice seems to have stupid HOA and CCR shit. which honestly I see them as unconstitutional. if you buy the house you do as you wish with it. you know the pursuit of happiness thing and all.
It's not like that everywhere. HOA's and CCR's are rare here. Hardly unconstitutional. When you buy the property, these are clearly laid out in your deed. Don't want them? Don't buy a property with one.
places with no HOA or other bullshit is usually found in the ghettos or what will soon become ghettos. Sure you can move to that place and have no HOA or bullshit. but enjoy having all your shit jacked or yourself and family killed by some druggie or thug
House I bought recently is not in the ghetto, nor is it likely to be in the near future. Of course, there are examples of places with HOA's where if you "look funny" you'll end up shot, and your murderer walks away scott-free.
Of course, there are examples of places with HOA's where if you "look funny" you'll end up shot, and your murderer walks away scott-free.
You're not fooling anyone with that, we know who you're talking about. That kid was wearing a hoodie and that made it justifiable homicide.
n2ize
05-03-2012, 06:39 PM
Something about "Don't buy property which is regulated by such nonsense" also comes to mind.
Something about, whomever has the most money, power, and influence comes to mind. ;)
n2ize
05-03-2012, 06:43 PM
It's not like that everywhere. HOA's and CCR's are rare here. Hardly unconstitutional. When you buy the property, these are clearly laid out in your deed. Don't want them? Don't buy a property with one.
That is one thing I like about NYS. There are a of square miles of land where HOA's and CCR's are nary to be found. Even down in my area we don't find to much in the way of draconian HOA's as found in many other states.
prob is. anything nice seems to have stupid HOA and CCR shit. which honestly I see them as unconstitutional. if you buy the house you do as you wish with it. you know the pursuit of happiness thing and all.
places with no HOA or other bullshit is usually found in the ghettos or what will soon become ghettos. Sure you can move to that place and have no HOA or bullshit. but enjoy having all your shit jacked or yourself and family killed by some druggie or thug
Really? It never occurred to me this was a ghetto. :chin:
I will never understand hams who buy a house with their eyes wide open, knowing they are signing a contract with CC&Rs,
then are upset because the contract meant exactly what it said and what they themselves freely agreed to.
Why on earth a serious ham would consent to live in such a place is beyond me.
I never have and I never will.
n2ize
05-04-2012, 04:40 AM
places with no HOA or other bullshit is usually found in the ghettos or what will soon become ghettos. Sure you can move to that place and have no HOA or bullshit. but enjoy having all your shit jacked or yourself and family killed by some druggie or thug
I don't think that is true at all. Or at least not true of many places. The area I live in has no HOA's and we are certainly not turning into a ghetto, nor are we a ghetto. Crime is extremely low here and in surrounding communities which also have no HOA's. And on the very rare occasions where a crime may go down the perps are usually arrested within short order. We have an extremely responsive and very well equipped police department here as well as backup support from the county which provides air-ground support, extra K9 support, etc. This area is not a ghetto and is not even close to ever becoming one. Further north of me the majority of upstate NY has no HOA's. It's very rural, you can put up antennas and/or do pretty much anything you want on your own property, crime is virtually non-existent, and ghetto or pre-ghetto conditions are unheard of.
As far as the section 8 housing goes, well, the problems you see in section 8 are indicative of issues that have plagues communities of poor people for centuries. Crowd a lot of very poor people into an area, give them little education, little incentive to better themselves, little if any knowledge on how to better themselves, little opportunity, little hope for change and some may turn to crime. If you need something and someone else has it then take it. Also, increase alcohol and drug consumption when people try to hide from their depression and misery through chemicals. Nothing new. been happening for ages.
n6hcm
05-06-2012, 02:11 AM
I just wish I could find out what's allowed here ... local planning department site only talks about cellular antennas.
I just wish I could find out what's allowed here ... local planning department site only talks about cellular antennas.
