[HIham] Update on Amateur Radio antenna bills: HB 2773 and HB2774

[Ron Hashiro]

Hawaii amateurs,

Those who've worked with getting the legislation to this point appreciate
the feedback and insights offered.  Please see below on some of the
items learned by the team during the course of moving the bill through
the Legislature.

John Buck wrote:

> Kevin,
>
> These recommendations appear to be very good except the following.
>
> " The radio operator shall accommodate aesthetic impact considerations in
> the placement and visual mitigation of an antenna.  An association may
> review and approve the location of the antenna installation."
>
> I am not sure how to fix it but this opens the door to irrational 
> definitions of aesthetic impact and perhaps places the choice of 
> antenna location in the hands of the non technical committee.  Perhaps 
> the terms "may review and approve" does does not imply the right to 
> disapprove, or am I dreaming?  Review and make recommendations on the 
> location would be better than implying the right of approval.
>
> I certainly worked with my neighbors to accommodate REASONABLE 
> aesthetic impact in the location of my tower.  And I considered 
> suggestions on the location of the tower.  And my neighbors helped me 
> with the installation of the tower. 

The problem we're facing is that it's not just the immediate neighbors, 
but a board or committee of the association that represents
the neighborhood at large.  While one may secure the approval of the 
immediate neighbors, the committee can still
override that agreement.  In some associations, 80% of the homeowners 
needs to ratify certain changes.

One thing specifically asked of the amateurs in the Senate Committee 
hearing is whether
the association should be able to approve the antenna.  The implication 
was that it
be able to have involvement in the placement of the antenna (for 
aesthetic reasons).
Given the choice of "yes" or "no", the answer that would have been 
acceptable is "yes".
Answering "no" may have sealed the fate of the bill to non-passage, as 
indicated in the
no votes in the House version where there wasn't an opportunity to 
educate House
on "reasonable accomodation".  Keep in mind that the key asset we have 
leveraged is
Public Law 103-408, which is Congress' specific support for
"reasonable accommodation" for amateur radio.
.
Therefore, the solution is found in twofold:

a)  Each party acknowledges what it seeks of the other and acknowledges 
what it will do in the
process.  Note that in this proposal, the legislation specifically 
prohibits a ban on amateur antennas.
That is something amateurs currently do not enjoy.

b)  Should the process of discussion and negotiation break down, then 
mediation and binding
arbitration is the course to resolution.  There is another bill 
proceeding through the House
SB 2105  SD2 HD1 further defines the medication/abitration process to 
include resolution by a
panel convened with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.


> I would be much more comfortable with the incorporation of the words " 
> reasonable aesthetic impact" in the original quote above.
> A minimum reasonable antenna capable of supporting emergency 
> preparedness and training, providing the flexibility to operate on 
> several different bands to accommodate to sunspot and other 
> propagation conditions, as well as being sensitive and capable of 
> reliably hearing ships in distress or communicating with low power 
> emergency stations within the state, is an 88 foot dipole between 20 
> and 33 feet up, center fed with twin lead to a tuner.  Alternatively a 
> 33 foot vertical if ground mounted in a clear area such as a front 
> yard flagpole, or a 24 foot vertical if roof mounted with counterpoise 
> radials on or near the roof may be used.  These antennas will provide 
> useful service for emergency communications preparedness including 
> training.  These choices can be implemented in a very unobtrusive 
> manner using wire not larger than 18 gauge if natural supports are 
> available.
>
> I believe that an approved set of minimum technical standards are 
> necessary to guide the arbitration process.  There is room for 
> negotiation on the placement to minimize the visual impact.

Teh greatest challenge we're getting is defining "reasonable 
accommodations" and "(reasonable) aesthetic impact"
when there is a whole range of housing situations.  The most restrictive 
is the VDA (Visitor Destination Area)
designations found on the county of Kauai.  The concern is in 
permanently obstructing the viewplane.  The least
restrictive is the agricultural lands which are minimum two acre lots 
found throughout the state.
It is difficult to find language to give a blanket override or balance 
that constitutes
"reasonable accommodation".

