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.

Re:The real issue

[Deadstick]

Indeed, restrictive covenants were originally invented to keep blacks and Jews out.

Re:The real issue

[Shane_Optima]

but it is extremely illiberal to deny a group of people the right to voluntarily associate in a manner than they all find beneficial.

As a "deregulation libertarian" (for lack of a better term), I really despise this all-too-common perversion of the word "liberalism", whereby one is deemed illiberal if one don't agree with the unlimited privatization of the law and freedom of association is conflated with an unlimited "freedom" for deep-pocketed corporate entities (not actual, singular human beings) to unilaterally foist contracts of adhesion on individuals.

The perverted (but commonly accepted) libertarian or classical liberal argument is that every contractual restriction that the courts deem invalid is a gross example of big government trampling on individual freedom. I tend to believe exactly the opposite: that every enforcible contract provision, beyond the minimum necessary for societies and essential institutions to function, represents an enlargement of government and should be considered by default undesirable unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary. This is particularly evident in any situation where contracts are neither simple (like the sale of goods) nor negotiable. It also should be particularly evident when one person is signing a multi-page contract with a fictitious legal "person" who has access to a half dozen layers.

At the end of each one of these "voluntary association" contracts, the vast majority of which are non-negotiable, there are the police with guns drawn to enforce the terms. You can call that many things, but it is not small government, and it is not the pinnacle of freedom.

Corporations forcing consumers to use shitty, pro-corporate watered down versions of the court system with zero right of appeal (due to binding arbitration clauses) is not liberal. And as the grandparent said: allowing HOAs to snap up all the good land (a limited resource that government traditionally aims to ensure equitable access to) and then set up their own capricious set of permissible usage rules that are ultimately enforced by public police paid for with my tax dollars is not a particularly liberal state of affairs.

If you still disagree, then I have a simple question for you: do you think people should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery? If not, where do you think the line should be drawn regarding the rights people are allowed to "voluntarily" sign away? It is just on this side of slavery, or are there perhaps other areas that the government shouldn't be sticking their noses into, regardless of what any piece of paper says?

Will be a huge victory for hams if signed into law

[StandardCell]

There is an entire body of stealth antennas that have been developed for legally and space-constrained homes, such as flagpole antennas, magnetic loops, folded attic dipoles, and even tuned metal gutters! Yet these are all compromise antennas due to their limited height from the ground , proximity to metal objects and wiring, and size (for the 40m band on HF, you need at least a 10m/33ft vertical plus one or more counterpoises of that length on the ground). Some HOAs are even more draconian and allow nothing outside of a strict approved list of items per the HOA contract. This means that even a 1/4 wavelength vertical wire antenna that is barely visible to the eye is disallowed. Ironically, it's these same antennas that contribute to RFI issues for neighbors, increase RF exposure and worsen problems that would not be present with a properly deployed non-compromise antenna. HOA agreements have a disproportionate impact on hams who tend to be older and often use ham radio to communicate with their friends. Some of these are ex-military and civilian volunteers who are part of the Military Auxiliary Radio System or Civil Air Patrol, or participate in volunteer civil safety services such as Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service and Skywarn that use HF frequencies as well.

The HOAs have been vociferously opposed to this act as an infringement of civil liberties and have written both to the FCC and to congress opposing this. Yet there are already FCC-mandated requirements for such things as satellite antennas on HOA-governed properties that supersede any restrictions that may be contained in HOA contracts on spectrum which is technically regulated by the FCC. The intent is not to replicated a nearly 200' tall antenna tower with stacked Yagis, but to provide reasonable accommodation. A 1/4 wavelength vertical wire antenna barely visible to the eye can literally communicate with the entire world, yet somehow the HOA board fanatics claim that even these should be restricted. Even one of the trapped multiband vertical antennas in a back yard can make a big difference in getting out and participating in radio, but they again want no part of it.

There is bias against what we don't know or don't want to know. Heck, people think that there is an environmental impact to these antennas. I'm hopeful this will get passed and withstand scrutiny in the inevitable court battle that will ensue over it. But in a country turning its back on science for sports, maybe even the discussion with the non-ham folks might actually activate a few brain cells.

It's too easy to be a NIMBY

[Applehu Akbar]

This legislation is a needed benefit for the ham community, but the NIMBY problem is far bigger than this. I have seen cases where a small group of Concerned Citizens (aka tinfoil yammerheads) can prevent needed cell towers from being installed in their town because 'radiation'.

  What I would like to see is legislation that would strip NIMBYs of court access to prevent the construction of any public infrastructure project that conforms to published specifications for safety, appearance, and environmental impact for the project type, as adjudicated by the relevant regulatory agency. To obstruct a project, an opponent would be burdened with proving that the project did not conform to its type specification.

Re:Cell Phone

[Applehu Akbar]

"Or, people would like to be able to own homes in areas unblighted by rooftop antenna towers."

Or on the third hand, they might want to move into a neighborhood and then inveigh against existing ham antennas. This happens all the time.

Re:really?

[Applehu Akbar]

The ham service is already regulated in the way I describe, in this case by the FCC and in conformance to international treaties. What you describe would be strictly illegal under the existing rules.

It's you NIMBYs who see the world as an unending series of Pandora's boxes.

Re:Good lord, this is still a thing?

[TigerPlish]

Pot-bellied retirees reliving their childhood pretending to matter in the modern world...

Ham radio spans the globe, not just the US.

And when the shit seriously hits the fan, the grid goes down in some 3rd-world country, it's the ham radio guys that move the news in and out. They can even tcp over it.

When the Zombie Apocalypse comes - in whatever form it may be - it'll be *our* hams moving info.

Re:Lobbyists must be stopped

[rally2xs]

You don't understand. Hams do this for enjoyment. If these restrictions ruin enjoyment, then they won't do ham radio at all. So, when the community does need emergency communications, there will be no one with a radio that is able to help. People aren't going to become hams just to spend money to be of help in an emergency, they spend the money to have an enjoyable hobby that has as a byproduct the ability to help the community when emergency communications is needed.