[BC] Re: No-code Amateur license

[Mike McCarthy]

The federal preemption does not apply to local zoning  beyond reasonable 
accommodation and sub-division CC&R's at all.

That has been proven in court and is well settled case law around the 
country.  FCC has so far said "no" many times to applying the preemption to 
CC&R's.  Their opinion is simply...CC&R's are voluntarily signed conditions 
which the property buyer agreed to prior to the execution of real property 
title transfer and is beyond their purview.. While I disagree with the 
FCC's refusal to expand the preemption, I do understand their legal 
standing and that their preemption would be challenged.  And no doubt 
overturned.

The loss would be FAR more injurious to the local antenna waiver effort 
than simply leaving things alone.

People who sign CC&R's blindly because they want to be in "an area" do not 
deserve to have the FCC come in and save them.  We bought in a undeveloped 
area which has no CC&R's and is in the county.  But less than 25 miles from 
downtown.  It took us 9 months and is not exactly where we wanted to 
be.  But we have a 100 ft. limit contained in the basic zoning of the 
property and room to build whatever house we want.

MM

At 11:21 AM 7/25/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>On Monday 25 July 2005 10:33, R J Carpenter wrote:
> > I haven't been following this thread in detail, which makes me fully
> > qualified to comment.
>
>  ;-)
>
> > No-code licensing is an effort to increase the NUMBER of hams.
> > "People" realize that in the political DC world, numbers of people
> > (potential voters) are what counts.  Lowering of standards is not a
> > concern since no politico could evaluate them anyway. Large numbers of
> > hams of any quality help keep our bands.
>
>  OK. I'll buy that, though I'm not sure it's a good thing.
>
> > The code isn't the only thing discouraging new hams.  In my county*,
> > AFAIK no subdivision started within the past 40 years allows antennas.
>
>  I remember a HUGE court battle, started by a certain "radio personality"
>  in an cleveland suburb.
>
>  His point was that the junk yard in the sky looked so bad, it depressed
>  property values, and he was right.
>  It looked SO bad, when it hit the TV news, it was embarrasing to almost
>  every amateur that new about it.
>
>  He lost the case, though, on Federal pre-emption.
>  Precident exists to argue that localities can not restrict amateur 
> antennae !
>
>  Methinks that should one wish to push it, the subdivision would lose.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>http://www.radiolists.net/