Recall that I live in a duet townhouse with CC&Rs which read in part:
"... no receiving antennas ... visible to public view ... unless
installed by a licensed cable television contractor".
In order to minimize EMI especially to the folks who live in the front half of
my building I have been erecting stealth antennas in the trees behind the
building. (Surprisingly, the attic 20 - 10m dipole is usually the better
signal!) However, whenever the HOA BoD tears down the external antennas as they
did in the fall of 1995, I am forced to choose between no transmitting at all
and using the old antenna in the attic. Of course the attic antenna is much
closer the folks in the front of the building so they get much more severe EMI,
especially to the TV and VCR. Two others have reported much less severe EMI,
one to a VCR, and one to all her telephones. Last spring I chose to contest
with the attic dipole several times, but by fall 1996 I decided to risk the HOA
BoD attack and replaced the backyard stealth antennas.
Thus their are really three interests in conflict: The HOA BoD wants to
enforce their interpretation of existing CC&Rs (which stops at "no antennas"
and doesn't consider the rest of the paragraph) so they can't be accused of
doing a poor job of administrating, the EMI affected neighbors just want the
EMI to go away, and Celia and I want to exercise the privileges of our Amateur
licenses occasionally.
Our first mediation session was yesterday. Three HOA BoD members, two EMI
suffering neighbors and the HOA lawyer each gave divergent views on outdoor
antennas and RFI complaints for 90 mins., then I, YF Celia and our lawyer,
former FCC - SF enforcement officer Phil Kane, N6SP, made a very organized
presentation in 60 mins.
Phil noted that Federal law CLEARLY preempts state and local law including CC&R
contracts in matters of EMI--as "nuisance." He pointed out that their
anecdotal descriptions of interference all had the fingerprints of fundamental
overload, handed out new copies of the FCC Interference Handbook and gave a
short tutorial on how to cure interference problems at the receiver end. Phil
also explained that a NPRM was before the FCC which, when adopted, render the
CC&R provision above null and void. In fact, he also pointed out that the
provision in question was "cable company monopoly boilerplate" that had
effectively already been struck down.
Celia and I renewed our standing offer to work with anyone who has a problem,
and complained that the HOA BoD members have been advising the homeowners to
refuse our help, and the BoD keeps destroying our outdoor antennas, thus
obstructing the solution of these problems, in order to carry out a vendetta
and to build a court case against us. We objected to the use of our dues to
attack us in an expensive court action which they could not win.
Three of the next four hours were spent by the mediator trying to get the four
HOA people and two homeowners to come up with a unified position and a
realistic proposal (we have already offered them two unanswered proposals).
What was interesting was the hour and a half fight that could be heard through
closed doors and down the hall between the EMI suffering homeowners and
enforcement bent BoD members.
As a parting shot, Phil passed copies (Celia remembered to bring them) of the
new FCC regulation 1.4000 and California law 1376 on receiving antennas.
Recall that they explictly preempt any state or local law, contract or CC&R
which does not allow for the erection of an effective television or satellite
receiving antenna up to 1 meter in diameter. We offered them no guidance as to
how we might utilize these new laws if their counter offer is not acceptable to
us.
The next mediation session will be June 2 after the HOA has their next BoD
meeting and a planning session.
Hmmm, it seems to me that a 1 meter MFJ loop could be modified to resonate in
the VHF televison band.
Boy, am I looking forward to transmitting 1500 W through all the huge, high
aluminum at N6RO for the upcoming WPX CW contest!
AE0M, Tony Becker - becker@sprintmail.com - Silicon Valley, U.S.A.
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>From Joe Subich" <W8IK@ibm.net Sun May 11 05:17:19 1997
From: Joe Subich" <W8IK@ibm.net (Joe Subich)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] AE0M vs. HOA antenna and EMI dispute
In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970511012310.2c1f1574@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>
In <2.2.16.19970511012310.2c1f1574@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>, on 05/10/97
at 07:23 PM, Tony and Celia Becker <becker@SPRINTMAIL.COM> said:
>However, whenever the HOA BoD tears down the external antennas as they did
>in the fall of 1995, I am forced to choose between no transmitting at all
>and using the old antenna in the attic.
Did you ever consider filing a Federal Criminal Complaint against the HOA BoD
for intentional damage to an FCC licensed facility? Since, the applicable
rules simply state that nobody may willfully damage any part of a federally
licensed facility and even the "stealth" antennas are a vital part of your
federally licensed facility, the criminal complaint just might give you a
much stronger hand in the next mediation session.
73,
... Joe Subich, W8IK ex-AD8I
<W8IK@ibm.net>
<jsubich@ibm.net>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|