I live in NY (upstate, semi-rural) and although I had no problem getting two
(140-foot and 120-foot) towers approved by my town, I dutifully wrote and
called several NY state representatives last year (which resulted in squat,
zip, nada) and again earlier this year. But...I have to wonder about these
bills that stipulate a specific height. Maybe some feel there *needs* to be
one to make the bill workable, but I think it's a bad precedent to set:
essentially declaring 95 feet as some kind of magic height - one at which
hams should be happy and shut up.
I know, I know, there are plenty of hams who would kill for a 95-foot tower,
but anyone looking for a 100 foot tower is potentially going to have to work
harder to justify it, if this passes. My guess is it'll do more good than
harm (for we hams), but it still bothers me at some level.
-Mike N2MG
K4OJ wrote:
for reference who is the person who came up with 95 foot? other than
someone who does not do much low band work!)
> We are very close to getting a PRB tower bill passed in New York that
> even a contester would love -- 95 foot limit! But the local government
> lobby is giving us a lot of trouble and support email and faxes are
> needed to counter their power. See the attached for detail.
>
|