[BC] to light or not to light

[Danny Ray Boyer]

Wayne, with regard to your previous post.....

>Since you quoted me as being a prevaricator I need to answer:  I am not anti 
>tower, and I am not a NIMBY,  I am a retired radio engineer by trade, and an 
>active pilot for a hobby.  I understand both sides of the equation to enable 
>towers to be sited within small communities.  Our little berg was recently 
>inundated by the "Cricket" people who needed to site a tower in an area 
>which the planning commission deemed unacceptable.  We requested that the 
>tower be moved to the other side of the freeway from where they had it 
>pinpointed.  They were also requesting a height of 125 feet which was 50' 
>beyond the limit set in the industrial area desired.  Cricket responded with 
>a batch of Lawyers and so called Engineers with dubious coverage printouts, 
>and out and out threats.  They scared the hell out of the city council who 
>has the last say in the matter and the original site was approved.  The 
>Cricket folks wasted no time in constructing the antenna and it was 
>completed in a matter of weeks.]

>Flame off

>Wayne Woollard


In my post on the subject line shown above ([BC}to light or not to light), I don't believe that I called you anything 
close to a prevaricator or any of its close synonyms.  
See internet definition of Prevaricator at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prevaricator 

I would, however, highly suggest that you go back and reread Scott's orginal question that he posted 
with regard to the subject, which is shown below:

>Here's a question I need to know. I know it's sounds stupid, but I need
>to know who to call as far as the FAA is concerned to find out it my
>tower is suppose to be lit or not.  
>I used the TOWARDS program on the FCC site, and it says no lighting
>required. My license doesn't mention anything about lighting, nor
>painting. I just want to cover myself on this before I take the lights
>off my 150' tower.  I have found I will save $$$ on the AC bill if I
>leave the lights off!

>Scott


What I said in my post was that local government entities and zoning boards have NO SAY WHAT-SO-EVER 
as the requirements for painting and lighting - which are mandated and regulated SOLELY by the FAA 
and enforced by the FCC - IF ONE OR MORE TRANSMITTER ARE LICENSED ON THE TOWER (OR OTHER ANTENNA SUPPORTING STRUCTURE).  


Continuing on......

>Even if you have a fistful of government documents and you don't have a 
>building permit, you aren't going to be building a tower, it is up to the 
>builder or the contractor to satisfy all parties involved in the 
>construction of any attached real property within a Cities Limits.

>I suggest working with the so called NIMBY's and various commissions in 
>order to find who it was that required the lights to be attached to the 
>tower in the first place.

I am not in disagreement with your comments about having to have a building permit to construct a tower, which IS the 
jurisdiction of the local government entities.

However, there is only one entity has the authority to require the specific type and quantity of lights that are attached
to the tower in the first place.  That entity is the FAA, who is the ONLY governmental entity that has the authority 
to require painting and lighting on a tower. 

I can just imagine what the FCC field inspector will say when a broadcaster says "We removed half of the lights on our AM tower
because our town's "local zoning board" thought they were too bright and shining in the old ladies window down the street.                           .


Danny Ray Boyer