Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+permit\s+in\s+hand\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+permit\s+in\s+hand\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "bill rubin" <brubin2010@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:18:45 -0500; Well I finally got the permit for a 90' tower. But not without issues and additional expense. My local zoning office seems to believe that Rohn's specs. or TIA-222 standard are not good enough. nor i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00835.html (7,666 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "bill rubin" <brubin2010@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:49:12 -0500; thats wrong, why should the HAM comunity accept unreasonable government? Whats reason for FCC PRB-1 ? We have rights and we need to stand up for them !! Bill _________________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00838.html (9,294 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: BobK8IA@aol.com; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:54:39 EDT; Bill; $400 Excessive? You have to be kidding. That's a joke, right? Good laugh for a holiday weekend start. The PE and land Surveyor both gave you a deal. If the PE had to run any kind of thorough st; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00839.html (8,887 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "bill rubin" <brubin2010@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:05:56 -0500; You missed the point it was not the additional cost that it was excessive, it was the fact that then need a stamp on each page of the spec. I have a PE stamped letter from Rohn that said per design 4; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00840.html (11,815 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:07:13 -0700; And this is where "reasonable men may differ"... The authorities think that those costs are reasonable. Just out of curiosity, say you wanted to add a room onto your house or build a free standing ga; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00842.html (9,324 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "J.P." <jp@ezoom.net>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:17:26 -0700; Just be happy you didn't pay the $20,000 for your permit that I did 11 years ago. W2XX/7 _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mail; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00843.html (8,452 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:23:23 -0700; Different jurisdictions have different laws and regulations regarding what is required. To address the specific issues, I'll speculate: 1) Why not just a letter that stamped? In California, at least,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00844.html (9,965 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "Dick, W1KSZ" <w1ksz@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:25:46 -0400; It's called Revenue Enhancement down at Town Hall. Nickel & Dime (only the Nickel is $50 and the Dime is $100) them at every turn. Allows the Town to keep running amok spending your money. Fiscal res; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00847.html (12,834 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "bill rubin" <brubin2010@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:26:30 -0500; Good lord ! $20k for a permit? The point I am making here is not the cost. Its that government is out of control. While to many HAMs out there with issues and higher cost, I agree my situation (cost; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00848.html (9,519 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "J.P." <jp@ezoom.net>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:33:35 -0700; Your point resonates very well with me. They are indeed out of control, and that's nothing new. Yes, $20K in permitting, surveying, inspection and legal fees (about $16K of that 20) when I had to sue; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00850.html (10,475 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:05:26 -0400; Bill, Rights? Rights! We got no stinkin' rights! Seriously, if PRB-1 did actually confer "rights," then it would be a much better situation for us hams. Because then, someone might be successful in r; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00851.html (9,903 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: Bob Nielsen <n7xy@clearwire.net>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:28:51 -0700; A big part of the problem is that it keeps getting to be more complicated (and more expensive) year after year. In 1956 I went to city hall and asked the zoning administrator about putting up a tower; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00853.html (8,417 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:53:56 -0700; Far from it. Indeed, exactly the opposite. The building department quite properly required that you provide engineered drawings showing that what you proposed to install was safe. They would be out o; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-08/msg00856.html (8,603 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "JoeCoolDXer" <JoeCoolDXer@msn.com>; Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 04:51:52 -0700; If safety was really the issue, local governments would require permits to plant (and annual inspections) for *TREES*. Falling trees cause far more injury and damage, than falling towers of the same; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00002.html (8,133 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:39:44 -0700; They DO require permits and inspections in some places. Probably moreso to cut one down than to plant one. Trees are also "natural" and not "man-made structures", so they've historically been treated; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00004.html (6,933 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: Randal Jarrett <rsj@radio.org>; Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:28:32 -0400; Then again, it might not be that at all. When I lived in Georgia I ran into something very similar. I did some back tracking to see where all of that nonsense came from and guess what, it came from t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00006.html (13,353 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com; Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 09:29:08 EDT; Hey, guys -- This is not the bitch-about-the-government reflector. OTOH thoughtful questions and answers about towers and HF antenna construction projects are always welcome. Tnx. Cheers, Steve K7LXC; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00007.html (7,326 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "bill rubin" <brubin2010@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 09:06:34 -0500; Steve, The intention here was not to "bitch-about-the-government" but rather bring attention to the issue(s). In my case i believed the need to have a PE stamp on each page did not bring any more val; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00009.html (8,875 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com; Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:39:33 EDT; bring attention to the issue(s). In my case i believed the need to have a PE stamp on each page did not bring any more value of safety. Are you a PE or any kind of engineer? Are you involved with bui; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00010.html (9,173 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:48:58 -0400; Back in 1990-91, after moving to this QTH on a hilltop in the woods I started erecting the tower farm on 5 acres. As written I interpreted the regulations as not requiring a permit. The 60' tower at; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00019.html (13,635 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]