On 31 Jan 96 at 9:07, Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The CQ article recounts ten years' experience with the application of PRB-1
> (for non-US readers, this is the U.S. FCC ruling that sought to protect
> radio amateurs from unduly restrictive local regulations governing towers
> and antennas). The article notes that, in one case, "the zoning board
> investigated Williams's use of his amateur radio station and determined that
> he participated in neither Defense Department (MARS) nor emergency
> communication services; therefore his radio use was deemed to be primarily a
> hobby. They then weighed this use against the interests of the city, such
> as aesthetics and public safety, and concluded that the needs of the city
> outbalanced Williams' hobby." This position was upheld by two levels of
> court review.
>
..
> Participation would also help to counter arguments such as that in the
> Williams case above, and help protect our right to reasonable antenna
> installations. And finally, it could contribute to the policy arguments for
> continuing and expanding our frequency allocations.
>
> Comments?
>
>
Sorry, Pete. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit wasn't in
the slightest interested in our unrefuted argument that a 35' antenna was
insufficient for emergency communication. They held that it was
reasonable to limit a station located in a residentially zoned area in a
manner that would nullify its usefulness for emergency communication
(amongst other uses), providing only that a local authority provides a
mechanism whereby it may be possible to erect a useful antenna in other
(unspecified) places.
I wish it were otherwise....
--------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Evans NQ0I / G4AMJ : devans@lynx.colorado.edu
al019@freenet.uchsc.edu
"Palindor Chronicles" information and extracts:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~romigj/drevans.html
--------------------------------------------------------
|