N2IC recently sent me a copy of the decision of the Federal
Appeals Court to deny NQ0I's "right" to erect a moderate-height
tower on his property in Boulder County. It's pretty scary stuff.
Buried in the document is the statement " . . . a highly qualified
ham radio operator, seeks to conduct amateur radio research,
provide emergency communication, and engage in
intercontinental communication in order to foster international
good will. Radio experts agreed that limiting Evans to a 35 foot
antenna tower would significantly impair ability to accomplish
his legitimate purposes." Despite the experts' testimony, the
court decided that the neighbors' views of the mountains were
more important. Maybe the court just didn't buy the arguments
about emergency communications and international good will.
Guess they don't sit well with me, either. This is the usual
stuff I've read in QST and heard from local hams who have tried
to deal with the zoning board. I doubt that the argument is
convincing to anyone -- expert or not.
Do any of you know if anyone has tried the following tact:
wouldn't it be more believable if a contester would show up
in court (or the zoning board hearing) with a handful of
plaques and certificates showing some degree of competitive
success, and then proceed to argue the point that his
"legitimate purposes" in life (competing on an international
scale) require a couple of big towers? I think that members
of the general public recognize the fact that most forms of
competition require the proper equipment. Sounds good to
me, but I'm well known for my naivete (sometimes I even
believe the guys who're 20dB over S9 and say they're
running QRP!). Doesn't PRB-1 say that "local regulations ...
must be crafted to reasonably accommodate the desired amateur
communications"? It actually goes on to say "Some amateur
antenna configurations require more substantial installations
than others if they are to provide the amateur operator with
the communications that he/she desires to engage in."
This might be one aspect where contesters have a legitimate edge.
Anybody know of a case like this? How about you lawyers out
there -- do any of you think this approach has a chance?
Of course, it seems that it might be geared toward someone
who is already an "established" contester and is moving his/her
home to a new area, but it just might be OK for general consumption.
Bruce AA5B
draperbl@mdlchtm.eece.unm.edu
|