You're talkin' 'bout San Francisco! Just hang a commie flag off your tower and you can make it as tall as you want. ;)
(FYI, I'm a third-generation SF native)
KG4NEL
05-06-2012, 12:07 PM
You're talkin' 'bout San Francisco! Just hang a commie flag off your tower and you can make it as tall as you want. ;)
(FYI, I'm a third-generation SF native)
Like this? ;)
http://www.flag-post.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/425px-Gijeong-ri_Flag.jpg
n2ize
05-06-2012, 01:24 PM
Well, since the HOA's don;t want any outdoor antennas, or if they only allow antennas very close to the ground then I guess they don;t mind the extra RFI resulting from the signal emanating from an antenna that's very close to and in line with their home entertainment equipment and, the extra power being run to compensate for a crappy antenna system.
I will never understand hams who buy a house with their eyes wide open, knowing they are signing a contract with CC&Rs,
then are upset because the contract meant exactly what it said and what they themselves freely agreed to.
Why on earth a serious ham would consent to live in such a place is beyond me.
I never have and I never will.Sometimes someone doesn't get licensed until after they've already moved into an HOA or CC&R restricted home.
Sometimes they don't read the fine print.
Sometimes they are lied to, or the minute details of the CC&R's are hidden from them... or not explicitly detailed (language akin to "on file at the county courthouse")
In the case of HOA restrictions, sometimes the HOA itself makes changes to the rules, or very strictly interprets the rules, to make antennas (and other things) difficult or impossible to erect.
...mind you , I'm not defending someone who blindly walks into this buzz saw. Failure to do due diligience is not an excuse. I know that all of the homes I've bought in the last few years, I made a point of checking on any potential any CC&R restrictions before signing the paperwork. But you asked "why" -- and those are some of the reasons, even if they are poor ones.
Oh, and let's not forget this one: Gave in to pressure from the spouse to buy the "nice" home in the "nice" community without first checking into CC&R/HOA restrictions... or not caring about them... again, no excuse, but it happens.
Something about "Don't buy property which is regulated by such nonsense" also comes to mind.
good luck with that in any suburban/urban area. we had to buy in a less than ideal neighborhood because i wanted to put up a tower. all the other places worth living have tower restrictions. apparently it's not my land to be free on after all...
KC2UGV
05-09-2012, 08:48 AM
good luck with that in any suburban/urban area. we had to buy in a less than ideal neighborhood because i wanted to put up a tower. all the other places worth living have tower restrictions. apparently it's not my land to be free on after all...
Come to WNY. Wide swaths of both suburban and urban areas without the nonsense of HOA's and CC&R's.
Come to WNY. Wide swaths of both suburban and urban areas without the nonsense of HOA's and CC&R's.
Give it time. That nonsense is now starting to creep into the suburban & more rural areas of WPa.
n2ize
05-17-2012, 02:09 AM
Sometimes someone doesn't get licensed until after they've already moved into an HOA or CC&R restricted home.
Sometimes they don't read the fine print.
Sometimes they are lied to, or the minute details of the CC&R's are hidden from them... or not explicitly detailed (language akin to "on file at the county courthouse")
In the case of HOA restrictions, sometimes the HOA itself makes changes to the rules, or very strictly interprets the rules, to make antennas (and other things) difficult or impossible to erect.
...mind you , I'm not defending someone who blindly walks into this buzz saw. Failure to do due diligience is not an excuse. I know that all of the homes I've bought in the last few years, I made a point of checking on any potential any CC&R restrictions before signing the paperwork. But you asked "why" -- and those are some of the reasons, even if they are poor ones.
Oh, and let's not forget this one: Gave in to pressure from the spouse to buy the "nice" home in the "nice" community without first checking into CC&R/HOA restrictions... or not caring about them... again, no excuse, but it happens.
Or, what happened to a young friend of mine decades ago. He was a ham back then in his junior high school days and when his parents were relocating he pleaded with them to buy a home where he can put up his antennas. Well, sure enough his folks didn't seem to care about that end of it and bought into an area with a strict HOA and he was off the air from then on. Well on a few occaisions he did manage to sneak a random length wire into a tree after dark and make a few contacts now and then. But he couldn't really get on the air till he was on his own 2 feet and moved away.
n2ize
05-17-2012, 02:11 AM
Come to WNY. Wide swaths of both suburban and urban areas without the nonsense of HOA's and CC&R's.
