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

[John Buck]

Thank you Ron for the concise explanation of the thinking and effort 
that has gone into some of the critical points in the current 
formulation of the bill.   This will help all of us to better appreciate 
what is at stake and the difficulties in finding an adequate political 
solution.

In light of the discussion you provided, it seems appropriate that  a 
recognition of some type "evaluation of technical adequacy" along with 
the "evaluation of aesthetics" would belong in the arbitration and 
mediation process to be used in the event of a breakdown of the desired 
accommodation discussions.

As much as some organizations would like to remain in denial that 
emergency preparedness is an essential responsibility of every citizen, 
it should be noted that every area in the world has needs for 
preparation for emergencies of various types.  The larger community 
really needs the flexible, backup communications capability that is 
provided by a dedicated and practiced ham radio group that has the 
capability to boot strap up out of the rubble as necessary to help the 
neighbors return to a normal life as soon as possible.

Thank you and the group that have worked so diligently to get this far,
John Buck KH7T

Ron Hashiro wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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 accommodation".  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 mediation/abitration process to 
> include resolution by a
> panel convened with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.
>
>
> The 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 view plane.  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 argument for public benefit such as the reduction in 
> energy 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.
>
> 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 off guard 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
>
>