WHAT?
You want his towers limited????
I do not know why he needed only 90 ft - this is ok for 20 meters...
but... higher would be better for 40!
It does not matter how high they are to the neighbors... the difference
between 50 foot and 150 foot as far as height is irrelevant to them...
it is a tower and to THEIR insensitive bigotry they are all the same...
I can easily understand the need for two high towers minimum, to support
a dipole type antenna between them... but that is only for one pair of
azimuthal options... three towers makes arrays which will be broadside
to six different areas possible!
As far as some people are concerned if the neighbor puts up towers it is
like a person of the wrong ethnic background moving into their
neighborhood... they feel unjustifiably incensed and are convinced that
soon hell will freeze over...
Neighbors suck... best option is to find area near a pasture full of
cows - they do not bitch!
I still cannot believe you told this guy he had nerve asking to have
three towers 90 foot!
K4OJ
Bill Turner wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:17:38 -0400, "Jerry Muller" <k0tv@adelphia.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>This guy got off easy. I live in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire and had to
>>spend over $25K in legal fees to protect three towers on six acres that are
>>almost invisible. (New Hampshire Supreme Court, Marchand v. Hudson)
>>
>>Jerry, K0TV
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Seems to me that you're the one that got off easy. I can see the
> justification for one tower being necessary at a height of 75 feet or
> so, but I understand yours are 90 feet, right? And three of them?
>
> I'm all in favor of ham radio - been licensed for 46 years - but even
> I might think that's pushing the neighbors a bit.
>
|