CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re[2]: Linn County Ordinance

Subject: Re[2]: Linn County Ordinance
From: sawyers" <sawyers@cacd.rockwell.com (sawyers)
Wade requested that I forward his response, as he is not an active member of 
this Reflector. I screen stuff for him here and he does the same on other 
Reflectors for me.

de n0yvy steve

Discalimer: Our company and we agree on at least one thing: 
Our opinions are our own.

______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Linn County Ordinance
Author:  wade@inav.net


> To:            cq-contest@tgv.com
> From:          al crespo <wr6r@ccnet.com> 
> Reply-to:      al crespo <wr6r@ccnet.com> 
> Subject:       Linn County Ordinance

>Praise the Lord the Linn County Tower Ordinance applies only 
>to that county!
>
>If you read the document, there is NO mention of the special status
>of Amateur Radio under PRB-1. Commercial towers do not have the same 
>special status that amateurs have under FCC guideline- this
>ordinance never differentiates  between the two totally different 
>types of classes.

>For those in need of help concerning tower ordinates,
>contact the ARRL- Or was this ordinance really an early 
>April Fool's joke?
> 
>                                 Aloha, Al, WR6R/KH6 
> 


Al - 

I appreciate your comments concerning the ordinance drafted for Linn County.  A 
little more background on the situation here may be helpful before you condemn 
our efforts completely.

Prior to adoption of this ordinance there was an exclusion from many county 
regulations that was applied to towers.  Unfortunately, there was an assistant 
county attorney that did not hold hams in high regard that interpreted this 
exclusion to apply to commercial towers only.  So prior to the ordinance we had 
the special dual status you mentioned, just in reverse.

I urge you to study PRB-1 carefully.  If you will be satisfied with a 60 foot 
limit, by all means go ahead and use it.  We felt we could do better  --- and we
did.  PRB-1 did serve its purpose for us in that the county bureaucrats knew it 
was there and knew we would use it if we felt it necessary.  They also knew, as 
did we, that PRB-1 had been successfully challenged in some courts.

We made this a political effort rather than a legal one.  For this situation 
here, I am convinced that tactic was the correct one. That may not be the case 
for others.  

For us here, the adoption of the ordinance is not the end.  Because of this 
effort I have become more politically active than I ever imagined.  We are 
continuing to watch the make-up of the county board and will propose 
modifications to the ordinance when the time is right.

Cedar Rapids is in Linn County.  Cedar Rapids was Art Collins home and the home 
and starting place of Collins Radio Company.  The company, now owned by Rockwell
International, is still here and employs many of us in the amateur radio 
community. We have a large amateur radio community here and feel we have a rich 
amateur radio history and tradition.  With this history and tradition, we did 
not expect to have this kind of a problem.  Trouble came anyway.  

It is local governments that pose the greatest threat to the future of amateur 
radio in this country. For those in communities with little or no regulation of 
towers, congratulations and I hope they count their blessings.  Be assured, 
however, that they WILL have to deal with this same problem.  It is not a matter
of "if", but "when".  

Vigilance is the key!


73,

Wade    W0EJ




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>