|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal:
from
nevadaappeal.com
Website:
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080720/NEWS/792120336/-1/rss03
on
July 21, 2008
View comments about this article!
Ham Radio Operator May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal:
See the full story here:
LINK
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by N4CQR on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Much like the previous tower article, there is no federal or state law permitting amateur radio operators to own/erect a tower. And there is no law stating communities must permit amateur radio operators to have such.
I have a preconceived notion of what would be considered <reasonable accommodation>. But that is my own interpertation.
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by K7BAB on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks to Bob Beers, WB7EHN, the Nevada Revised Statues include this section:
NRS 278.02085 Amateur radio: Limitations on restrictions on amateur service communications; limitations on regulation of station antenna structures; exception.
1. A governing body shall not adopt an ordinance, regulation or plan or take any other action that precludes amateur service communications or that in any other manner does not conform to the provisions of 47 C.F.R. § 97.15 and the limited preemption entitled “Amateur Radio Preemption, 101 F.C.C. 2d 952 (1985)” as issued by the Federal Communications Commission.
2. If a governing body adopts an ordinance, regulation or plan or takes any other action that regulates the placement, screening or height of a station antenna structure based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations, the ordinance, regulation, plan or action must:
(a) Reasonably accommodate amateur service communications; and
(b) Constitute the minimum level of regulation practicable to carry out the legitimate purpose of the governing body.
3. The provisions of this section do not apply to any district organized pursuant to federal, state or local law for the purpose of historic or architectural preservation.
4. Any ordinance, regulation or plan adopted by or other action taken by a governing body in violation of the provisions of this section is void.
5. As used in this section:
(a) “Amateur radio services” has the meaning ascribed to it in 47 C.F.R. § 97.3.
(b) “Amateur service communications” means communications carried out by one or more of the amateur radio services.
(c) “Amateur station” has the meaning ascribed to it in 47 C.F.R. § 97.3.
(d) “Station antenna structure” means the antenna that serves an amateur station, including such appurtenances and other structures as may be necessary to support, stabilize, raise, lower or otherwise adjust the antenna.
(Added to NRS by 2001, 596)
|
| |
|
Communist brainwashing
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"there is no federal or state law permitting ....
And there is no law stating communities must permit ...."
Yes, I said, Communist brainwashing. How does a real American own, I say own, his land if there must be a federal law to permit him to use it? How does a real American own his land if "communities" or gaggles of his neighbors must "permit" him to use it?
Of course I am not talking about reasonable safety measures for those beyond his property, but ugliness is not a real crime, neither is fair and reasonable use, neither is eccentric use (if he wants to put pink plastic flamingoes on his tower, that's fine, it's his tower).
You don't need any stinking permission from outsiders. The outsiders need just, fair, and reasonable rulings from an impartial court that takes real American property rights into consideration.
Let's wipe out this snivelling socialist "may I have permission nonsense!
OWNERSHIP IS THE ULTIMATE PERMISSION.
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY! THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL RALLYING SHOUT OF OUR AMERICAN FOREFATHERS.
NUTS TO URBAN PLANNERS. NUTS TO CARETAKER SOCIALISTS.
|
| |
|
RE: Communist brainwashing
|
|
|
by KF7CG on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is quite interesting is that the powers that be waited until this Ham was in the process of correcting a problem, that it looks like he caused but also discovered when he was slapped with a stop work.
He wasn't putting up the tower, he was taking it down as it encroached on his neighbors proberty. It seems as though it had been up for a while from the article.
It appears as if the stop work was timed to correspond with the ability to inflict the most financial damage when served.
From the article, which I admit could be biased, and is most definitely short of all the facts, I suspect that there is something more than an antenna dispute here.
KF7CG
|
| |
|
RE: Communist brainwashing
|
|
|
by K6TR on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA wrote: "Yes, I said, Communist brainwashing. How does a real American own"
Mister Mullin, lay off the name calling and Red-Baiting ! It is counter productive to the ongoing dispute and only serves to make Hams look like raving loonies.
