Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Happy news for a change

To: "Alan NV8A" <nv8a@att.net>, "towertalk reflector" <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Happy news for a change
From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:05:15 -0000
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
I would be very reluctant to challenge a politically entity which allows a 
given tower height by putting up that height of tower, as we understand the 
meaning, with mast and antennas up higher.  Why make them regret having a 
basically permissive ordinance when they can outlaw ALL towers and make 
amateurs have to fight to put up ANYthing?  "Win the battle, lose the war" 
comes to mind.

My $.02 worth.

73 to all,
Rusty, na5tr


> How is the ordinance worded? Park Township's (near Holland, MI -- but
> it's not the municipality in which I live) ordinance refers, I am told,
> to the height of the "tower." Thus some hams have argued that the mast
> they have protruding from the top of the tower doesn't count. I don't
> know whether that interpretation has ever been put to the test.
>
> 73
>
> Alan NV8A
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> 

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

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