Not just WNY but pretty much most of upstate and even downstate NY. Plenty of radio folks down this way have antennas and there are and no hassles.
ab1ga
05-17-2012, 07:35 AM
Hmmm.
How about "Just because Congress directed the FCC to conduct a survey does not imply what, if anything, the FCC will do with the results of that survey" ?
A couple of points:
- Congress directed the FCC to conduct a study, not a survey. The survey of ham operators is only a small piece of the effort.
- The survey window didn't close until today, so even that small part wasn't complete.
- The petition presumes the result of the study, but it's entirely possible that the study will find that HOA/CCR documents do not materially impair the ability of amateur operators to provide emergency operations support as currently practiced.
- The petition requests summary judgement affecting others' property rights before the facts have been fully determined to the satisfaction of all interested parties. This was a recipe for failure.
Trying to rewrite the sentence:
"Just because Congress directed the FCC to conduct a study doesn't imply that it's going to go your way, or that you can just ignore what anyone else might say and get your way immediately, even if it impairs others' property rights and what you want isn't certain to be necessary or beneficial."
Goodness, that's almost as long as the original ruling!
73,
No argument with your points.
< snip >
Trying to rewrite the sentence:
"Just because Congress directed the FCC to conduct a study doesn't imply that it's going to go your way, or that you can just ignore what anyone else might say and get your way immediately, even if it impairs others' property rights and what you want isn't certain to be necessary or beneficial."
< snip >Your version may be technically more precise, but I think my revised version (above) makes the point clearly enough.
There is an existing law.
That a study is ordered that looks at the effects of the restricting CC R's does not change that law that is still in effect, the Commission has to uphold the existing law.
Even if the study will be in favor of doing away with the restrictions, that first must be changed in the law.
Only then can the FCC act on the new law.
Till then they have to work with the existing law.
In this country, the FCC does not make laws.
Congress is the only one authorized to make laws.
The FCC makes rules. PRB-1 is not a law. In fact, PRB-1 is just a memo. What PRB-1 did do was cause rule 47 CFR 97.15(b) to be enacted. THAT is what pre-empts state and local Governments, not PRB-1 in itself.
a) Owners of certain antenna structures more than 60.96 meters (200 feet) above ground level at the site or located near or at a public use airport must notify the Federal Aviation Administration and register with the Commission as required by Part 17 of this chapter.
(b) Except as otherwise provided herein, a station antenna structure may be erected at heights and dimensions sufficient to accommodate amateur service communications. [State and local regulation of a station antenna structure must not preclude amateur service communications. Rather, it must reasonably accommodate such communications and must constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the state or local authority's legitimate purpose. See PRB-1, 101 FCC 2d 952 (1985) for details.]
In reality though, state and local Governments freely misinterpret and even outright ignore PRB-1. Some define "reasonable accommodation" as a wire dipole, indoor antenna or other compromise antenna. In the eyes of some hams this is also reasonable accommodation. However, some of those guys seem to think that a beam and tower is "excessive."
Some even go so far as to ignore their own pro-ham antenna ordinances. Local officials either bow to local residents or misinterpret the rules. Court is often the only remedy. I don't know about you, but I would rather spend my money on gear than lawyers. So that is why some hams don't bother putting up a fight unless they have a fat bank account.
Too bad we missed you at Dayton Ryan. I would have introduced you to WPa's "secret weapon" when it comes to getting antennas up: Mike K3AIR.
Between PRB-1, Pa's Act 88, and Mike... it's not so difficult to get an antenna up these days in this neck of the woods.
Too bad we missed you at Dayton Ryan. I would have introduced you to WPa's "secret weapon" when it comes to getting antennas up: Mike K3AIR.
Between PRB-1, Pa's Act 88, and Mike... it's not so difficult to get an antenna up these days in this neck of the woods.
Yeah I didn't go this year. I could have gone but didn't feel like going.
K3AIR? Interesting.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.