Maybe there is a basis to file an Unjust Takings Lawsuit but no court will look favorably on the matter if statements such as the one you just made are entered in to evidence.
|
| |
|
RE: Communist brainwashing
|
|
|
by N5QXP on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How do you really feel about it, OM? Don't hold back.
Sarcasam aside, I agree with you 100%.
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To K6TR and the other mush heads who think like him. If you fear that my free comments might prejudice this hams case, then you know nothing of law. You also know nothing of the essence of Americans owning property or perhaps your brains were mushed in school by "educators."
I speak bluntly in my property comments for a good reason. The blunt facts are the best education for a confused, waivering mind. You don't censor my words.
- Dr. Raymond Mullin, AI2IA
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by KA4NMA on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I know Tom, and used to live in Virginia City. His towers are in a rural housing development and some of his towers have been up for 10 years. Tom's wife is the special education teacher for Storey county. As you drive up the mountian from Reno to Virginia city, you round a curve and see a most beautiful site in the woods, ham towers and antenna's, and often you will se wild mustangs grazing nearby.
NV has a state law protecting ham towers and antenna's. That should trump Storey counties rules. And as a former resident, I know how the rules are applied in Storey county - you are either a local or an outsider.
Randy Ka4nma
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by KA4NMA on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BTW, The article mentions Pat Whitten. He told me he used to be a ham.
Randy ka4nma
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA4NMA - thank you for putting your post on this thread. You have shed more light on the subject. It was all nicely put, and the concluding words of "And as a former resident, I know how the rules are applied in Storey county - you are either a local or an outsider." These should speak volumes to those who have never experienced this sort of behavior.
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by N4CQR on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ray, please calm down. My post was simply a comment, refering to the statement in the article which read:
"He said he has had towers everywhere he's lived, and that federal law protects his right to operate."
My point is, and as with the other article, a "tower" is not a mandatory component of of a amateur radio station. A antenna system however is.
These articles are being worded in such a way as to give the impression, or lead the unknowing public, that if a tower is not permitted, that precludes any amateur radio operation.
It was not my intention to incite a riot here. I was mearly making a comment about a statement in the article. And, a similar statement made in a previous article.
Respectifully,
Craig Still
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by KA2IBN on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is so wrong with 45 feet?
Wish I had a tower that high.
73
Mark
|
| |
|
No feelings, no brains, only robots (slaves).
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some of you posters amaze me. Chew on this thought for awhile:
IN A WORLD WHERE INDIFFERENCE APES TOLERANCE, TRUE CONCERN MUST OFTEN SEEM LIKE HATE.
I would rather try to stir up some comment and thought, than join the rest of this herd on here and watch the frogs boil themselves to death in increasingly warm water.
"You got property? You got a tower? Get some feelings. It's good for you."
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by N4CQR on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What amazes me, Ray, is your inability to accept any view or opinion that is different than yours. Name calling and condensending remarks do nothing to substantuate or validate a person's views on any topic.
Please take a moment and realize this is (what should be) a comment session on a particular situation of an individual. And one which most of us are not aware of all of the facts.
The end result of Mr. Taormina's tower battle will have far less effect on us than the lack of acceptance of another individual's opinion.
Respectifully,
Craig
|
| |
|
If I must to set the matter straight.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look, I have had enough of this narrow-minded nonsense. You cannot censor me here or anywhere. Partial truths fool very few real hams.
"Please take a moment and realize this is (what should be) a comment session on a particular situation of an individual." Such is your partial truth.
The whole truth is in the consequences. American property rights versus uban planners, community cliques, socialist-minded "it takes a village" types. No one is going to stop me from pointing out danger. First they go after him, and nobody really thinks it through. Next they go after another ham, and nobody sees the fundamental rights eroding. Next they go after you, and just what are you going to say then? Oh, well, hams don't really need towers. Hams don't really need 1,500 Watts. Hams don't really need the 70 cm band. Hams don't need their own gear. They should be made to use a community radio shack where they can be monitored and controlled by the benevolent government.
