Yada, Yada, Yada..
The tower company, with the help of the kind folks in local gov't, thought
they could stick it to a property owner for their own selfish gain. Now
they gotta pay...tis really all too sad.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan D. Gray <agray@voicenet.com>
To: W8JI@contesting.com <W8JI@contesting.com>; GALE STEWARD <k3nd@yahoo.com>
Cc: towertalk@contesting.com <towertalk@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] A Sad Precedent
>Yada, Yada, Yada..
>
>The tower company, with the help of the kind folks in local gov't, thought
>they could stick it to a property owner for their own selfish gain. Now
>they gotta pay...tis really all too sad.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Rauch <w8ji@contesting.com>
>To: Alan D. Gray <agray@voicenet.com>; GALE STEWARD <k3nd@yahoo.com>
>Cc: towertalk@contesting.com <towertalk@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
>Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 10:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] A Sad Precedent
>
>
>
>> Think your missing the point. It sets a dangerous precedent for tower
>> owners (US)! If your neighbors decide they don't like your tower for
>> whatever reason, whether proved or not, they can sue and guess where
>> your tower will end up? Not up!
>
>What a world.
>
>I refused to help a lawyer from California who wanted to illegally
>use an amplifier to communicate in the ham bands with his
>amplifier, and he threatened the manufacturer with a lawsuit for
>"mental anguish" (among other things).
>
>This tower thing is just as stupid. Property devaluation is one thing,
>but mental distress? Nonsense. I sure hope they fight this one
>through appeals processes, I'm sure it would be overturned.
>
>
>73, Tom W8JI
>w8ji@contesting.com
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|