I think Jay, W6GO is correct on the proposed California state tower law.
If you let the fox into the henhouse, and let the state suggest to counties
that 75 feet should be a "minimum" height allowed, how many towers higher
than that do you think will be allowed? There is absolutely no incentive
for a county in that position to encourage or allow anything more
substantial, regardless of density. They will always take the more
conservative, CYA position given an arbitrary minimum suggested height.
There REAL job is the legitimate Building and Safety issue, not height
regulation per se, but this proposed law will convince them that they
should concentrate on minimizing the heights allowed, in an attempt to head
off "neighborhood objections." (We are not discussing CC&R's here.)
Look at this another way. Let's say the FCC tomorrow decides to let local
governments step in and pass ordinances relating to our transmitter power
level, in a misguided attempt to mitigate spot cases of RFI. Although
1500W output would still be "allowed" under the federal law, FCC might say
it is alright for the local entity to regulate the level down to, say,
100W, ... "but no less." Does anyone think that 1500W output stations
realistically will continue to exist under language like that?
If the tower bill is passed in Sacramento in its present form, I think the
value of my house with two large, legal towers will increase substantially
in the ham-resale market.
Glenn K6NA
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|