Don't be a snivelling intellectual. Be a thinker. From specific instances draw general conclusions. The fool follows the road. The wise man is concerned where it goes.
Look, this thread is not about me, and I don't like to continue posting on here, but I won't be ridiculed or scolded when my motives are the best and my observations are valid. So, bug off. Find some other aspect of the original post to comment on, and get off me and back on the subject. Those who can see, see what I am driving at.
|
| |
|
It's in the consequences, stupid!
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Please take a moment and realize this is (what should be) a comment session on a particular situation of an individual."
Look, I have had enough of this narrow-minded nonsense. You cannot censor me here or anywhere. Partial truths fool very few real hams.
Stuff your partial truth.
The whole truth is in the consequences. American property rights versus uban planners, community cliques, socialist-minded "it takes a village" types. No one is going to stop me from pointing out danger.
First they go after him, and nobody really thinks it through. Next they go after another ham, and nobody sees the fundamental rights eroding. Next they go after you, and just what are you going to say then? Oh, well, hams don't really need towers. Hams don't really need 1,500 Watts. Hams don't really need the 70 cm band. Hams don't need their own gear. They should be made to use a community radio shack where they can be monitored and controlled by the benevolent government.
Don't be a snivelling intellectual. Be a thinker. From specific instances draw general conclusions. The fool follows the road. The wise man is concerned where it goes.
Look, this thread is not about me, and I don't like to continue posting on here, but I won't be ridiculed or scolded, or told what this is all about, when my motives are the best and my observations are valid. So, bug off. Find some other aspect of the original post to comment on, and get off me and back on the subject. Those who can see, see what I am driving at.
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by KC2OYZ on July 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
AI2IA - I'm with you Ray - Mega Dittos.
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by KC2OYZ on July 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4CQR -
Are you running for political office or something? How come any time someone says the truth, someone else comes along gives a sermon about 'tolerance'? You're not supposed to tolerate it when someone goes after you - you're supposed to defend yourself, which is what Ray is trying to do - defend himself and everybody else from people who think they have the right to run your life.
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by K0RGR on July 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If I bought 10 acres in the middle of absolutely noplace and there were objections to what I chose to do there, I'd be more than a little upset about it. I can't picture anyplace in Storey County, NV, that wouldn't be substantially improved by a 100-foot tower.
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by KC2OYZ on July 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA - "...Hams don't need their own gear. They should be made to use a community radio shack where they can be monitored and controlled by the benevolent government..."
Anyone who thinks Ray is 'paranoid' or 'intolerant' should stop and think a bit about why it is that over the years, we see that the license exams seem to emphasize more about rules and regulations and less about technology. The excuse is that it brings more people into the hobby - but there is another aspect to it as well: Congress and the Feds are not interested in having individuals with the ability and power to create and control their own high tech equipment - they should just buy things off the shelf that have been inspected and approved by some 'expert' in Washington - the main thing is that people know how to follow the rules so they don't make any trouble...
Soon we will be hearing about the 'fairness doctrine' coming to ham radio... If you have a QSO with a Republican, you must then go and have one with a Democrat...
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by N4CQR on July 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike, your post was very well worded. Reference your sentence on Congress and the Feds, I suspect that is is actually quiet correct. It is a case of "we know what is best for you" government mentality.
Well off the subject but interesting none the less since you mention the Feds. I do a lot of SWLing. Every piece of correspondence I receive from a foreign entity has been opened. All of the material is there but it is in a plastic bag stating there was a postal equipment malfunction and please accept our apology.
I would find it hard to believe that an envolope from
Radio Prague or Radio Netherlands was torn open in another country and everything still made it 2000+ miles without loosing anything.
Sorry for the stray, take care.
Craig
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by KC2OYZ on July 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
N4CQR - Craig: ALL of my mail is opened - except for the coupons...