And it is not easy to codify in terms of specific technical features 
what is acceptable in each situation.
That is the reality facing amateurs and has even been articulated by the 
FCC in its dismissal of
a request to override CC&Rs at the federal level.  The opposition has 
already brought that forward
and leveraged the FCC dismissal as the reason for the Legislature to 
dismiss consideration of the bill.
The opposition was powerful enough to get the FCC to modify it's 
original override of CC&R
for satellite dish TV antennas with further adjustments.

Some of the associations prohibit roof-mounted items.  There is a 
specific CC&R override provided
by the legislature for solar water panels, but it would seem unlikely 
that amateurs would get
a blank override on roof-mounted antennas by the legislature as there is 
no equal, compelling
arguement for public benefit such as the reduction in energey dependency 
by using solar energy.
Such an override of roof-mounted antennas is further complicated when 
other avenues for
antennas are available.

The downside in specifying specific technical guidelines is that it will 
probably specify
something that would be a disadvantage to amateurs when it comes time to 
apply for an antenna.
Some communities might not be agreeable to having a flagpole antenna in 
the front yard,
but agreeable to a larger vertical ground mounted in the backyard
instead due to terrain and placement that hides a larger antenna.  Some 
will accept a higher
mast for wire antennas.  Some condos will accept permanently mounted 
external
antennas instead of just limiting it to temporary external antennas.  It 
wouldn't be known
until the time of application.  This is an example of where amateurs in 
each community needs
to work with their association to see what can be done.    Keep in mind that
the bill will need to be approved by both chambers of the legislature 
and the
Governor.  If we specify technical specifications, individual 
associations may
apply pressure on the committee or legislators or Governor
to reject the legislation as unreasonable for their neighborhood.

The advantage as proposed now is that we won't get a blank no, 
unreasonable delays, or
unreasonable increase in installation costs.  These were obstacles in 
the past, and as proposed,
are avenues spelled out in law that would not available to the associations.

>
>
> John Buck KH7T
> BSE(Electrical Engineering), FCC licensed General Radio Telephone 
> commercial, and Amateur Radio Extra Class.
>
>
>
> Kevin C. Bogan wrote:
>
>> The team would like to give you an update on our legislative action
>> supporting HB 2773 and HB 2774.   
>

The team would certainly entertain specific language to present before 
the staff of the
committee that would be acceptable to both the committee and the opposition.

Please keep in mind that the amateurs in Hawaii have been extremely 
fortunate that we've gotten
this far in the legislative process when the odds were that we would not 
have
gotten this far.  No other state has accomplished what we have seen, 
especially
in one session.  ARRL HQ staff is truly impressed with the cohesiveness and
effectiveness of the team of Hawaii amateurs in this matter in such a 
short time.

The time to overcome the CC&R restrictions is now.  Because the opposition
(and amateurs) was caught offguard by the unexpected introduction
of this bill, this probably represents our only chance at getting 
passage of any bill favorable to
the amateurs.  The opposition now has the opportunity to review
written testimony submitted by a broad base of amateur interests and 
will put
together matching rebuttals and political pressure.  By next year, they 
will have put
measures in place to make future passage of a bill much more difficult, 
if not, unlikely.
It represents our probably our only chance to get CC&Rs overturned enough to
even permit antennas for those completely shut out or severely hampered 
in getting
association approvals.

That is the situation before the amateurs in Hawaii.

So, the challenge is:

What would success look like in the bill such that it (a) would be 
agreeable to
the Legislature and the Governor (b) be acceptable by the amateurs,
and (c) be acceptable by the opposition?

The points need to be specific and actionable such that it can be conveyed
to the Legislative committee.  What comes out of committee has to be
letter perfect for legislative acceptance and implementation.

Please understand that this is not to diminish any input and concern
expressed in the process but to offer insights into the road behind and 
before us.
And thank you for support and efforts in getting legislation passed giving
relief to amateur radio operators in CC&Rs.

Ron Hashiro, AH6RH



--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---