The Ham Radio Parity Act Unanimously Passed By US House (arrl.org)

This week the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed "The Ham Radio Parity Act" -- a huge victory for grass-roots advocates of amateur radio. Slashdot reader bobbied reports: This will allow for the reasonable accommodation of amateur radio antennas in many places where they are currently prohibited by homeowner associations or private land use restrictions... If this bill passes the Senate, we will be one step closer to allowing amateur radio operators, who provide emergency communications services, the right to erect reasonable antenna structures in places where they cannot do so now.
The national ham radio association is now urging supporters to contact their Senators through a special web page. "This is not just a feel-good bill," said representative Joe Courtney, remembering how Hurricane Sandy brought down the power grid, and "we saw all the advanced communications we take for granted...completely fall by the wayside."

Comments

The real issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that deed restricted properties are even allowed under law.

Only complete idiots thinks it's a good idea to hand over the deed right to you property to an association that can foreclose on you because you let your grass grow to 3" instead of the maximum allowed 2.5".

These types of places were tolerable only until they started taking over ALL available property within the best school districts, good locations in cities, and other important qualities of a property. Generally based on municipalities who want to collect taxes but not be held accountable for maintaining common spaces (parks, pools, sidewalks, etc.) and thus _require_ all new development to be done under a deed restricted plan. It's a "lovely" work around to that whole pesky property rights issue that governments face due to federal, state and local constitutions, laws, etc.

Re:The real issue

[Wrath0fb0b]

The real issue is that some people want to live in a place where their neighbors can't leave trash out or have cars on their lawn (and to have enforcement that has teeth, unlike some municipalities). Some people want to raise roosters, other people think that owning a rooster violates your neighbors' right to quiet enjoyment of their homes. People that want those restrictions, and are in turn willing to accept the reciprocal restrictions on themselves, can voluntarily and knowingly live in a place where everyone agrees on that basic deal.

Now, that sort of thing isn't for me (and I bought a house in a nice district with functioning public parks and whatnot with no HOA) but it is extremely illiberal to deny a group of people the right to voluntarily associate in a manner than they all find beneficial. And since we are on the topic of choice, I see you are somehow suggesting that the non-HOA living arrangement is somehow in danger, which is patently ridiculous since 20% of existing homes and 40% of new homes don't have one.

TLDR: Freedom includes the right to create your own arrangements. Some of them might seem silly to us, in which case we should just not partake instead of being righteous about it.