FCC taking comments for HOA Restrictions For Emergency Communications

[AudioShockwav]

Thanks to everyone that posted, and sent in comments during the time frame.

Here is the ARRL response/recommendations
http://www.worldwidedx.com/arrl-updates/139074-arrl-responds-fcc-request-comments-impediments-amateur-radio-communicati.html#post367935
It is a long read but it defends the ability of hams in regard to restrictive antenna rules in C&CR`s and the like.


73
Jeff

( the filling can be found here:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021918167
on the FCC web-site )

 

[iceman78]

It's certainly refreshing that the FCC is willing to have a look at some of plight that radio operators have to deal with regarding HOA's.

Has there been any resolution on the part of the FCC as of yet with regards to this matter?

 

[Mudfoot]

Here's The FCC's Ruling On The Matter

Guess CC&R's and HOA's are screwed.


http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0820/DA-12-1342A1.pdf

 

[binrat]

Guess CC&R's and HOA's are screwed.


http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0820/DA-12-1342A1.pdf

I must have missed something there then.

 

[AudioShockwav]

It remains the same, no changes and the FCC falls back on The PRB-1 decision it has made in the past to not modify it to include CC&R`s

. Recommendations
Private land use restrictions. Some commenters recommend that CC&Rs be preempted if
they prohibit antennas that are within certain limits.

Others suggest that private land use restrictions on
amateur antennas should be permitted only for safety considerations, and not for aesthetic reasons.

As
noted above, however, other commenters believe that it is not necessary to preempt private land use
restrictions in order to promote amateur emergency communications, given the ways that even amateurs
subject to CC&Rs can communicate effectively and the nature of amateur emergency communications.
Moreover, while commenters suggest that private land use restrictions have become more common,
our
review of the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject
to such restrictions. Therefore, at this time, we do not see a compelling reason for the Commission to
revisit its previous determinations that preemption should not be expanded to CC&Rs.
Other impediments. As noted above, the Commission has already preempted state and local
regulations that do not reasonably accommodate amateur radio communications and do not represent the
minimum practicable regulations to accomplish the local authority’s legitimate purpose. The
Commission has also addressed regulations regarding possession and operation of amateur radio
equipment while driving.

Commission rules that may be an impediment to enhanced amateur service
emergency communications can, as the ARRL notes, be considered through the Commission’s
rulemaking process.

Consequently, we do not believe that Congressional action is necessary to address
any of these issues.

73
Jeff

 

[Mudfoot]

I meant that people living under the covenants are "still" screwed.

I would never buy any property that had any usage restrictions. Thankfully, I live in an area where such restrictions are rare. I once looked at buying a 10 acre lot near Wayne National Forrest. The deed restrictions only allowed 2 cars and the roof pitch eliminated modular homes and such. Didn't mention anything about antennas, I passed on it. Can't stand having people telling me what I can and cannot do on my own land.

 

[K4PIH]

I lived in Vegas for a year and the "gated Gestapo" was way out of hand there!

 

[Beetle]

I was born and grew up in Vegas (711 South 6th Street; now a law office). Had no sort of antenna restrictions at all; in the 1940s and '50s trying to put such restrictions on privately owned property would get somebody ... what's the term? ... Whacked.

And by the way, this is a two-year old thread.

 

[GnG8d]

I can never side with the radio operator in these situations.

What they are saying is "I don't want my neighbor to park his RV in is driveway or have too many cars parked in front of his house, I don't want him to let his grass grow too tall, or paint his house a funky color ....... and oh btw, I want to erect a 50' antenna tower in my yard".

No, once you sign your rights away you deal with it or move. That's a private contract between the buyer and developer/builder and the FCC has no business fighting that battle.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

I can never side with the radio operator in these situations.

What they are saying is "I don't want my neighbor to park his RV in is driveway or have too many cars parked in front of his house, I don't want him to let his grass grow too tall, or paint his house a funky color ....... and oh btw, I want to erect a 50' antenna tower in my yard".

No, once you sign your rights away you deal with it or move. That's a private contract between the buyer and developer/builder and the FCC has no business fighting that battle.

May your next place of residence be in the middle of an HOA community.

Not all people who live in HOA's actually agree with everything they agree too. The problem is that most decent areas close to schools etc are bought up by developers who create these HOA's and as a result if you want a decent location to live in without a long commute or without a decent school you have to live in an HOA community.

 

[GnG8d]

May your next place of residence be in the middle of an HOA community.

Do they allow horses and dogs? I've never even lived within a municipality. Even my first place leaving home was a small rental in the county vs an apartment in town.

But seriously, this isn't an FCC, or even a radio issue. This belongs in a local court if people feel an HOA is their only option. It's just no excuse, life has trade offs and if a school district or length of commute is more important than radio, then so be it. Certain lifestyles just don't mix with certain neighborhoods.

 

[Mudfoot]

I wouldn't even consider for one second, owning any property that had restrictions of any kind.