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by KC2OYZ on July 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4CQR - Craig: 'your post is very well worded' -
Thanks - I owe it to a good education - from back in ancient times when schools actually taught basic skills. Contrary to what some people choose to believe, there are actually active hams out here that are literate!
I'd rather be doing all of this on the air but propogation is very poor and even when conditions are good, from my QTH I have difficulty getting out well. So I end up doing a lot of 'virtual' rag chewing.
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by N2OBM on July 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CQR..."there is no federal or state law permitting amateur radio operators to own/erect a tower"...true...however let us look at ownership...nope no laws AGAINST ownership. Now, to erect a tower...another subject...Federal law adresses towers in the area of an airstip/ airport. Article didn't say if this was an issue. Now lets try to understand the local ordinance...a permit and possible zoning hearing if over 45 feet. Is that what you got out of the article?
So here is my humble opinion(and the hostility is not directed at CQR, just at the general nazis trying to tell other people how to live).....it would seem as the towers have been there awhile...any previous complaints? Dunno, but it doesnt SEEM so from the article.
But, if there was not an issue before...passive acceptance. I say to the Johnny-come-lately complainers "Tough shit".
Example, my neighbor paints his house bright pink. I say nothing. One year later I need/ want to sell my house. I can't seem to sell; who would want to live near a house that is bright pink? (ok, maybe a colorblind person wouldn't care) Should I raise a fuss? Should I sue, sue, sue? If complaints were done in a timely manner...points well taken. If not.....
What is the sense of a "statute (sp) of limitations"...would the logic of the pink house and timely complaints support this reasoning?
It just really pisses me off that I protect and defend the Constitution only to have my rights as a homeowner infringed upon. If somebody wants to pay my property taxes for me they can have a say about what is in my yard...put the money where the mouth is...if not...well you get my drift.
Once again CQR...hostility not intended directly toward you...unless you are my 10-4 good buddy neighbor from 'across the way' with the 3 junk cars in the yard and the termite infested, leaning tower of a garage and then have the balls to say something about ONE Hustler vertical and ONE dipole antenna (no junk cars and mowed grass, I think he is a 'hater').
OBM
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by N2OBM on July 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And I forgot to mention about the 10-4 Good Buddy...he made a parting comment about the shit in my yard from my dogs..something about getting some on his shoe...of course I couldn't spew fast enough that if was not TRESPASSING in the first place...Dr. Ray...I think I need some meds...or am I alright?
OBM
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by KC2OYZ on July 24, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
OBM - I think you're OK. But you need to train your dogs to take care of trespassers...
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by K6IHC on July 27, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Whoever they are, none of them have identified themselves to me, called me or talked to me," he said.
This is the type of *neighborly* behavior I dislike. Why don't these neighbors have the guts to politely approach (by mail?) the antenna owner and discuss it? This is likely a case of *aesthetic opinion*, and not any safety concern, which is most often the case when nearby residents criticize amateur antennas.
In my community, a permit from the building dept is needed for an antenna structure greater than 35 ft above grade, but most often they are approved.
|
| |
|
Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Illegal
|
|
|
by KM6CZ on August 1, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Reasonable accomodation is probably a matter of state law, not federal law as each community has the right to enact and enforce zoning ordinances for the common good of the community.
|
| |
|
RE: Nevada Ham May Sue After Towers are Deemed Ill
|
|
|
by KF7CG on August 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The real problem in this one comes if you read the article. The towers were up for quite a while before anything was said. The complaint originated on a tower that was being moved to correct an "encroachment" problem.
From what I read, it seems as this bears a large similarity to moving in next to a feed lot or pig farm and complaining because it stinks.
KF7CG
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Hams Help During 911 Outage:
Zoning Hearing Board Again Considers Tadio Tower Issue:
This Week on the Radio:
Weather Spotters Receive Award as Severe Weather Comes Calling:
Global Emergency Network Marks Record:
|
|
|
